Darron CharlesworthBER Poorly Planned to Maximise Return
April 19th 2010 01:20
Category: No Category
In trying to avoid the worst effects of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) the Government, in its wisdom, created the Building Education Revolution (BER). This scheme involved doling out funds to construct much needed expansion to some schools, un-needed expansion to others and extravagance to a few. The rapid roll out of this scheme has come under fire for some very good reasons and some less so. In fact the BER probably helped to stimulate the economy in some areas but overall is likely to have missed the mark.
On the positive side there has been an injection of funds into projects which were desperately needed. Some of the schools to receive funding had been waiting for years to have their rooms and buildings expanded. However the way that this has been handled has come under heavy criticism even from those on the receiving end of the funding.
The most common complaint appears to be cost over-runs. The price for the work done far exceeds the previous quotes schools had received to have the work completed. That the BER administrators refused to allow local contractors to do the work in many locations has compounded this problem. What resulted was a down grade of facilities and services to a point where some would even question the benefits. One school reported losing five to classrooms to make way for one due to the massive increase in costing by the government approved contractor as appose the local contractor who had already quoted on the work.
Further funding wastage has come to light from funding given for work on schools due to be closed and bulldozed. This is very short-sighted and should have been halted as soon as it came to light. In Adelaide’s northern suburbs one group of five schools to be demolished are having work completed costing taxpayers millions. This money could better be spent on schools which are losing out due to cost overruns on projects.
In addition it is now being revealed that some large contractors are charging large fees to administer the work they are tendering for. Why? Should this not be part of the service or is this just a pure grab for cash at the public’s expense? Again corporate conduct comes into question as does the Government’s ability to properly manage the public purse. By shutting out many local contractors the Government has left open the door for large corporations to use loop holes and blatant deceit to de-fraud the public. Poor Government administration has been a contributing factor in this instance because if they were being diligent they would have known where every cent was going.
By generating such a large amount of construction work the Government has inadvertently put pressure on skills and wages. As all the work is required to be completed post-haste employers have been shifting workers from other fields into construction of BER projects, moving workers from state to state and importing workers to fill gaps. This could have been better managed. If the Government had allowed projects to be spaced out then the skills available in the current workforce could have been utilised. This would have kept the financial cycle ticking over, prevented upward pressure on wages due to skills shortages and ensured better use of local workforces without the need to import from interstate or overseas.
The Government would have created even more opportunity to bolster employment if it had chosen to be more flexible in selecting the contractors involved in the scheme. There are many local contractors, particularly in rural areas, which could have provided the necessary skills and sourced local labour. Bringing in workers and large contractors does nothing to improve the condition of employment in the regions – where finding work and improving skills is much more difficult than in the metropolitan areas.
All in all, while a good idea, the implementation of the BER has been plagued by problems most of which appear to be caused by the speed in which the scheme was implemented. The lesson here for the Government is that more care and thought should be used when beginning major projects of the nature. By spreading out the work over a longer period the Government could have easily extended the BER’s effectiveness in supporting the nation without placing undue pressure on skills and wages.
On the positive side there has been an injection of funds into projects which were desperately needed. Some of the schools to receive funding had been waiting for years to have their rooms and buildings expanded. However the way that this has been handled has come under heavy criticism even from those on the receiving end of the funding.
Further funding wastage has come to light from funding given for work on schools due to be closed and bulldozed. This is very short-sighted and should have been halted as soon as it came to light. In Adelaide’s northern suburbs one group of five schools to be demolished are having work completed costing taxpayers millions. This money could better be spent on schools which are losing out due to cost overruns on projects.
By generating such a large amount of construction work the Government has inadvertently put pressure on skills and wages. As all the work is required to be completed post-haste employers have been shifting workers from other fields into construction of BER projects, moving workers from state to state and importing workers to fill gaps. This could have been better managed. If the Government had allowed projects to be spaced out then the skills available in the current workforce could have been utilised. This would have kept the financial cycle ticking over, prevented upward pressure on wages due to skills shortages and ensured better use of local workforces without the need to import from interstate or overseas.
The Government would have created even more opportunity to bolster employment if it had chosen to be more flexible in selecting the contractors involved in the scheme. There are many local contractors, particularly in rural areas, which could have provided the necessary skills and sourced local labour. Bringing in workers and large contractors does nothing to improve the condition of employment in the regions – where finding work and improving skills is much more difficult than in the metropolitan areas.
All in all, while a good idea, the implementation of the BER has been plagued by problems most of which appear to be caused by the speed in which the scheme was implemented. The lesson here for the Government is that more care and thought should be used when beginning major projects of the nature. By spreading out the work over a longer period the Government could have easily extended the BER’s effectiveness in supporting the nation without placing undue pressure on skills and wages.
| 41 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
