Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 425 ..

MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (4.08): I have received, this very moment, a submission from the Community and Public Sector Union in relation to the matter of information technology arrangements. The submission really should set the alarm bells ringing because it makes a number of points about where the CPSU is clearly very dissatisfied with the process that has taken place to date and expresses grave misgivings about the effects of the Government strategy into the future.

I will read some of the headings in the CPSU submission regarding the IT strategy. The first one, Mr Speaker, is "Review process a sham". That point is made by the CPSU. They are clearly not satisfied that their comments were substantially taken into account in the review process. A further heading is "Report is inaccurate and inadequate", and they point to a number of areas where there is a lack of balance and bias within the IT report. They are clearly dissatisfied that in-house bids, for example, should be excluded under the Government strategy. A further heading is "Dissent by agency heads", and I will read what is said. The CPSU's submission states:

There has been significant dissent by the ITSC -

presumably, the Information Technology Steering Committee -

and a number of agency heads regarding the process, conclusions and recommendations of the report. The agency heads of DUS, CIT and Health and the ITSC all had serious misgivings with the report. In particular there was concern that the proposal removed responsibility from Chief Executives treating IT differently from other inputs and imposing heavily centralised controls.

Further in the submission the CPSU takes issue with the projected costs and savings. They make comment about the effects on the local IT industry and, in particular, make the point that local suppliers who are currently supplying over 50 per cent of the $53m budget which the ACT government service spends on information technology would lose that business under the new proposal from the Government. Far from protecting local small firms, that $53m would be lost to them. In concluding, the CPSU details the effect of the proposal on the ACT Public Service. Of course, they are concerned about the effect on the staff, their members. They make the point that staff morale is already at an all-time low because of the serious concern that, unless the process is stopped, irreparable damage will be done to the capacity of IT to continue to deliver the standard of service that is currently required. As the CPSU says, this could result in outsourcing by stealth. Mr Speaker, I know that that submission has only just hit our desks, but I would commend it to all members of the Assembly as worthy of very close and detailed consideration.

What the matter of public importance today is all about is basically a staff circular from the Chief Executive of the Chief Minister's Department, dated 9 February 1996. Mr Speaker, I can draw no other conclusion about this circular than that it is a recipe for privatisation - the privatisation of all information technology officer jobs in the ACT Public Service. We have heard all the buzz words from Mrs Carnell about

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .