Mike Elliott: Hindmarsh Stadium Report

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
3 October 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Spring Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The release of the Auditor-General's Report today into the Hindmarsh Soccer Stadium redevelopment project-an inquiry which was set up following a motion that I initially moved in this place it seems about two years ago- highlights once again the government's incompetence and mismanagement of projects. It appears that the government is pretty good on coming up with grandiose ideas but very inadequate in terms of implementation in terms of ensuring that the outcomes are optimum results for South Australia.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Quite clearly the Auditor-General in his report notes that some matters are debatable in relation to social benefit and so on but, when you look at issues regarding the management in a financial sense, I think incompetence is a word that would very quickly spring to mind on reading the report. In part, the report states:

It is not a case that adequate controls did not exist. They did. It was simply that they were repeatedly disregarded by those who had a responsibility to apply them. In summary, the following critical controls were disregarded.

· At no stage was any adequate feasibility study or cost benefit analysis undertaken of the proposed redevelopment.

· Cabinet submissions upon which approvals were given by Cabinet for the undertaking of major financial commitments and legal obligations were inaccurate and incomplete in material respects.

· Alternatives to the Stage 2 redevelopment were disregarded. Building a less expensive stadium was not adequately considered. Using a different venue was not adequately considered.

· In particular, Treasurer's Instruction 9105 was disregarded in the project initiation phases. It required compliance with Treasury Information Paper 90/1 that required presentation of multiple options including the "do nothing" option. Non- compliance with these requirements constituted a breach of the Public Finance and Audit Act.

The report also notes that FIFA and SOCOG requirements were inadequately defined. Further, the report states:

Despite recognition by all levels of Executive Government of the importance of the need to resolve ownership and management issues before commitment to the project, these issues were not adequately addressed until earlier this year.

The Auditor-General also noted that the Public Works Committee process was undermined due to inaccurate and confusing statements about the requirements of SOCOG, among other things. It has to be a matter of grave concern that not only does the government mismanage matters internally, it then fails to carry out its due responsibilities in relation to the checks and balances which are applied through this parliament.

It is not unlike the management of the Glenelg development. Only yesterday the Auditor-General's annual report was tabled. On page 118 of the Audit Overview, he looks at the Glenelg Holdfast Shores development. I note that there has been a major variation in the return the government can expect from initially a figure, as I recall, of about $9.6 million, which is down to $3.7 million. When one considers that around $50 million worth of public money and/or assets have gone into this project and there is a return of $3.7 million approximately and, on the government's current admissions, we are now spending $1.7 million a year in perpetuity for the movement of sand and seaweed in relation to Glenelg and West Beach, one has to say that things have gone sadly astray.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Pointed out right from the very beginning. Again one could ask whether or not adequate feasibility and cost benefit analyses were carried out prior to the event. We also see that there was some overcharging with the EDS contract which now appears to have been recovered. Again one has to be mindful that when the government signed that contract we still did not know how much it was costing us on an annual basis for computing, yet it signed a contract and it was some three years after the signing of the contract before we finally found out what we were expected to pay. This is repeated management incompetence from this government.