Page 963 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, let us go back to the Hunt Boilers dispute at Royal Canberra Hospital North. What is significant about the dispute, Mr Speaker, is that it occurred shortly after the R and G Shelley debacle - a debacle which highlighted the flaws in the public works contracting system in this Territory. And what was the outcome of this R and G Shelley debacle? Those opposite said that they would not allow such problems to occur again, and that they would implement what is known as a project management scheme.
Mr Speaker, this sounded wonderful; but, of course, this was nothing more than an illusion brought down by this Government in its efforts to pretend to be caring and responsible managers of the public purse. What the Hunt Boilers dispute highlighted was the fact that the Government did not introduce the project management scheme as a means of improving the public works contracting system in Canberra; it simply introduced the system as a means of making itself less accountable to the process. The Government turned around during the Hunt Boilers dispute and argued that the problem was not of its making, and consequently not its responsibility. It said that it had appointed project managers to manage the entire project, and consequently the subcontractors and unions and the Labor Opposition should look elsewhere to blame someone else.
To clarify this point, Mr Speaker, I think I should briefly explain the project management scheme, for the benefit of those present. The project management scheme is supposed to be a means of ensuring financial accountability on the part of the major contractor. The project managers are expected to look at the receipts of the major contractor, with the aim of making sure that they have paid their subcontractors and suppliers and that the project is going according to plan. Therefore, instead of an arm or a section within the Department of Urban Services overseeing the project, the project managers will fulfil this important role.
Mr Speaker, the significant point that I wish to make here is that during the Hunt Boilers dispute the responsible Minister and his departmental officials argued that they bore no relation to or responsibility for the failings of the project managers. They said that there was no link between them, the Government, and those whom they had appointed to oversee the operation of the project. Mr Speaker, I need not tell you that this came as quite a shock to all those involved. Let me tell you, those subcontractors, the unions and I could not believe that this argument was being put up by the Minister. To be quite frank, what do the Minister and his senior departmental officials get paid to do? I am not sure that I know, but obviously they do. Certainly, they are not paid to delegate away their responsibilities. They are paid to manage and, hopefully, to manage efficiently and responsibly. I stress, hopefully, Mr Speaker, because it was clear to all involved that the Minister had not done so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .