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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 472 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

It is also, as Mr Moore rightly said, a consultancy that was put together, not a report that was planned to be tabled; so it has a quite in-depth look at various parts of the Public Service information technology area. I am advised that in some parts it is extremely critical of various areas. I fully agree that everybody in this Assembly should have an opportunity to look at this consultancy, if they want to. This consultancy is certainly not the Government's position. I made it clear yesterday that we have taken on board some of the things they have said, although not everything they have said, by any stretch of the imagination. It is a view put together by two companies who have looked at a particular position.

I come back to the fact that everybody is entitled to look at it; but there is in-depth information involved, it is one opinion, it does potentially identify people, it does potentially expose the Government to legal action, and it would be extremely unfair to the private companies, because the details of their contracts are in this document, if it were made public. It also identifies various areas that could be outsourced, with the potential savings involved - not necessarily ones the Government has picked up, because there is no Government response to this. This is just a consultancy that was paid for by the Government, a paper we have back. I am sure that Ms Follett, from her time as Chief Minister, would agree that when you have these sorts of consultancies, which were never planned to be on the public record, there are times when there could be significant damage to government. When we go to the tendering process, this document gives in-depth information about the sorts of things the Government should look for and at what level. It sets out the parameters that any tenderer should meet, so the capacity to end up with any competition in the tendering approach - in other words, to get a better deal for government - goes out the window immediately it is made public. I think everybody here should be very concerned about that approach.

There are two opportunities available that are, I think, appropriate. One is for members of this Assembly to have a look at it, to read it, to be briefed on it, whatever they would like. The second is to allow us to table the document without the figures, without the specific information about contractors, without the specific figures that allow particular parts of the Public Service to be identified and that potentially would be commercial-in-confidence. Either of those approaches I am very happy to go with. I understand that, of the whole report, probably only about 10 pages could be regarded as sensitive. The rest of it is very much along the lines of the information and the basis upon which they reached their recommendations, and of course the recommendations. There is no problem in putting all that information on the public record.

I am suggesting to the Assembly that we take one of those two approaches, rather than putting on the public record something that could cause personal distress to some people and certainly could cause a financial problem, both from a legal perspective and from a tendering perspective, for the Government. The precedent of tabling a document of this nature in full, I think, is something everyone should think about very seriously.

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