Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 30 June 2011) . . Page.. 3041 ..

There is, of course, the issue of the great big government office block. If Shared Services pick up their fee, which is about four per cent normally, $16 million will go to Shared Services. I think it would be great to have a clear statement of what role Procurement will play with such a project. And if they do get it, they had better deliver, and deliver well, for a fee like that.

In regard to the Assembly, there were a number of issues raised. I do note that on the procurement of IT equipment for the Assembly the government has in fact agreed to a number of them, and that is good to see. There was quite a bit of kerfuffle caused by the so-called “refresh”. The refresh had no consultation with staff; it led to the introduction of new keyboards, European rather than American, which I have been told staff do not like. In my office there is consternation. And there are OH&S issues attached to that. I think Shared Services ICT, or SSICT, could learn a thing or two from the mistakes which took place with this Assembly project, and I look forward to the government, with the recommendations they have actually agreed to, carrying out those recommendations.

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (5.00): Shared Services was previously part of TAMS and now, as part of the new administrative arrangements, it forms part of the Treasury Directorate. I understand that 500 ACT government staff are going to be located in Gungahlin and not with the other ACT government staff in Civic. I have heard the rumour that this is going to be Shared Services, and it would be helpful if the government could confirm, or otherwise, that rumour.

My next concern—and it is one of my more major concerns in some ways—is the naming, in terms of all of the parts of Shared Services, but particularly in terms of ICT. We used to have InTACT, and we may or may not have loved InTACT but at least (a) we could pronounce their name and (b) we knew what on earth people were talking about. With the new name of ICTSS, it is unpronounceable, it is unmemorable, and I strongly suggest that the government retains the old name. I think that the people who work for the government and use InTACT will retain the old name, so why don’t we do it officially?

Another thing I am concerned about is the current mode of replacement of computer screens and keyboards in the ACT government. We were told in estimates that the current business model involves refreshing the entire computer “fleet” every four years, and this was justified on the grounds that it was most cost effective.

I have to think this is somewhat unnecessary and wasteful. Particularly, we should note the fact that the ACT’s landfill rates are going up and their recycling rates are going down. The minister for TAMS did say that the growth in e-waste was one of the reasons that the quantity of waste has decreased in the ACT. The TAMS minister did call this “intractable” waste. So my question is: why is the government needlessly contributing to this intractable e-waste?

The current business model manifestly does not consider the environmental impact of replacing working equipment. There are different estimates of the relative environmental impact of computer manufacturing versus computer use, but the energy

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video