The Royal Commission on pink bats has found that the States have great experience in program delivery at an operational level, and that the feds wrongly showed no interest in utilizing that experience. The Commission also found that the States don’t have the capacity to run their own OH&S or their own regulatory regimes for building and construction which are exclusively State matters, and that the feds wrongly relied on the States for these things. I just don’t get it. So the feds should have done more to get the States to run the program but not relied on them for OH&S and regulation of the program as they did?? The commissioner seems to find some explanation for it all by adopting the standpoint of the “cynic (who) might say that a large economic stimulus measure combined with a contribution to the reduction of global warming was something from which federal politicians wanted kudos”. Check out the following paragraphs from the report: 11.5.6 I find that: 11.5.6.1 the Australian Government failed to take proper responsibility for the regulation of its own program, by its almost complete reliance upon State and Territory regulatory regimes; 11.5.6.2 at no stage did the Australian Government ascertain that State and Territory regulatory regimes would be adequate to deal with the risks to personal safety and property given the nature and extent of the demands likely to be placed upon those regimes by the HIP. This responsibility fell, principally, to Mr Hoitink and Mr Kimber; 11.5.6.3 the Australian Government, wrongly, regarded itself as justified in leaving to the States and Territories almost entirely responsibility for OH&S under the HIP. Mr Hoitink, ultimately, must bear responsibility for that having occurred, both because he was, on the evidence, a key proponent of that view, which carried some weight because of his role as a senior lawyer. Moreover, as owner of the relevant risk, he did not do what was unambiguously required of him, namely to ensure discussions with the States and Territories were taking place on this topic. This reliance upon the States and Territories, and the lack of communications with them, resulted in there being inadequate regulatory arrangements for installations under the HIP. 14.12 The States and Territories as service providers 14.12.1 In the case of the HIP, it was a deliberate decision of the Australian Government not to use the States and Territories to roll out the program. This is despite the States and Territories having very great experience in program delivery at an operational level. Not only do they deliver their own services in their respective jurisdictions, they have experience in delivering Australian Government initiatives, such as construction projects under the Building the Education Revolution program. 14.12.2 State and Territory service delivery is of course not free from administrative difficulties and inefficiencies. It is true to say, however, that the HIP was a particularly bad example of shortcomings caused by a very inexperienced Department (DEWHA) having been asked to deliver it. 14.12.3 The Australian Government no doubt had its own reasons for wanting to retain control of the HIP within its own agencies, despite DEWHA not having the ability or experience to deliver. A cynic might say that a large economic stimulus measure combined with a contribution to the reduction of global warming was something from which federal politicians wanted kudos. That might explain the very minimal engagement with the States and Territories about the HIP by the Australian Government. But there are other possible reasons also: it would have taken some time to reach agreement about the necessary arrangements; and the Australian Government had a legitimate concern to see that the national economy benefitted. It may be that those considerations justified not relying upon State and Territory experience in project delivery at an operational level. 14.12.4 I would, however, recommend that in future, where there is a concern about the capacity of federal agencies to deliver a large-scale program such as the HIP, the States and Territories be considered as possible vehicles for delivery, as ought the possibility of engaging private sector providers (as was the case in the early days of the HIP).
Posted on: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:27:00 +0000