House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Ministerial Statement Adelaide Oval ADELAIDE OVAL The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly Port Adelaide Deputy Premier Minister for Federal/State Relations Minister for Defence Industries The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (11:02): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I rise today to correct information I have previously provided to the house regarding the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. In the previous week of sitting, on Wednesday 26 May, I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition, namely: On what date was the Treasurer first aware that the $450 million funding contribution announced on 2 December 2009 was going to be insufficient to deliver the proposed FIFA compliant stadium? In answering that question I responded to the leader that: …over a number of weeks—in reports that I was given verbally, that there were concerns about the scope and the cost of the works. We continually requested that the SMA look at doing all it can to remain within the budget allocation that the government had provided, but about a week or so ago, it was clear that that was not going to happen. I also stated in response to an interjection that: ...I was not made aware in any way, shape or form prior to the election that the 450 [million] would not be sufficient. The following day, Thursday 27 May, I gave a ministerial statement to the house providing further and more detailed information about when I was first advised that the costs of the redevelopment were estimated to exceed the government's contribution of $450 million. In order to prepare this statement, my staff conducted a search of office records to establish when I was first advised of this. The search of records and the preparation of that statement were done to establish for the house precisely when I was advised verbally, and subsequently in writing. This was done to clarify my earlier comments where I had said in the house 'reports I was given verbally' and 'about a week or so ago'. I did not recall, nor were my staff aware, that I was in receipt of information prior to the election that the costs were estimated to be higher than the government's $450 million contribution. My ministerial statement on that Thursday referred to a verbal update that I was given on 30 March. The update, which indicated escalating costs, was followed by written advice from the Department of Treasury and Finance on 1 April, which also indicated escalating costs for the project. My statement to the house then outlined that I sought further, more detailed and up-to-date advice, which I received from Treasury on 18 May. My statement also addressed a further question from the member for Davenport regarding a meeting I had with the Stadium Management Authority on 3 March during the state election campaign. In that respect, I advised the house that: This was an early [morning] meeting to show design concepts that were emerging from the work of the authority. Given that the government was in caretaker mode during the election campaign period, in my view it would have been inappropriate to receive information regarding cost estimates or discussions about the government's contribution to the project. It was indicated at the outset of that meeting that cost estimates were not to be mentioned or discussed. I can confirm to the house that the cost estimates were not included in that briefing. However, I can advise the house that I did attend another meeting with the Stadium Management Authority with members of the government steering committee on 13 April, where further design concepts were shown and discussions about costs took place. It was clear at this meeting that, based on those designs and the scope of the work being conducted, the total cost for both core stadium works as well as other project enhancements would exceed the government's contribution. However, it was further discussed that the work needed further refinement, and detailed costings and that accurate costings remained some time away. I raise this last meeting to put it on the record only. In giving my ministerial statement to the house on 27 May, it was my honest and genuine belief that I had provided the most accurate information possible. I take my obligation to provide the house with accurate and complete information very seriously. Accordingly, it has always been my practice as a minister to check the record and come back to the house with revised information as and when appropriate. Indeed, that same day, on 27 May, I made a further ministerial statement following question time in order to correct an answer I had provided to the member for Davenport earlier on a related matter. On the evening of the last parliamentary sitting day, on 27 May, where I had made the two ministerial statements, my chief of staff had a telephone conversation with a Treasury official to confirm the information that had been provided to the house. During this conversation, the officer pointed out that documents provided to my office included attachments to the Treasury advice of 18 May (and referred to in my ministerial statement on 27 May), which gave more detailed and up-to-date cost estimates of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment costs. One of the attachments to this Treasury advice was a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the government steering committee held on 22 February. The minute notes Leigh Whicker's comments to the committee that he had met with me on 19 February, the day prior to writs being issued for the recent state election, and that he raised estimated costs of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. The following points are included in this minute, which state: Leigh Whicker advised the outcome of initial estimates from consultants that indicated a cost of the project of $469 million, excluding the costs of car parks, the Western Stand and the footbridge. This worked out to approximately $10,700 per seat. Leigh advised that he had met the Treasurer and provided a briefing on those estimates. It was acknowledged that the costs were well in excess of the government's planned $360 million investment after deducting the $5 million design grant and $85 million for the Western Stand. It further states: Discussion then followed that these estimates were preliminary only and should not/could not be relied upon. I repeat: Discussion then followed that these estimates were preliminary only and should not/could not be relied upon. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will repeat that, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the house: Discussion then followed that these estimates were preliminary only and should not/could not be relied upon. The final design had not been determined and there were many variances which may have a material impact (up or down) on the final costing. This information will not be available for several weeks. When I provided my answers to questions from the opposition during the last week of sitting, I did not recall this meeting and discussions that occurred. Following the conversation between my chief of staff and the Treasury official on the evening of Thursday 27 May, my chief of staff raised this matter with me. On the following morning, I was shown the document. It was only when I saw the document that my memory was refreshed and I recalled the meeting with Leigh Whicker. It was then apparent to me that my earlier advice to the house was incorrect. Clearly, both my staff and I had overlooked this reference to the meeting in the numerous attachments to the Treasury advice. The minutes were one of 12 documents comprising four attachments of some 60 pages in total that were attached to the Treasury advice. This oversight meant that I had failed to recall the meeting or the discussions that took place during it when I provided my advice to the house on Thursday 27 May or indeed in days prior to it. I immediately resolved to advise the house of this information at the earliest available opportunity, as my obligation under the conventions of the Westminster system dictates and as I had done twice on Thursday 27 May. As members would be aware, in fact I chose to admit my mistake earlier. On Wednesday 2 June I held a press conference where I outlined publicly my mistake. I did so for a number of reasons. The matter was the subject of continuing speculation in the media, and I felt it appropriate to set the record straight. Also, I felt that, given that there were three weeks between the sittings of the house, it was preferable to make the correct information publicly available sooner rather than later. I believed it was in the public interest to correct the record. Madam Speaker, I hope you accept my intentions in making the information publicly available prior to correcting the record in the house; my actions were in no way designed to diminish the importance of the parliament or the house receiving this information in the first instance. Accordingly, I am now providing the correct information to the house. The circumstances surrounding the meeting with Mr Whicker on 19 February, and my inability to recall it, have been the subject of much conjecture. My opponents have been quick to accuse me of deliberately misleading the house and saying that I should resign from the ministry as a result. Central to their argument is that it is inconceivable that I would not recall earlier the meeting or what was discussed at it. I strenuously reject those allegations and accusations. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The meeting was held at Mr Whicker's office at AAMI Stadium, and I attended on my own on the way back from my electorate office to the city. Once I sighted the minutes referring to this meeting and Mr Whicker's reference to costs being discussed there, I recalled the meeting and that there was a discussion about the initial estimates of the cost of the redevelopment. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier is making a ministerial statement; he is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr Williams interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: There were several matters raised at this meeting, which was primarily about the administration and future of football in this state. Members may recall that at the time there was much public debate about the future of the Port Adelaide Magpies and that the SANFL board had recently considered proposals to address the club's ongoing financial sustainability. My recollection is that Mr Whicker asked me to meet with him to discuss these matters, which also canvassed the broader health of South Australian football, including the Adelaide Football Club, the Port Adelaide Football Club and the SANFL clubs. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Leader! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: My recollection is that the reference to the potential costs of the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval were fleeting and that, given the preliminary nature of the work that had been done at that stage, the estimates lacked sufficient substance to them. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I did not place much weight on the information at the time, because it appeared that the cost estimates— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Do members want to hear what the Deputy Premier has to say or not? If you do not, please leave. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I did not place much weight on the information at the time, because it appeared that the cost estimates were only at a very early stage of preparation, the scope of the project had not been adequately determined and much more work needed to be undertaken on the design and costs. Mr Williams interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Indeed, as the minutes to the subsequent steering committee outlined, the final design had not been determined, and further information would not be available for several weeks. Furthermore, the government had made it clear at that stage that its commitment was capped at $450 million. During a press conference held on 2 March during the election campaign I was asked questions regarding the redevelopment, and at that press conference I made reference to having met with Mr Whicker in recent days and said that I was meeting with him again the following day. My mistake in providing incorrect information to the house was in not recalling the meeting of 19 February whilst I was on my feet answering questions from the opposition on Wednesday 26 May and again in the preparation and delivery of the ministerial statement subsequently on Thursday 27 May. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! This issue will be heard in silence. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: As you could imagine, the meeting occurred on the day before the election was called. It would be fair to say that I had an expectation that the election campaign proper was about to begin and I was largely preoccupied with the impending campaign. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: In conclusion on this issue, I sincerely apologise to both you, Madam Speaker, and the house for inadvertently providing incorrect information in the last sitting week and, accordingly, I have now corrected the record. Lastly, yesterday the opposition has accused me again of misleading the house over the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval. The opposition has cited extracts of my answer to a question in parliament on 13 May where I said: ...but I can say today to the house that the upgrade of Adelaide Oval—if the opposition is trying to suggest that it would be an expansion of its footprint—will be built within the existing footprint of Adelaide Oval. The opposition then contrasted that statement with a selective quotation from information provided in the fact sheet released by the Stadium Management Authority on last Friday 18 June. The opposition quotes the sentence below from the fact sheet: At this stage of the concept design, the east stand will extend 9 to 15 metres further east. However, the opposition neglected to include the sentence immediately after: Current indications are there could be a significant overall net return of parklands and public spaces. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: My comments to the house were based on my understanding that the project designers were seeking to provide a net gain in Parklands from the redevelopment plans. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Marshall interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Norwood! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: This is clearly confirmed in the fact sheet from the Stadium Management Authority. The opposition has only quoted the first sentence in its attempt to misrepresent my comments in order to support its spurious allegation. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The opposition's claim further lacks credibility in that it seems to allege that I have misled the parliament due to— Mr Williams interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop will be quiet or he will be asked to go. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The opposition's claim further lacks credibility in that it seeks to allege that I had misled parliament due to my information over five weeks ago being inconsistent with that provided last Friday. My comments to the house are, in any event, confirmed by the information provided in the fact sheet. The failure of the opposition to include the SMA's comments in full—that there could be a significant overall net return of Parklands and public spaces—demonstrates the baselessness of the opposition's allegations. Whilst I do fully accept responsibility for inaccuracies given to the parliament relating to when I was first advised of possible cost overruns in the project— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Whilst I do fully accept responsibility for inaccuracies given to the parliament relating to when I was first advised of possible cost overruns in the project for which I have now followed correct parliamentary procedure and corrected the record, I totally reject the second allegation by the opposition. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport.