Chris Barton: Lifting lids on Mallard's IT secrecy

COMMENT

State Services Minister Trevor Mallard pulled the plug last week on his pet IT project, sending $2 million of taxpayers' money down the drain.

The project was Goprocure, a "think big" scheme for all Government departments to buy supplies through a central portal.

As Government information technology projects go, it wasn't a spectacular failure - certainly not in the same league as the $104 million Police Incis disaster, or the $35 million budget blowout of Landonline and a string of other Government IT blunders.

But Goprocure's demise does highlight how little has been learned since the 1999 debacles and how little progress has been made on co-operation between Government departments. Above all it highlights why Mallard's tactic of keeping the detail and risks associated with Government IT projects under wraps isn't working.

It's true that by following a phased approach - a requirement brought in after the Incis disaster - the extent of the Goprocure loss was controlled. But the plug should have been pulled much earlier.

Resistance to the project from state sector procurement managers had been evident from day one. Many already had their own procurement systems and Supplynet - born out of the privatisation of the Government Stores Board - was well advanced with its own portal.

But despite the opposition Mallard bulldozed on, last year saying he would force departments to join the scheme and that it would save Government agencies at least $6.5 million a year.

As Minister of State Services, Mallard gets monthly reports on the viability of all IT projects over $5 million in value showing the progress and risks involved.

There's no doubt Goprocure would have had a red flag right from the start, outlining the problems of getting buy-in by Government agencies and the duplication of Supplynet.

The question that has to be asked on this and just about every Government IT project is why that information wasn't made public? For almost two years the Herald has tried under the Official Information Act and by complaint to the Office of the Ombudsmen to get access to the monthly IT reports prepared by State Services Commission.

We argue that greater transparency, not secrecy, in discussions about Government IT projects is required to ensure public money is spent wisely and following correct processes.

Further, and since these projects ultimately involve taxpayers' money, we say there is a genuine public interest to know the following:

* The IT project's budget, schedule and business case (the latter outlining both benefits and risks).

* Whether the project is on budget and on schedule.

* If the project is falling behind or exceeding budget, why, and what is being done to rectify the situation.

It was an argument with which the former Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood agreed in September last year when we used the act to get information on the Department for Courts computer project.

Some nine months after our original OIA request was turned down by the department Sir Brian ordered access. That revealed a $3 million budget blowout on the case management system that the department was trying to hide. By November Tony Ryall, National's spokesman on courts, said the blowout was bigger - that the system's initial budget of $27 million had ballooned to $36 million.

There are also many questions to ask about the Ministry of Social Development's Swiftt and Trace projects. Once again we have been denied specific information, but through another tortuous OIA request have found that proposals being considered could cost between $87 million and $177 million, making this the biggest computer project ever undertaken in New Zealand.

We have also established that only $60 million has been set aside for the project so far - so there's already a budget shortfall.

But when we try to get further detail about how this money will be spent we are met with breathtaking arrogance from both the IT managers and the PR flunkies put in place to keep the media at bay. These people have clearly forgotten both the civil and the servant aspects of their role.

There are other IT projects we would also like to know more about, such as the Parliamentary Counsel Office's $8 million failure to set up a website containing all of New Zealand's laws. The Public Access to Legislation project has been "in pause mode since May 2003". Once again a technical review of the project exists, but once again it is shrouded in secrecy - to the point where a select committee was told they couldn't see it because of "commercial sensitivity".

This sort of doublespeak is also thwarting our efforts to get access to the State Service Commission monthly reports on IT projects. Mallard and his cohorts duck behind the section 9.2.g.i of the Official Information Act which says withholding of information may be necessary to: "(g) Maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through (i) The free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown ... or officers and employees of any Department or organisation in the course of their duty ... "

It's a classic Catch 22. The media can't have access so it can engage in free and frank discussion because that will prevent those in possession of the information having free and frank discussion about the information they're in possession of.

What's really being said behind this clause is that if the media had access to this information, it would not be the same information. Civil servants would have to withhold and lie.

Surely this is wrong. It's important in all areas of government, and IT projects are no exception, that the two sins of our democratic system - incompetence and corruption - are weeded out.

But it's awfully hard for the media to do its part in exposing those flaws in the face of such orchestrated secrecy.

Meanwhile, we'll keep battling. The new Ombudsman, John Belgrave, is still in dialogue with Mallard and promises to let us know the outcome soon.

Meanwhile, thanks to all the whistleblowers and concerned citizens that have helped so far.

Please keep the information coming.

* Email Chris Barton