Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3638 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, what we have to do here, as I said right at the beginning, is look at what we have actually done to address the problems that do exist. I have shown categorically that the coroner has said that we acted appropriately or I acted appropriately, that we had no knowledge that there could be a problem, that it was not a political stunt, and that we had every right to believe that the contract manager and project officers did have or would get the appropriate expertise to continue. What more could we have done? I think that is the question you have to ask yourself. What more could we have done on the information that we had? The fact is, nothing.

Mr Stanhope has repeatedly stated that I should resign because of the problems identified by the coroner with regard to the tender process. I mentioned that earlier. The coroner has said that I should not have been involved, that I was not involved and that I had operated appropriately. Again, that one has to be ruled out.

What have we done? Since the implosion occurred we have done an enormous amount. A number of reviews have been commenced and I think three are worth mentioning. An independent arms-length review has been ordered by Totalcare into project management procedures. It is to be conducted by Mr John Harmer, a director of Connell Wagner Australia and an individual with vast experience in this area.

I should point out here a fact that Mr Stanhope will not be too keen to hear. The project management and tender processes used by the ACT Government were virtually the same as those used by the previous Labor Government. Yes, Mr Speaker, we had not changed the process. And guess what, Mr Speaker? We did not corporatise Totalcare; the Labor Party did. We did not appoint the chief executive of Totalcare. Even the board was appointed predominantly by the previous Government. I am not having a go at any

of those people. I am just saying, "Hey, where is this process that we changed to cause the problem?". It was the process that we inherited.

Mr Speaker, the second review is being conducted by Mr Tom Sherman, a former head of the National Crime Authority, who has been engaged to analyse and publicly report on this Government's actions in relation to its Public Service procedures and guidelines. Mr Sherman, I am sure, would be of the calibre that nobody in this place would suggest would be a yes man or would do what the Government asked him to do. That is simply not what he is like and not his background. Mr Sherman will report to the Government early next year and we will certainly be happy to table his report in this place. He is looking at how the Government is responding to this whole issue, to ensure that we have done it to best practice level. I know that this process has been described by Mr Quinlan as a waste of time, but does that not prove again that the Labor Party simply is not interested in fixing the problem? It is not interested in the least; it is just interested in getting a political scalp.

Briefly - and I cannot be too brief on this because there is a lot happening -other steps that we have in train include the creation of WorkCover as a statutory authority, incorporating the dangerous goods unit; new explosives regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act covering issues such as exclusion zones; improved training of WorkCover staff; the development of guidelines on occupational health and safety issues in the purchasing process; improved documentation and audit trail

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .