Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3555 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
behalf of the Government, in the words of the coroner - the change of date for the event from Wednesday, 9 July to Sunday, 13 July 1997. As the coroner said:
This single act of a public servant in the whole project warrants the highest disapprobation ... It was totally inappropriate for this officer to exercise a function properly reserved for Totalcare.
The coroner had no option but to find:
There was an interest and intrusion by the government officials in what in essence was a commercial industrial building project.
Yet, on the evidence, what else could the people of Canberra expect from a government that presided over the systemic failures in its administrative processes revealed by the coroner's review of this terribly botched project? This is, after all, the government that failed to inform its insurer that the demolition had been turned into a public spectacle that would draw thousands of citizens as spectators. This was a government project in which the advice of a structural engineer in relation to pre-weakening work undertaken on steel columns before a comprehensive engineering report had been provided was met with the termination of his services - a case of shooting the messenger. This was a government project in which the term "quality assurance" had more to do with making sure that the paperwork was in order than with ensuring what was happening on site met safety and construction standards. As the coroner said, this Government is a government that presided over systemic failures in its administrative processes and this project was a project driven from the Chief Minister's office by her closest advisers.
If there is a single classic example of how the systemic failings of this Government's administrative processes had an impact on the Acton demolition project, it lies with the regulatory agency WorkCover. As the coroner wrote:
There is no doubt that one of the more serious issues that arose in the inquest was the total confusion that existed as to who carried the responsibility for the supervision and use of explosives on the Acton Peninsula ... The end result was that there was practically no regulatory supervision of the use of explosives.
The coroner found that WorkCover was an inefficiently run organisation, fragmented and disjointed in its administration. This is the key agency with the responsibility to ensure workplaces are safe. This is the agency with the responsibility to enforce legislation that requires employers to ensure that people at or near a workplace are not exposed to risk to their health or safety. It was a key agency and its operations were a shambles.
Who is responsible for that? "Not I", says Mrs Carnell. She told the media that WorkCover was not her responsibility then or now. She told the media that her department in fact oversighted the entire project, but not WorkCover because WorkCover operates at arms length and always has.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .