Secrecy clouds stadium plans

It is one of the most visible infrastructure projects in WA - when it suits the Barnett Government.

But getting even basic business and financial details about the new Perth stadium at Burswood is proving impossible as a cloak of secrecy is thrown over it.

Government stays quiet on operator bids

Bigger venue to lure major acts

In Parliament last week, Sport and Recreation Minister Mia Davies used a Dorothy Dix question to announce that the location of coaches boxes and change rooms for Fremantle and West Coast had been decided by a coin toss.

And the stadium has been used as a backdrop for many "good news" press conferences about accessibility for disabled fans, economic benefits for local contractors or the start of piling on site.

But when it comes to the commercial aspects of the stadium - and important accountability questions about what the impacts will be for taxpayers - the Government refuses to answer questions.

LATEST
FERRY IN MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS
SPOT FINES FOR LOUTS AND PETTY CRIME
DANIEL KERR HEADS SOUTH FOR NEW LIFE
UNI SHUTS WATER STUDY CENTRE
MISSING UK MEDICAL STUDENTS FEARED TO HAVE JOINED IS

Taxpayers are not being told what their exposure is to a 25-year contract with the stadium builder, a consortium led by Brookfield Multiplex.

Under the structure of the deal, the consortium is responsible for designing and building the stadium, financing 40 per cent of its capital cost and maintaining it for 25 years.

The 300-page contract, plus 45 schedules and five attachments totalling hundreds more pages, has been published on Treasury's website but every financial detail has been scrubbed.

More than 500 contract clauses have been removed, including financial models and details of a fines regime that applies if the consortium does not maintain the venue to agreed standards.

The Government has agreed to pay the consortium 60 per cent of the $902 million capital costs of the stadium and the surrounding sports precinct in monthly payments until the stadium is finished in early 2018, though the exact value of these payments and their timing is not disclosed.

During the 25-year operating phase, the Government will make a "monthly service payment" that covers the remaining 40 per cent of the construction cost, interest and maintenance costs.

The value of these payments is not disclosed.

In a "project summary" document released by Treasury, it is claimed that getting the consortium to build, part-finance and maintain the stadium will save taxpayers 21 per cent (or $324 million in current dollar terms) over 25 years, compared with the Government doing the job itself.

But there is zero financial information provided that underpins the claim, making it impossible to assess independently.

The contract makes provision for the consortium to get a 500sqm designated space in the stadium for a "commercial opportunity" but any details of what this might be are removed from the document.

Department of Sport and Recreation officials refused to answer what the commercial opportunity would be when asked at an Upper House financial estimates committee hearing last month.

At the same hearing, Labor's Ken Travers asked how much the annual payments and life cycle maintenance costs for the new Perth stadium would be.

This week, Ms Davies formally refused to answer the question by issuing a notice under s.82 of the Financial Management Act, saying she had decided the information was "of a commercially confidential nature that should not be revealed".

"If released, this information would disadvantage the State and mislead bidders in future negotiations of this kind as it would highlight the terms and conditions accepted by the State for this transaction, whereas those terms and conditions may not be appropriate for future contracts for different projects," she said.

"It could also jeopardise future negotiations as prospective tenderers may be apprehensive of entering into contracts with the State if their information becomes public, particularly as this information has been specifically identified in the agreement as being confidential."

Mr Travers said the level of secrecy surrounding the project was "unacceptable".

"There can be no justification for the public not knowing the real cost of the stadium project," he said.

"What is Mr Barnett trying to hide?"