If your search engine has thrown this up in the pursuit of salacious stuff surrounding our dearly-beloved elected representatives, sadly I have to disappoint you. What I have to say concerns the rather more mundane world of IT systems.
Still, it is flippin' important. Given the lamentable levels of tech understanding among our politicians, if you say the word "IT" to them, they immediately think "security/privacy". Now, I'm not saying that those things are not important, of course they are: but they are not the only things to be considered. The threats need to be balanced against the benefits of IT investment. Sadly, there are good reasons for things being as they are: politicians know little about tech, and so cannot enunciate much in the way of the "why", save for some nebulous "cost savings" figure plucked out the ether by some obliging civil servant. Second, their constituents tend not to have much clue either, and are change averse: it's no surprise that this is front of mind for the politicians.
Mind you, I malign politicians unfairly: a vanishingly small number of senior business people (including in the tech sector, interestingly) and senior public servants have any sense of the transformative potential of great technology either.
So what? I hear you say. It's good to be cautious….Er, no, it's not. The consequences of such caution are that technology projects are judged exclusively on their ability to withstand penetration, and on their progress on delivering against budget. Thus a system designed to be invulnerable can be pretty difficult to do anything in, spawning an explosion of the use of bootleg apps by users actually trying to get things done. And the best way to ensure a system delivers against budget is to inflate the budget, especially with all the paraphernalia designed to, you've guessed it, …..check on progress against budget.
So we have stuff built at multiples of their real cost, designed more for invulnerability than utility: no wonder IT has such a rubbish reputation.