Page 2123 - Week 07 - Thursday, 29 June 2023

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


Services (12.18), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 5 circulated in my name together and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the government amendments [see schedule 3 at page 2192].

Amendments 1 and 4 are minor and technical and ensure the use of consistent terminology throughout the bill. Amendment 2 amends the determination of the framework from being a notifiable instrument to the determination being a disallowable instrument. This amendment is made in response to the recommendations from the JACS Scrutiny Committee. Amendment 3 inserts a new example illustrating that commonwealth entities are not subject to the requirements of the bill. Amendment 5 omits the proposed new section 192A. This amendment is made in response to the comment from the JACS Committee (legislative scrutiny role) that this section may impinge on the autonomy of independent statutory officeholders.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 12.20 to 2 pm.

Questions without notice

Government—human resources and information management system

MR HANSON: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Minister, I refer to your radio interview this morning on ABC Canberra with Adam Shirley. In the interview, you emphasised the point that you were not the minister responsible for the delivery of this project until you became Special Minister of State in October 2020. In fact, you even named that it was either the Chief Minister or Ms Stephen-Smith who were the ones who may have been responsible. Minister, are you blaming your predecessor for the mismanagement of the delivery of this program?

MR STEEL: No. What I went on to say was that, at the beginning of this process, we certainly acknowledged that due diligence was not done to the extent that it could have been and that the technical advice provided by the public service about the range of options to be able to manage human resources and payroll functions in government and the reviews that we put in place following the non-deliverables of the project have since revealed that the option to upgrade the existing CRIS21 and HR21 systems was not properly considered and was discounted at the early stages of the project. That is now what we are pursuing with the announcement that we made in the budget.

MR HANSON: Minister, did the lack of due diligence that you refer to occur under Ms Stephen-Smith or under the Chief Minister?


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