BA YSIDE DEVELOPMENT and AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT Wednesday, 10 June 1992 COUNCIL 1439 The real concern we have now is whether anything I hope that agreement will be completed by February can be done with the Bayside project or whether it is 1989, to allow the construction to start. going to be a barren wasteland for decades to come. It will be impossible to find a developer who will be There was no agreement and no construction. Again able to cope with the debts and liabilities that have on 15 November 1988 the Minister said: been built up on that site. That was never intended. On the three separate occasions that legislation was I am pleased to say that the project looks as though it is brought before this House and the Legislative about to proceed. We look forward to a development Assembly sought support for the Bayside agreement being finalised and signed, sealed and development it was never mentioned that there delivered - I hope - in February next year and the would be open-ended government guarantees or commencement of construction. massive government loans. The Deputy Premier in another place was wrong on television last night It goes on and on. On 9 December 1988 the Minister when he parroted out a line that the opposition added: supported the Bayside Bills. He was lying if he was saying that the opposition supported open-ended Timing for the passage of this Bill is important. It is debt and endless grants. Clearly the opposition did intended that construction work should commence in not and never will do that; its bottom line is that not early 1989. one more cent should be spent by this government on the Bayside development - the government has That did not happen. Presumably the performance wasted enough money! of this project must be measured against the government's promises, and until writs were issued If the Bayside development turns out to be some against the government about 10 days ago the only kind of physical monument to the failure of the Cain promises we had were to the effect that all was and Kirner governments, so be it. I would be very going well, that there were not any secret deals and Wleasy about supporting any submission that I may that the project would soon start - that we should have to take to Cabinet in a future government trust the government! suggesting that we need to bail out Bayside and that as a result we will have less money to spend on The opposition does not trust members of the hospitals, police stations, courthouses or schools, let government because they are part of the Cain-Kirner alone enjoining the support of anyone else or saying era and have the same financial standing as Rob to the community that the money has been well Jolly, the same credibility as Tom Roper and the spent - the money has been badly spent! same arrogance as Jim Kennan. This process began with the specific promises of the I would not trust them to spend their own money, Cain government. I wish to record the statements but they have spent ours! Time and again they made by members of the government, which issued public statements which were downright promised so much for the site and which have now dishonest and which in a real sense made the been conveniently forgotten - Jim Kennan, David Ministers liars. Those statements were not true; they White and Evan Walker want to forget them, and were designed to deceive and to make the public Joan Kirner will not even talk about them. feel something was happening when it was not. A media release dated 31 July 1990 states: In 1988 the then Minister for Major Projects said in relation to Bayside: The Minister for Major Projects, Mr David White, today announced signing the contract of sale and Timing for the passage of this Bill is important. It is development agreement for the Bayside project, intended that construction work should commence in conditional on the site being cleaned up to the early 1989, following signing of a development standards set by the Environmental Protection agreement scheduled for late 1988. Authority... Nothing along those lines occurred; there was no Another major benefit of the project is its timing. Work development agreement and the timing that was, in should start early next year, providing a large new the Minister's own words so important, became source of employment... something of the past. On 15 November 1988, in answer to a question on notice in this House, the That was in 1990, and Mr White said work should then Minister for Major Projects said: start early next year! BA YSIDE DEVELOPMENT and AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT 1440 COUNCIL Wednesday, 10 June 1992 Obviously the government used the same press The opposition and the media have got it wrong, release every six months because each one says the says the government; something is happening, says important thing is the timing, but it never happens. the government. But nothing is happening. We have to live with that and Victorian taxpayers have to pay On 12 November 1991 the next Minister for Major for it. Projects Mr Kennan, who is principally responsible for this development, issued a press release under As if it were not bad enough dealing with the most the heading "Starting date set for $700 million ominous question that shadow Ministers hear every Sandridge project". It states: day at public meetings: why would you want to win? The public knows the opposition will inherit a Victoria's economy received a boost today with the financial mess, and now it has another one. It is news that work will commence on the $700 million enormous. Sandridge project in December. The government says, 'We had to clean up the site". This was December 1991! Did work commence? Has I beg to differ: far from having to clean up the site the project been built or even started? No! the government issued compulsory acquisition notices to dismiss people from the site. Let us There is not even the illusory pile-driving that is assume there was a need to clean up the site and ask going on at the Museum site! If you go down to ourselves whether it was done properly. Did the Southbank there is no developer, no finance and no government get the clean-up right? The final design, but to give the impression of activity Auditor-General thinks not, and confirms cement piles are being pumped into the ground. The everything the opposition has been saying for two government did not do us the dignity of even and a half years in relation to this project. The conning us properly with Bayside! There ain't clean-up of sites should be paid for principally by no thin' down there; it is vacant dirt. the companies that pollute them. "Polluter pays" is a difficult concept if you are the recipient of it but, I am looking forward to the Minister's response. I nevertheless, it is the law of the land. Surprise, hope it comes from his heart rather than the mind of surprise! Who picked up the tab on this site? It was the press secretary of the Minister for Major Projects. the Victorian taxpayer. Who got away with it almost If he wants to say great things are happening at scot-free? It was BP Australia Ltd! It was the Bayside or that senior citizen units are being built I polluter. The site was grossly contaminated by that suggest he reads the Auditor-General's report and company's private usage. To be fair, it occurred asks himself whether in the wake of his high moral when there were no real environmental imperatives stand on the land deals debate he thinks it is slightly and no environmental awareness, but BP was the shonky that no tenders were entered into for the polluter of the site. Because of the government's housing development on the Bayside site. incompetence and the EPA's mismanagement the company paid only $4.5 million of the total Just to finish the selection of quotes of Ministers who $20 million clean-up cost. The site is now impeccably were clearly lying through their teeth, I wish to clean; it has been cleaned up to a standard that is a mention the statement of 26 May 1992 from the world best, but the site will probably be empty for Deputy Premier, the Minister for Major Projects, many years to come. The government failed to Mr Kennan in which he states: recover the cost of the clean-up from the body it should have recovered it from. As I understand it, more than $50 million has already been invested in cleaning up the site, land It can be argued, as the Auditor-General has argued consolidation and the provision of infrastructure. on page 5 of his report, that the EPA set far too stringent standards for the clean-up of the site and It is a lie; it is not true and the Deputy Premier will as a consequence the State had to pick up the larger now not even repeat it because he has been caught bill. The clear conclusion is that the government out misleading the Parliament and the public. The could not even clean up the site well. It mismanaged money was not spent for those purposes. Part of it its basic duties and passed the larger bill to the was spent on such bizarre things as the average Victorian.