Letter from Sir Peter Gershon to the Hon. Lindsay Tanner

In April 2008 Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, engaged Sir Peter Gershon to lead an independent review of the Australian Government's use and management of information and communication technology (ICT).

The PDF review is Downloadable here: it is worthy of a skim-read for an interesting and detailed look inside (for those of us on the outside) into how technology is currently used (and wasted) by the Australian public service.

The Hon. Lindsay Tanner
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I have now concluded the Review of the Australian Government’s use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which you invited me to undertake on behalf of the Government on 25 March 2008, and attach my report for your consideration. The terms of reference asked me, amongst a number of issues, to review and report on both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australian Government’s current use of ICT, to determine whether the Government is realising the greatest return from its investments in ICT, and to examine whether the right institutional arrangements are in place to maximise the return.

This report is the outcome of a process in which I have sought to (i) gather a substantial body of evidence to understand how ICT is currently used and managed; (ii) analyse the evidence to identify significant issues; and (iii) produce recommendations which will address these issues. This has involved engagement with the Prime Minister, Ministers, across government, and with industry and other interested bodies. During this process, 112 submissions were received, 63 meetings held, 3 visits made, and 1 large and 2 small surveys conducted.

The outputs of the review provide a snapshot of the current state of ICT in the Australian Government.

At the heart of my findings is a conclusion that, not withstanding the work undertaken to date, the current model of weak governance of ICT at a whole-of-government level and very high levels of agency autonomy, characterised by an ability to self-approve opt-ins to existing whole-of-government ICT arrangements, leads to sub-optimal outcomes in the context of prevailing external trends, financial returns, and the aims and objectives of this Government. While ICT has undoubtedly benefited government administration and the delivery of key public services, I have also found that benefits realisation and the measurement of benefits arising from investments in ICT are areas where there is substantial scope for improvement, together with measuring and improving the efficiency of current ICT operations.

My recommendations involve a major program of both administrative reform of, and cultural change from, a status quo where agency autonomy is a longstanding characteristic of the Australian Public Service. Based on my experience of creating sustainable change in the United Kingdom public sector environment, there are two critical requirements which will determine the success of this reform program: firstly, sustained leadership and drive at Ministerial and top official levels and, secondly, ensuring the enablers of change are properly resourced, not only in funding terms but also with skills of the right calibre.

Given these two requirements are met, I am confident that the recommended actions and changes can be successfully implemented over the next two to three years and deliver substantial benefits to the Australian Government.

Thank you for the opportunity to lead such a stimulating and challenging review. I would like to pay tribute to my team of agency and AGIMO secondees whose commitment, contribution, professionalism and support made it possible to undertake an exercise of this complexity and size in a tight time frame.

Sir Peter Gershon CBE FREng
28 August 2008

Jeff Kennett versus Bob Carr

How timely to mention Bob Carr in last night's post. The Australian has, this morning, former Victorian Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett going for him fists and all:

"Bob was about appeasement and re-election," Mr Kennett said. "Bob set about a culture that was politically criminal. I get cross at Bob Carr that he ... misused 10 years of public office and so totally failed to do what I consider to be the right thing."

Mr Carr hit back last night, accusing Mr Kennett of losing all but two of the elections he faced. He said Mr Kennett's sole economic contribution had been an "outsized casino" that had "sucked the life out of Melbourne's once elegant streets".

"He slashed up Victorian health and education and left all the hard work to (then treasurer) Alan Stockdale," Mr Carr said. "Today he's left in charge of what we in NSW would call a leagues club."

Mr Kennett appeared to excuse Mr Iemma and Mr Rees, saying both seemed decent people. "Morris Iemma was destroyed from within and I hope the same doesn't happen to Mr Rees," he said.

Carr's legacy still hangs over New South Wales like a black cloud. What the state actually needs right now is a Kennett-style Liberal small-government party to slash the public service, revitalise the economy via reducing unnecessary revenue raising state taxes, reinvest in the health care system and put some pride back into the Premier State.

National Broadband Network Debate Heats Up

The Australian IT Superblog is currently host to the main players in the current National Broadband Network debate and is worth reading.

Nick Minchin firstly wrote in The Australian on Thursday:

The Coalition's policy when in government was to work in partnership with the private sector to deliver a competitive, state of the art broadband network to increase availability of high speed services to 99 per cent of premises by the end 2009.

This outcome would have been achieved for a taxpayer spend of $958 million, which would have included the roll-out of a high speed metro-equivalent network servicing rural, regional and remote Australia under the OPEL project.

By contrast Labor's National Broadband Network (NBN) aims to deliver a fibre to the node network to 98 per cent of homes and businesses sometime over the next five years, with a taxpayer spend of up to $4.7 billion.

Disturbingly, Labor canceled the OPEL project with no clear and immediate delivery plan for rural, regional and remote Australia.

Minchin is not incorrect in saying that The Coalition's plan would have increased availability of high speed services to 99 per cent of premises. But he does not mention the definition of 'high speed' which would most likely be speeds delivered by ADSL2 broadband, an already dated form of broadband infrastructure. This should not have been the centrepiece of a forward-looking policy.

Former Labor minister Michael Egan, one of the most destructive NSW State Treasurers in partnership Bob Carr, diverted budget away from health and educational infrastructure and into a fattened and overweight public service via nanny-state revenue raising. Now he heads Terria, the consortium of nine-turned-five telcos aiming to construct the winning $4.7 billion bid for this cold hard Federal cash.

Without arguing format or system over his main rivals at Telstra, Egan believes that the main reason Terria should win the tender process is that they are not Telstra who they claim are trying to build another monopoly:

The new national broadband network will inevitably be a natural monopoly.

That’s why it must be regulated and structured so that it works in everyone’s interest and is not exploited by any one company for its own ends.

Australia is much more important than Telstra.

However Telstra has stated previously their commitment to building an open access network that can be accessed by all competiting telcos which is contrary to Egan's claims.

OpenPolitik is an advocate of open access and lightly regulated competition. But it would be foolish to believe that either arguments are more valid than another in these early stages. What is certain is that fair competition in the process and open access to the infrastructure are the most important aspects of delivering this increasingly unlikely Labor promise.

So far neither political party has been able to demonstrate a firm commitment to this outside of media spin and soundbites.