1 February 2013

Decision To Sign Off On Novopay Defies Belief

The decision to sign off on Novopay despite the knowledge of 147 software defects asks some serious questions about what Bill English, Hekia Parata and Craig Foss were thinking, the Green Party said today.

“Problems with Novopay date back to 2009, but three Ministers still decided to sign off on the Novopay system when it clearly wasn’t ready,” said Green Party education spokesperson Catherine Delahunty.

“In 2009, it became clear that the original go-live date of 2010 could not be met. These delays contributed to the decision to cancel a planned pilot of Novopay in South Island schools which would have made the inadequacy of the system even clearer.

“The Ministry of Education was sufficiently concerned in 2011 that Novopay would not be completed that they engaged previous payroll provider Datacom to begin to develop a contingency option. This expired in mid-2012, and we can only think how much better off teachers would be today if it had been fully embraced.

“Before Novopay was signed off by the three Ministers, 147 software defects were still unresolved by Talent2. Additionally, testing resulted in 5913 pay errors. The litany of issues with Novopay even prior to its implementation should have meant that it was not switched on until it was absolutely ready.

“That the Ministers all ignored these warning signs raises the question of what they were thinking, and why they did not properly consider the impact of their decision to create this mess from which so many teachers are suffering,” Ms Delahunty said.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Public Address Link:
A (Sweary) Analysis Of Urgency Abuse And
The Consititution

Keith Ng: You’re looking at the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Basically, the courts said that the Government had to pay family members who looked after people with disabilities (because not doing so was discriminatory), so the Government passed this law to say: “Yeah nah.”

The RIS isn’t just redacted for the public – it was redacted for MPs. *Parliament* voted on this, with all the relevant facts blacked out.

Sure, it’s understandable, right? If you’re passing a law that’s really dodgy, you don’t want advice from civil servants saying “uh, this is pretty illegal” to be public. But actually, that’s not really a problem here, because in the same piece of legislation, THEY SAID THEY CAN’T BE TAKEN TO COURT. More>>