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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 429 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

Not once during her speech did we hear what the Labor Party's view is on this matter. We know what the CPSU view is. I am led to assume, therefore, that what the CPSU thinks, the Labor Party thinks, and what the CPSU wants, the Labor Party wants. Well, so be it.

Ms Follett: My view is that it is privatisation by stealth.

MR DE DOMENICO: We hear all the cliches and the buzz words, such as privatisation by stealth; the world will end; the light on the hill will go out; water will not flow downhill anymore. Ms Follett does not know the facts, and that is important in all sorts of debates.

South Australia has been mentioned by Mr Moore and everybody else who has spoken in this debate. Let us have a look at South Australia. What was the primary reason for South Australia doing what it did? The primary reason, I am advised, was to contribute to State economic development. That is fine. If that is what South Australia wants to do, that is their prerogative. What is the primary reason in the ACT? In the ACT it is totally different. It is to get effective and efficient IT services. It is totally different from what South Australia wanted to do. What are the expected outcomes in South Australia? In South Australia the aim is to build a stronger IT industry in South Australia by attracting a major IT company to the State. So the South Australian Government, John Olsen in particular, said, "Listen, what I want to do in particular is to attract a major player to South Australia. What do I need to do to attract the major player?". Improvement of efficiency was, I am led to believe, a secondary motive.

What is the motive here in the ACT? Is it to attract a larger player? Of course, it is not, because we already have those. We have a few of them in fact. It is to maintain an effective and efficient IT service which contributes to business outcomes. That is better value for money. It is, after all, taxpayers' money, $53m worth, as Ms Follett said, that is being spent on this area. We want to make sure, if we are going to spend $53m worth of taxpayers' money, that we are getting the best possible outcomes from that expenditure. Also, in the ACT we want a contribution to broad economic development objectives for the ACT region. That is something else that was mentioned by people in this debate, and I thought Mrs Carnell handled it quite well. There will be certain things in the tendering process to ensure that, wherever possible, local IT industries will be considered very strongly, as long as they are competitive, in terms of supplying goods and services. Once again there are smiles when I say "as long as they are competitive". If you are not competitive, notwithstanding where you are, you should not get the job. If you do, we are not expending taxpayers' money in the way it should be expended. I believe that we have the best IT industry in the country right here in the ACT, in those small companies, those small businesses that Ms Tucker talks to from time to time. I feel confident that they will be the beneficiaries of any outsourcing program.

Let us have a look at the outsourcing process in South Australia. In South Australia there were negotiations with only two companies, with IBM and with EDS. The difference in the ACT is that it is going to be an open tender process, not limiting it to one company, two companies or 10 companies. There is another difference. In South Australia the service levels and contractual arrangements were determined after the selection was made.

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