More money spent on abandoned courts precinct
The Weatherill Government purchased the intellectual property rights to a new courts precinct plan – after it rejected the blueprint as not providing “value for money”.
The Government walked away from its much-hyped $500 million redevelopment of the courts administration precinct in March, arguing that the design from contracted developer Lend Lease “did not achieve the value for money proposition needed”.
Attorney-General John Rau said at the time the Lend Lease product was “fine”, however “the cost of their financing arrangements to the taxpayer wasn’t value for money compared to a state government build”.
The Auditor-General’s report tabled in parliament last month reveals the Government subsequently purchased the intellectual property to the plan from Lend Lease, despite opting not to pursue it.
“Audit was advised that the State has subsequently acquired the intellectual property within the Cabinet financial limit,” the report states.
This followed “negotiations to acquire the licence…within a set financial limit”.
You might like
“Acquisition of the intellectual property would enable the State to modify or develop this design and construct a facility as the State considers appropriate,” wrote Auditor-General Andrew Richardson.
The revelation has prompted renewed calls from the Opposition for the Government to reveal how much it has spent on the abandoned project.
Rau recently told parliament the purchase was in part to offset “potential unfairness” to the developer after the Government opted out of the build, arguing “it is reasonable that a proponent that has taken it that far and has worked that hard is not, basically, out of pocket on the exercise”.
“The government still, in my opinion…has to confront the fact that the courts’ physical infrastructure is no longer likely to be sustainable, and something has to be done,” Rau said.
Stay informed, daily
“If it turned out that the Government ultimately decided that a single build of that nature was the appropriate solution, in my view it was not an imprudent thing for the government to acquire the intellectual property and all that work so that we did not have to reinvent the wheel if we went down that track.”
He said the purchase was “quite a prudent option”, but could not reveal how much was spent, suggesting that was a question for Infrastructure Minister Stephen Mullighan.
In response to an inquiry from InDaily, a Government spokesman said:“The Government chose to purchase the IP so we retain the benefit of the work in the event of the project going ahead in the future.”
The Auditor-General’s report stated the Courts Administration Authority had incurred costs of $356,000 for the dumped project, of which $70,000 was funded by Mullighan’s Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.
DPTI incurred expenses of its own, and “received $2.8 million for the procurement process and funding to acquire the intellectual property”.
However, “the final amount spent was not confirmed”.
Mullighan told parliament he was advised “total project expenditure actuals, including procurement-related costs (totalled) $3.135 million”.
However, he said he would “come back with advice” as to how much had been paid, rather than allocated.
Opposition Legal Affairs spokeswoman Vickie Chapman said the Government had “paid for designs for something that it has no intention of building”.
“The Weatherill Government now needs to come clean with South Australians on how much this has cost and why it decided to purchase (the rights),” she said.
“This is similar to the prisons public private partnership debacle, which was cancelled by Labor and cost taxpayers $10 million in 2009…it’s time for the Weatherill Labor Government to come clean.”
