 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
HINDMARSH SOCCER STADIUM
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I move:
I. That in the opinion of this Council, a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on all matters relating to the Hindmarsh Soccer Stadium Redevelopment Project, and in particular-
(a) Whether there was due diligence by government representatives prior to the signing of agreements for construction of stages 1 and 2 of the project;
(b) Whether due diligence was applied subsequent to the commitment to stages 1 and 2, including whether the Crown Solicitor's advice as described on page 12 of the thirty-third report of the Public Works Committee, August 1996, was adhered to;
(c) (i) Whether undue pressure was placed on individuals leading to legal commitment by them on behalf of sporting clubs or associations; and
(ii) The present status of all relevant deeds of guarantee or other legal documents, the financial status of the signatories and whether the legal agreements have created financial difficulty for any non-government persons or organisations;
(d) Whether there were any conflicts of interest or other imprudent or improper behaviour by any person or persons, government or non-government, involved with the project and whether the appropriate processes were followed in relation to the-
(i) planning stages of the project;
(ii) awarding and monitoring of consultancies;
(iii) tendering process;
(iv) letting of contracts;
(v) construction of the stadium; and
(vi) ongoing management of the stadium; and
(e) Any other related matters.
II. The committee be requested to include in its report, recommendations for government and the parliament where appropriate.
III. That in the event of the joint committee being appointed, the Legislative Council be represented thereon by three members, of whom two shall form a quorum of Council members necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee.
IV. That the joint committee be authorised to disclose or publish, as it thinks fit, any evidence or documents presented to the joint committee prior to such evidence and documents being reported to the parliament.
V. That Standing Order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the joint committee is examining witnesses unless the joint committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the joint committee is deliberating.
VI. That a message be sent to the House of Assembly transmitting parts I, II, III and IV and requesting its concurrence thereto and advising the House of Assembly of part V of this motion.
I will make this brief, because this motion covers exactly the same territory as Orders of the Day: Private Business-No. 2, the only difference being that this motion calls for a joint committee of the two Houses to examine the issues, whereas the later motion refers the issues to the Auditor-General. I made quite plain when I spoke earlier that I preferred that the inquiry be carried out by the Auditor-General, and I gave a number of reasons for that. I would insist on this motion being passed only if I fail to succeed in getting the motion in relation to the Auditor-General passed, first, and, secondly, with a clear understanding from the government that it will act on the advice of this Chamber and that the Treasurer will request that the Auditor-General carry out the inquiry as requested. As long as those things happen, I will not persist further with this motion but at this stage, if it is adjourned, I will move to adjourn it on motion while awaiting the fate of the later motion.
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I indicate the opposition's support for the motion and for the procedure that the Hon. Mike Elliott has just set out. I spoke on the subject of the Hindmarsh Soccer Stadium last week and indicated how the opposition was greatly concerned about exactly what had happened in relation to that project. I think all South Australians, including the Auditor-General, would be concerned about this matter. Whereas our preferred position would be that the Auditor-General conduct a full inquiry into this matter, if that is not to be-and I guess we will test that later-we support this matter.
Debate adjourned.
The Legislative Council later passed a motion approving an inquiry by the Auditor-General: 17 November 1999
