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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 471 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

This motion follows a matter of public importance debate in the Assembly yesterday, which was what I perceive to be a very important debate that presented a whole series of different views about information technology and about outsourcing. The one common factor was that we should be supporting small business in this town and that it should be able to be done. There were some differences of opinion on how that should be done and the methods of achieving that. During the debate, the Leader of the Opposition read from some notes provided to her by the CPSU. I must say that I am pleased that the CPSU also provided similar information to me, and I would like to put on record my thanks for that. It was very clear, reading the information from that union, that the person who had prepared this brief had read the report by Planning Support Inc. and Price Waterhouse, and it seems to me that, in the interests of openness, this Assembly ought to be able to see a copy of that report, which should be public. Where it has criticised government sections in terms of information technology, it is quite appropriate for us to know that.

In a very brief discussion I had with the Chief Minister, when I indicated to her that I would be doing this, she raised the issue, and no doubt will do so formally, of these being such small sections of the Public Service that it would be easy to identify individual people who had been perhaps harshly criticised in this review. The review is only one opinion. Granted, it is an opinion the Government sought, but it is also quite clear that the CPSU is very critical of the handful of people in Price Waterhouse and Planning Support Inc. who did this review. In fact, one of the headers in their information says that the review process is a sham.

I have made it very clear that my view is that outsourcing has an important place, but it has to be done very carefully. I think it is important, when we are looking at a change such as this, that recommendations on how we can go about it ought to be available not just to members of the Assembly but also to members of the community who are vitally interested in small business in this town. They should be able to see what are the recommendations put by a review such as this, so that they can be analysed and criticised. It is for those reasons that I would expect the Government to support this in the interests of open government. We have a report; it exists. Let us not keep it a secret. Let us get it out in the open and let people put their view on it. The Government then can make its decision accordingly.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.54): Mr Speaker, I am very happy to allow every member of the Assembly to have a look at this report, but I have an enormous amount of difficulty with a report that was not written as a public document being made one. The reason for that is that it gives quite in-depth details of contracts that are currently in place, and those contracts, whether Mr Moore likes it or not, are subject to commercial-in-confidence approaches. That means that the Government will be subject to legal action by those contractors if details, not so much of the amount of money, because that is already on the public record, but of what is involved in those contracts currently are made public without the okay of the contractors involved. As I am sure everyone in the Assembly knows, that would be in breach of at least our side of the contract and therefore would potentially expose the Government to legal action.

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