CHRIS THOMSON

EXCLUSIVE: Secrecy over the state government’s $2.6 billion Perth Waterfront revamp has raised fears among a powerful Parliamentary committee that the project is not being managed properly.

In its latest report on big-ticket infrastructure projects, the influential Public Accounts Committee concludes that a lack of transparency and engagement with the public raises serious accountability issues.

“This is a large and complex project making major changes to the structure and working of the Perth CBD,” the state Parliamentary committee warns.

“If we get it wrong, in any one of several significant aspects, then the benefits to the city, its liveability and efficient functioning could be severely impaired.”

** RELATED OPINION PIECE: THE GREAT PERTH WATERFRONT SWINDLE **

The committee is headed by veteran Labor MLA John Kobelke. MLAs Joe Francis (Liberal), Tony Krsticevic (Liberal), Rita Saffioti (Labor) and Chris Tallentire (Labor) are the other members.

Public infrastructure for the Perth Waterfront is set to cost taxpayers $440 million – of which $170 million is expected to be recouped from land sales.

REFUSED ACCESS

The Parliamentary committee was refused access to break-downs of expected project costs on the grounds that disclosure might jeopardise the tendering process for the Waterfront.

“Public cynicism is arguably heightened when public money is spent on what might best be described as ‘optional’ projects and where the need for the project is not immediately obvious,” the report counselled.

“Construction of a $500 million hospital is less controversial than the construction [of] a $500 million inner-city redevelopment because the need for healthy communities is usually immediately apparent, whereas the need for an activated inner-city is not.”

Appearing before the committee, the bureaucrat managing the Waterfront project – Glen Finn – admitted it had not yet been included in the WA Planning Commission’s Strategic Asset Management Framework because the project was a “priority of government”.

This was despite the committee having urged in November 2010 that such ‘fast-tracked projects’ be subject to the framework as far as possible. The framework is a high-level risk-management tool.

VISION NOT ENOUGH

In a June 2009 media release, Liberal Premier Colin Barnett first announced his support for the project.

The Parliamentary report noted that vision — even when backed by strong political commitment—was not enough.

“The committee agrees that Perth’s foreshore — potentially its best asset — is under-utilised,” the committee noted.

“Its city centre will need to grow to meet demand from commercial and residential tenants; and other, globally significant cities, have developed lively and vibrant waterfronts that have greatly contributed to the amenity and appeal of these cities.

“What does require close scrutiny, however, is the extent to which the waterfront redevelopment as currently proposed reflects the best option to meet these needs.”

‘DO NOTHING’

The report revealed that a ‘do nothing’ option – whereby the current grassy parkland by the Swan River would remain undeveloped – had never been evaluated.

This was because there had been a clear signal from the government that the project was to go ahead.

The committee noted the reduced size of the project from the one first mooted when Alan Carpenter was Premier was less cavalier but ran the risk of not fully energising the waterfront.

DISSENT

A minority report lodged by Mr Francis and Mr Krsticevic said some statements by the committee were unfairly critical and lacked evidence.

“We do not accept the observation that ‘there was a danger that value for money outcomes would be compromised’,” the Liberal MLAs wrote.

“If anything, any truly impartial observation of the $2.6 billion development of the Perth Waterfront – mostly funded by private sector development – can justify the state net contribution of an estimated $255–$300 million.

“In fact, when considering the benefits that will flow from areas such as employment, payroll tax, stamp duty and tourism, a 10 per cent investment by the state for a $2.6 billion project must be one of the greatest economic stimulus projects ever undertaken in Perth!”