GOVERNMENT ICT

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (14:27): Will the Minister for Transport advise whether the Auditor-General's Report has indicated support for the government's actions on ICT procurement?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:28): I am more than happy to answer this question from the member for Torrens, particularly in light of the quite spurious, shall I say, allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition in an earlier question in which he challenged that we were at risk—$600 million—as a result of this. Unfortunately, no reasonable reading of the comments of the Auditor-General can lead to that conclusion.

I want to advise the house of what the Auditor-General has said about ICT procurement. He says that, in earlier reports, he had identified as a weakness (and conversely a potential strength) the appointment of a chief information officer for government. He notes in this report that we have appointed a chief information officer for government. He then goes on to point out that we needed an overall government strategy for procurement in this fast-moving area, and he points out that one has now been delivered by the new chief information officer—one tick; two ticks.

The question of the Leader of the Opposition referred to the TRUMP System and said that this was one of the things identified as the big risk. The Auditor-General, last year, identified a lack of adequate reporting to cabinet and he identifies in this report that that has been fixed—another tick. He talks about the ATLAS system, and he identified this last year as not having had changes reported to cabinet. He now identifies that that has been fixed—another tick. This is the terrible disaster that is looming.

The fact is that we have done what the Auditor-General has recommended and he agrees with it. However, one has been a failure, and it is identified in the Auditor-General's Report. It is the Electronic Facilities Management (EFM) system. It was abandoned and money thrown away. This was a decision taken by the previous government to develop a system for a certain cost before we came to government. They struggled with it and found it was impossible to implement in the budget that had been forecast by the previous government and that to proceed further would be a waste of money. It was a failure—one we inherited. In every other aspect the Auditor-General's Report is a tick for the approach to ICT. He quite properly points out dangers—in particular, dangers if we cannot get compliance—with a government strategy. I would have thought that that was the role of the Auditor-General.

Of course, the other thing the Leader of the Opposition did was to confuse the shared services policy with ICT procurement, which I can understand because it is a complex issue. But to come into this place and suggest, as he has done today, that the Auditor-General's Report has somehow identified some great risk, merely means one of two things: either that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to say anything; or, in fact, he cannot read. Now I have given him the benefit of the doubt. I believe that we have got a very good education system, and I assume he can read. I assume that once again he is saying and doing anything he can get away with, just like, I point out, his comments last Friday, I think it was. This is what he said about South Australia. This is the sort of thing—

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister is clearly debating the matter now. I ask that you rule on that, sir.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It's all right, sir.

The SPEAKER: I have not heard what the minister was going to say; but, in any case, he has finished his answer.