Howard shifted the Australian Government Information Management Office from the Department of Communications, IT and the Arts to the Department of Finance after the last election to give the office more clout.
Overseeing the operation of AGIMO is Tasmanian Senator and Special Minister of State Eric Abetz, who hopes to drive a change in cultural attitudes towards technology in government agencies, and to save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the process. The Labor Party would seem more the natural home for a focus on government service delivery, but it seems the Howard Government has taken on this issue as a high priority. It was interesting, for example, that it was Prime Minister and Cabinet chief Peter Shergold who authored the White Paper on E-government.
I wouldn't agree with the way you have characterised the Labor Party here, but we'll quarantine that for the moment.
One of the hallmarks of the Howard Government has been service delivery to what has generally been described as the Howard battlers.
If you look at the demographics, many of the least well-off are in electorates represented by the Liberal Party.
One of our hallmarks has been in dealing with issues such as the Child Support Agency, trying to streamline Centrelink. If we are to keep this Howard battler vote we have to show that we are sensitive to their needs and to make sure that things are a lot better than they were in the Keating era.
That has been, very much, a driver of the Government's thinking. The battlers delivered for us, and we need to deliver for them.
Apart from that, of course, it is the right and proper thing for government to do, to ensure that service delivery for the less well-off is as efficient as possible.
It is often those people who have the most difficulty in dealing with government if they feel they've been short-changed or one of their entitlements has been overlooked.
We're very interested to get the service delivery right, particularly to that sector.
Why is AGIMO important? Why was it moved to the Finance Department from Communications and IT?
Information technology has been developing for many many years, but it would be fair to say that in recent years it has taken off and grown dramatically. Modern government needs to keep up with that.
We need to carry those changes into government administration.
That's why AGIMO was originally set up in its previous manifestations in Finance and Administration.
Without going into unhappy past history, it was moved from there to DCITA where, in fairness, it was part of a large portfolio, but not necessarily central to that portfolio.
Since the last election, AGIMO is back in Finance, where I think it comfortably belongs and where it can encourage all departments or sectors of government to take up the development in information and communications technology for better service delivery for citizens and for better and more efficient administration.
Finance holds certain purse-strings and it is in its interest to ensure there is good administration in all departments.
It's an overseeing role, not being able to direct – and I make that clear, AGIMO and I cannot direct what departments do, although we can encourage and cajole – but it's up to each departmental secretary and minister to determine how they run their portfolio.
Are there recalcitrant departments that don't want to engage e-government practices?
I wouldn't use the term recalcitrant, but like in anything, some are more engaged than others and we want them to be as engaged as we can get them.
Encouragement might be a bit more influential coming from Finance than from DCITA, with no disrespect to DCITA. Finance does seem to have a more persuasive capacity because it holds the purse strings.
In your cajoling, if you convince a department to head a certain way, might it have a better conversation with the Budget committee when they sit down to talk about the next year's funding?
I can't specifically say that, but it stands to reason that in the total Finance and Administration portfolio, if a department is seen to be making savings while at the same time improving service delivery to citizens, that will clearly be seen in that department's favour when budgets are considered.
AGIMO is not supposed to make money, but I assume through some of these initiatives government would come out with extra dollars in its pocket.
We're hoping to is encourage the departments themselves to see the benefits they're able to make in administrative savings. This allows them to have greater flexibility in their budgets, reducing the amount of money needed for administration, and more can be directed to service delivery to citizens.
Does AGIMO do any research on better ways for government departments to interoperate?
That is exactly where we as a government would like to finish up, with complete connection and interoperability between all departments.
We haven't gone down to the minutiae in research as yet, but I dare say we will look at some areas for research later.
We are encouraging departments to look at the options they have available, whether it be using open-source software or in procurement methodologies.
Clearly, that is the way government wants to go, towards interoperability between departments.
That includes the efforts being made by the new Department of Human Services, where Centrelink is in with the Health Insurance Commission and other service delivery agencies.
The aim of AGIMO's e-government initiatives isn't strictly to catch welfare cheats, although that's a byproduct, so there is money to be saved there in addition to reducing administrative overheads. Is there a whole-of-government dollar figure that the Government is hoping to achieve?
I would imagine there is potential for some hundreds of millions of dollars in savings. That's a gut feeling, it's not based on any specific survey.
You've got a new chief executive and CIO. What are the top priorities?
Ann Steward has a very well-rounded career behind her, with a lot of experience from Britain and with departments such as Centrelink and before that NOIE (the National Office of the Information Economy).
Having experience in another government, and in our biggest service delivery area, provides for a very good mix of skills. Service delivery and efficient government are the two very basic top priorities.
Privacy is an important issue in all of this as well and we have to get the balances right. At this stage we are trying to get the framework established to encourage departments to make themselves more accessible to citizens.
You recently called for a wide review of privacy laws in light of new technologies. Is privacy a greater concern now than previously?
There is within the community a greater acceptance that for certain benefits, whether it's better or personalised service or frequent flyer points, you need to provide personal details. Those details still need safeguarding, however.
In government though, the sharing of information has new layers of potentially invasive privacy impacts.
We need to have a look at getting over initial concerns about how much privacy is given away to access a service.
We really need to look at how much information is able to be used outside of a its original department and how much further it can be used by other users.
So you're looking for specific safeguards around the use of information? Or do you want a public review so at least there is better public understanding of the privacy safeguards already there?
We should look at the safeguards that are there at the moment and what might be needed in the future, but also look at the benefits to the community at large if there is more sharing of information.
People want to deal with "The Government", rather than dealing separately with Centrelink, the Health Insurance Commission or Veterans' Affairs.
Some foreign governments have expressed interest in having a look at AGIMO's open-source guide. What was the driver of that guide?
We wanted to provide greater flexibility for departments and service providers. The proprietary providers have their systems in place. Open source is usually suited to smaller business, as they are a lot more flexible and able to adapt to the task at hand.
It would be fair to say the proprietary systems are often a one-size-fits-all proposition. You have to make your system fit their system.
Going after open source is about flexibility and we want the benefit of that.
It will mean more competition, greater flexibility, and one would imagine greater service delivery and cost savings.
When you spoke with Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer recently, did he ask about the open source guide?
We had a half-hour telephone conversation that was very friendly and frank about various issues. He and Steve Vamos were relaxed about our approach to open source.
There is an acceptance and a realisation that open source is a part of the market that proprietary providers simply have to deal with.
Autor: James Riley
Quelle: Australian IT, 19.07.2005
