Page 2688 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
about the way that the new computers were put in place, but also they raised concerns that perfectly functional screens were removed and indeed that the keyboards were changed from an American-style keyboard to a European-style keyboard.
There are some recommendations that have been answered, and the government has agreed to look at this process. But if things are working and they work well then there is no need to replace them. You do have to question the economy. Maybe as part of the leasing deal it is more economic to replace the lot, but I think that needs to be made quite clear. We need to make sure that as far as taxpayers are concerned we really do get the best value for taxpayers’ money when we spend it for them.
I also note, perhaps it is the funny side of estimates, that the general manager of Shared Services ICT, henceforth known as SSICT, admitted he was not proficient about keyboard use. That was an interesting admission given that this was the person in charge of delivering ICT services to the Assembly. But it is important that we actually do get it right and if we are going to make the change that people understand why that change has been made rather than just finding out by accident.
The other area that was most interesting, also covered by Shared Services, was to note that the Assembly had opted out of the Shared Services model. They have brought their financial processing back in house. We still receive of course ICT from InTACT—formerly known as InTACT, now known as SSICT—but they have brought a number of relevant functions back in house. They have employed two additional staff, though there was a requirement to purchase new software to ensure that the processing could be carried out in house, and they have saved $150,000 a year. So to the Secretariat and Mr Speaker, well done. It is good to see somebody is able to streamline something, deliver a better service, deliver it in house, and actually make a saving.
I am not sure what that says about the Shared Services model, but, with an agency as small as the Legislative Assembly, in terms of the size of the government—relatively small budget and relatively small staff numbers—if it can be provided here then you certainly do need to ask the question should it not be applied to all smaller agencies so that they can review their costs very carefully, and get on with the job of delivering better services through better facilities for public servants so that they can also make savings for the people of the ACT.
There are a number of priorities listed in the budget document—budget paper 4, page 1 of all places—and there was some discussion about seeking stand-alone legislation for the Secretariat. We were told that this is apparently the usual practice for other parliaments (Second speaking period taken.) There was some questioning over what form that would take and I guess we will look with interest at what will happen. Perhaps it is a sign of the maturity of our parliament that we are now at the stage where perhaps legislation to cover the way we govern ourselves is an appropriate thing.
The only other point I would like to make is that with dot point 2, also on page 1 of budget paper 4, we looked at what was involved with replacing the broadcasting assets and the infrastructure upgrade plan—I am sure we are all quite aware of the rapid changes in TV et cetera and the move to digital—and also the delivery of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video