Clark David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6947. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Before the launch of their September 2011 “Transformation Programme Planning Services” Registration of Interest how many companies did IRD expect would comply with the mandatory requirements listed in 4.3 of the Registration of Interest and of those how many were expected to be New Zealand-owned companies? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 The purpose of the registration of interest was to identify companies or consortiums regardless of where they were based that have the capacity and the capability to provide the services necessary for that particular phase of Inland Revenue’s transformation programme. Inland Revenue had no expectation of how many New Zealand based businesses would register their interest either individually or as part of a consortium. 
Dr David Clark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question on notice and I do not feel that it was adequately addressed. It was not clear that there was no expectation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has indicated in his answer that he simply does not have that information. I take it the Minister is telling the House there was no record of expectation in respect of New Zealand - owned or foreign-owned companies. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There was no question of an expectation. We simply asked for a registration of interest and we did not have a figure in mind at the outset as to how many from New Zealand or elsewhere would seek to register. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that seems to be a pretty clear answer. 
Dr David Clark 
: Unbelievable. What conversations has the Inland Revenue Department or its project consultant Capgemini had with Accenture about its Aspire system; and given the close working relationship between Capgemini and Accenture in previous projects overseas how will its consultants manage conflicts of interest in tender processes? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I think the problem is that the member fundamentally misunderstands what is going on. Capgemini’s involvement with this particular aspect of the project ceased with the presentation of its report in July and in fact it did work in partnership with a local company Tenzing management and technology consultants. The next phase of the project will be subject to an open tender process. 
Dr David Clark 
: What involvement has David Butler a former Commissioner of Inland Revenue who subsequently managed the troubled change programme in the Australian Taxation Office had in advising on the Inland Revenue Department’s business transformation programme; and is the Minister aware of blowouts in the Australian experience that doubled the cost of implementation of the Accenture package costing hundreds of millions of dollars after David Butler had gone on record saying the Australians would be crazy not to go with Accenture? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Can I answer that question in two parts. Firstly when we began this transformation process work under the previous Government in about 2007 a very conscious decision was made not to go down the path that the Australians had gone down for precisely the feared reasons at that point that the member has now advanced. With regard to Mr Butler’s involvement or alleged involvement I am not aware of any role that he has played in respect of this process. 
Dr David Clark 
: Why has the Inland Revenue Department blocked access to anything but the title and date of 80 documents relating to the department’s business transformation programme including its engagement processes and does the Minister not think it is in the public interest for transparency of process to apply in the case of a project where Ministers in his own Cabinet have estimated costs at between $700 million and $1.5 billion of taxpayer money? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: For precisely the reasons again implied in the member’s question. These are commercially sensitive matters. The process is ongoing and has not yet been finalised. It has been a longstanding practice supported by the previous Ombudsman that where papers relating to work that is currently under way have been sought it is perfectly appropriate for the Government to withhold those until such time as the projects and the decisions have been made and that is exactly the practice that has been followed in this particular instance. 
Dr David Clark 
: Did Capgemini or any of its recent employees have any formal or informal role in shaping the department’s September 2011 registration of interest? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: To my knowledge the answer to that question is no because we were inviting an expression of interest from various potential suppliers at that time. Capgemini through the consortium that I referred to earlier became the preferred operator after that process. It would have been illogical for it to have had any involvement in its design. 
Dr David Clark 
: I seek leave to table the registration of interest document for the provision of transformation programme planning services—the source is the Inland Revenue Department; it is no longer available as far as I am aware on the website—with particular reference to the mandatory requirements under 4.3. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.