Page 1171 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That was what the government offered. But as it turns out, it was not quite what it could have been or clubs thought it was going to be. Over the last few months the issue has gone somewhat off the rails. Today, we have a situation where most, if not all, clubs and people likely to benefit from such a development do not want what is currently on offer. If we start with the consultants’ report, you will see just how narrow the focus was.
The government engaged Cardno, a professional infrastructure and environmental services company with expertise in the development and improvement of physical and social infrastructure for communities around the world. Cardno’s website says that their team includes leading professionals who plan, design, manage and deliver sustainable projects and community programs. Presumably, they know what they are doing, so they cannot be blamed.
But when you look at what their brief was, this is where the problem arose. You know that they had their hands tied to deliver one outcome and one outcome only. Their brief was to look at existing southside grass athletic tracks at Woden, Kambah, Chapman, Calwell and Banks to assess their suitability as a synthetic track.
The assumption was that the proposed venue would cater for continental, regional and area cups over a maximum period of two days. That and other considerations are the minimum requirements of an IAAF-compliant facility. So to start with, the consultants’ brief was very narrow. There are claims that the consultation was too brief and too one-sided. One of the prime areas that have arisen all the way through discussions with athletics over the last 10 to 15 years has been Stromlo. That did not get a look-in on this assessment.
Certainly, they did not talk to clubs. Cardno talked through the associations. They did not talk to clubs but restricted their discussions to the association level. Perhaps in hindsight they would have been wise to dig a little deeper, and perhaps members in this Assembly might have been wise to do that also. The report acknowledges that there are preferred options that have not had the opportunity to be fully tested. However, somewhat misleadingly, they mention that a greenfield site “on our experience on projects with similar level of facilities our broad estimate of probable cost would be in the order of $25 million to $40 million”.
Nowhere is there anything that gives any detail to that statement nor to the exact site they looked at. Presumably, it alludes to Stromlo. Why that was not asked to be further examined in more detail is, I guess, the missing piece in this very intricate jigsaw puzzle. It is totally misleading to make those claims about $25 million to $40 million and worse for those figures to be used as a lever to clubs.
The option is: “Here we are; this will cost $25 million to $40 million. We don’t know how. We haven’t got the exact details, but that’s what it will cost you.” On the other hand we are told, “We can do something for you for $4.7 million, even though it does not meet all the specifications you need.” It is totally misleading to make those claims and worse for those figures to be used as a lever to clubs.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video