Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (4:14 PM) —I present the interim report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the government's information technology outsourcing initiative.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL —I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL —I move:

The purpose of this interim report is to highlight the apparent lack of understanding in the Australian Public Service about parliamentary accountability—as illustrated by the arguments put forward during this inquiry—and to draw attention to what is clearly a much wider problem. The committee also seeks to facilitate an approved awareness of parliamentary accountability in the private sector, which is a key player in the outsourcing of information technology and other government services and also needs to understand the rules of accountability.

The focus of this report is the oversensitivity of the players in the IT outsourcing initiative to any parliamentary scrutiny of their activities and processes. This report explains that the committee has not required the production of any information identified as sensitive. It has provided the opportunity for sensitive material to be blacked out of documents of interest and required the reasons for this to be provided for its consideration. In spite of this, the committee has had to wait almost four months and move two orders for the production of documents in the Senate to receive the requested documents. The documents were first requested on 19 December 2000 and only provided at 6 p.m. last night. Parliamentary accountability refers to the obligation on governments to give an account of their actions to parliament and, through parliament, to the public. Keeping in mind that the total estimated contract value for this initiative was $4 billion, the committee's concerns about accountability need to be taken seriously.

In relation to claims of commercial confidentiality, the differing views of the parties about the treatment of similar information were not surprising. However, inconsistencies across departments and agencies which are contracted with the same external service provider require further investigation. This indicates that the variations arise not from the private sector's sensitivities but from their government partners. The committee is of the view that more guidance on openness and transparency is needed for departments and agencies. This should translate into better informed contractual partners.

An issue they should be of concern to all Australians was revealed at the committee's public hearings on 15 March. The current environment of doing business with government was described as one of intimidation. The Australian Information Industry Association, which appeared as a witness at the hearing, described what it claimed was an unprecedented level of explicit and strong requests from its members either to be excluded from the AIIA submission or to have their identity protected. Claims made informally to the committee that witnesses and potential witnesses had been interfered with and are concerned about the commercial consequences of contributing to this inquiry gained credibility with this development. Even if these allegations are found to be unsubstantiated, a critical flaw in the government's IT initiative has been identified. Open participation in debate about the merits, benefits, advantages and disadvantages of the process to date is seen to lead to adverse business consequences for those in the marketplace and adverse employment consequences for those in the Australian Public Service.

The majority of the committee is greatly concerned about processes and practices that are seen to be intimidatory and to discourage open debate about public policy. Partnerships with government need to be open, well documented and conducted with integrity: not only because the public has a right to know about how public funds are spent but because anything less may expose the Commonwealth to litigation that is costly and undermines public confidence. The majority report states that perceptions of intimidation cannot be lightly dismissed as they are a direct result of a failure to establish an appropriately transparent process and meaningful reporting to parliament.

In conclusion, the committee considers that several issues arising out of the sequence of events described here need to be highlighted: the lack of timeliness and quality of answers in response to the committee's requests; the future role of OASITO in the initiative; and the apparent lack of understanding about parliamentary accountability and responsibility for performance, delivery of outcomes of the use of public funds in the public and private sectors.

In the coming months, the committee will be examining responses to its requests with a view to establishing the underlying reasons for its difficulties in obtaining the relevant documentation. It is keen to establish whether it is merely a lack of understanding on the part of agencies and private individuals about parliamentary accountability or if it is due to some other reason. The committee notes that the Australian National Audit Office is currently examining issues associated with confidentiality clauses in government contracts and is expected to report within the next few months. The committee is hopeful that this, too, will assist those who must deal with the complexities that arise when the private sector works for government while government continues to be responsible and accountable for the outcome.

The committee takes the opportunity to encourage further contributions to the IT outsourcing inquiry and to flag its intention to conduct a public hearing to take evidence from the Clerk of the Senate, private and academic lawyers, and other appropriate witnesses on issues associated with parliamentary accountability. Comments on matters raised in this report and in relation to IT outsourcing, the government's initiative and the Humphry review are encouraged. The committee would like to report on the outcome of proceedings in June, along with a final report on the IT outsourcing inquiry.

In respect of the two orders of the Senate that were required to get the documents requested as far back as last December, some toing-and-froing has taken place between ministers, much of which has been generated by the fact that the responsible minister, Mr Fahey, has been off ill over that period and there has been uncertainty as to the minister to whom the direction should be appropriately sent. Despite that fact, it should be noted that the material that was sought has been sitting in the minister's office for at least two to three weeks ready to be sent to the Senate. It could have been made available to the committee well in advance of now but was held up until the last available moment. At the end of the day, it was not provided by either the offices of Minister Abetz or Minister Kemp but out of Minister Fahey's office. There might have been some confusion about the appropriate minister to who the reference was directed to but in the end it was nothing but game playing—again to avoid for as long as possible any presentation of these documents and public scrutiny of them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.