Immigration department systems

Sandi Logan, spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 6) The assertions made yesterday about the Department of Immigration’s Systems for People (SfP) IT transformation were both spurious and baseless.

The story asked whether SfP had benefited clients or improved staff decision-making. The simple answer is “yes”: it has done both, and tremendously well. SfP as one of the largest service-oriented architecture initiatives in the world, encompassing nearly 200 individual projects, delivered to our clients and staff all that was expected of it and more.

SfP has provided integrated technologies and user platforms to enable a single view of clients, which was one of the major problems identified in the 2005 Palmer and Comrie reports. This has benefited our operations in a range of ways including case management, compliance and detention, border security, identity management, client search, and client and visa services.

Further, SfP has been recognised nationally and internationally. The Visa and Citizenship Wizards won the 2009 eGovernment award and the Government Technology Award recognising best practice in public sector technology programs through Australia, and the Asia Pacific and Gulf States.

There have been challenges along the way, which is not surprising given the size and complexity of the program, but internal and external audits, and assurance activities undertaken by the Boston Consulting Group, Walter Turnbull and the Department of Finance and Deregulation gateway reviews have all found SfP to have achieved its objectives, and to have produced significant benefits to the way the department does business with its millions of clients.

There is also keen international interest in leveraging key capabilities and learnings from the program. Your anonymous correspondent and all Crikey readers can be certain the full extent of the program’s benefits will continue to be realised well into the future.

Secret ballots and WorkChoices

Bruce G. L. Shaw writes: Re. “Back from the dead? Coalition ballot proposal goes far beyond WorkChoices” (yesterday, item 1) Even though Bernard Keane is desperate to promote Julia Gillard and attack Abbot maybe he could understand that the Opposition’s policy on unions paying for ballots (as publicly announced) refers to internal elections, not protected action ballots. It doesn’t involve resurrecting WorkChoices at all.

Maybe he could offer an apology to the Opposition and your intelligent readers, assuming there are any. While he’s at it he might check the OECD report on unemployment among its members widely publicised last week. It established that the only claim to fame that the Rudd government had 5.2% unemployed after the “worst recession in 50 years” is all smoke and mirrors because it doesn’t take into account the number of people forced to work part time who want full time jobs. Factor that in and our unemployment rate is one of the worst in the OECD. The irony is that Julia can thank WorkChoices for the false figures she milks ad nauseum because of the ease with which employers could make employees move from full-time to part-time employment. No doubt workers are happy to have any job rather than no job, but that doesn’t alter the falseness of Labor’s smug claim.

Can we have some real reporting and informed comment please?

William Minehane writes: I agree with the Liberals on this issue: why have secret ballots? Are they always the way that the union members vote? Are they counted in secret?

If hands are shown then there is less room for intimidation — why should non union i.e. ordinary taxpayers have to subsidise the Unions that seem to have plenty in their own “war chest”?

Michael R. James writes: Bernard Keane wrote; “George Brandis, one of Australia’s finest lawyers”. Undoubtedly, Brandis holds the view that he is in the top rank of Australian jurisprudence; whether that view is widely shared is another question.”

How could I decline Bernard’s invitation to comment on George Brandis? It is probably just a deep personality trait reinforced by being a barrister of the “shark attack” kind, layered with political dogma and total certitude and arrogance that no one else in hearing range has anything worthwhile to say, but George is a serial interrupter and shouter-over of any opponent or indeed interviewer. All of Australia sees this from time to time on Lateline, The 7.30 Report and especially Q&A. He is an inadvertent advocate of the proposition that politicians are better seen not heard.

Queenslanders get a half-hour dose of his constant interruptions in the weekly discussion, held by Madonna King on ABC612, with Craig Emerson. Emerson shows the patience of Job when Brandis constantly and loudly interrupts five seconds into any reply or explanation by the Labor minister, yet in Brandis’ own replies he is long-winded, constantly shouting “please let me finish” after King or Emerson (or this listener) can stand it no longer. He also deploys his barrister skills to the max with his often economic-with-the-truth blatherings. For the past two weeks he has been MIA on Madonna’s Wednesday slot, being replaced by Peter Dutton who is the model of fairness and calm compared to Brandis.

The sole thing that would indicate Brandis is not a total waste of space is his fame/infamy for labelling Howard as the “rodent” which shows that if he stuck to short snappy statements and the truth, he would find his audience more tolerant.

Compulsory voting

James Connor writes: Re. Alan Kennedy (comments, yesterday). Yes indeed Alan, let’s get the facts straight about voting. From the AEC themselves who have “turned” the Act into “plain-English”: “s. 233 of the Act requires an elector, on receiving a ballot paper, to retire alone to an unoccupied voting compartment and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper. The elector must then fold the ballot paper so as to conceal his or her vote and deposit it in the ballot box.”  Please feel free to consume your paper as you suggest, I look forward to seeing how the polling place officials remove it from you.

Sanna Peden writes: Re. Alan Kennedy’s clarification on voting. He’s right, of course. You don’t technically have to vote, just turn up.

Or rather, someone who knows your address has to turn up claiming to be you, no ID needed …

Sticking up for Telstra

Roger Bayliss writes: Re. “Tips and Rumours” (yesterday, item 6) As much as I dislike Telstra services, their app on my iPhone and iPad (for SIM usage) is working OK. It didn’t used to. I now monitor my BigPond usage, Mobile iPhone data, iPad SIM data and a consolidated Telstra bill including fixed lines and Foxtel.

This must be the first time in my life I have defended a Telstra service. Seems unusual.

I notice when you ring them now you get fairly quickly to a “reception desk” where you are then routed to the queue where you would have been if you pressed “3” etc. And your call is important, isn’t it? I don’t know whether this is good or not. Try it, if you dare.

Aussie TV

Dave Lennon writes: Re. “Figures prove $250m Free TV rebate to be a total crock” (yesterday, item 3) What is “Australian content” “Big Brother” or “Sea Patrol”

If the answer is both something is badly wrong . If the answer is the former we are certainly being ripped off if the answer is the latter then it is money well spent.

Australian TV content perhaps should be rated in the same way APRA rates songs, with varying levels that accurately reflect exactly how much Australian content something really has and any government corporate welfare can be doled out as per the rating.

Yes we can have good politicians

Pamela Papadopoulos writes: Obama’s people would have never resorted to some of the tactics that will be initiated at this year’s election campaign. That is why his was was one of the best political campaign thus far and we should learn from it.

Respect people.