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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 1866 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

problems that Mr Quinlan raised with regard to some of our very old systems are real. But of course a lot of those very old systems are no longer coping anyway and need to be replaced over the next few years. One of the more silly approaches would be to make all of our systems Y2K compliant and then replace them a year or two later. I think that would be a significant waste of taxpayers' money.

InTACT have put forward a proposal to roll Y2K compliance and modernisation of a number of our systems, such as the hospital system and revenue - quite a number of our systems - into one package. That is the basis of the possible $80m expenditure. It does mean that the ACT Public Service will end up, as a result of modernisation and Y2K compliance, really at the pointy end of information technology excellence for governments in Australia and will achieve the clever government-clever city approach that is the basis of this budget.

It is important to point out to members opposite that on page 141 of Budget Paper No. 4, it does make it quite clear that the move of InTACT to CanDeliver is not reflected in CanDeliver's or, for that matter, InTACT's financial statements, as final scoping and a due diligence review have yet to be completed. Fairly obviously that would be an essential part of the move from the Government's perspective and also from the perspective of the CanDeliver board for them to discharge their responsibilities. Under corporation law, those sorts of processes would have to happen.

Mr Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate for the Government to pre-empt the outcomes of those particular reviews by somehow presenting the budgets as if InTACT had already moved. Those things do need to be addressed. You could never, and nor should you, ever predict the outcomes of reviews. Generally, I thank members for their comments - the good ones - about InTACT. It comprises a group of extraordinarily committed people who are doing a good job under what are pretty tough conditions at the moment.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Part 11 - ACT Housing

Proposed expenditure - ACT Housing, nil

MR WOOD (11.09): Mr Speaker, we need more than nil expenditure; I have no doubt about that. Indeed, it is going to be very necessary because, as I read the ownership agreement of ACT Housing, the agreement is quite open and points to a significant problem within ACT Housing. I quote from page vii of the appendix to the agreement:

Funds available for repairs and maintenance is limited to rental receipts from tenancies. In view of the current level of funds available and the age and condition of the stock, it is expected that the condition of the stock will continue to decline.

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