Mr BAYLEY – Can I ask about stormwater and particularly the preparation of the site prior to the ministerial direction to pursue the stadium? Did you deliver stormwater across the site, particularly in the northern part of the site that now needs to be replaced because of the size of the stadium and the new configuration of what’s designed for the site and the like?
Ms BEACH – The stormwater requirements reflect the development of the site. We are looking at a whole-of-precinct management of stormwater, not a development-by-development. There’re a few things to consider. While we’ve remediated the site, there is still risk of contamination from exposed soil, so during construction stages, we will need to manage holding spaces or treatment to protect as we are quite close to the water. Once the site is fully developed, those aren’t a risk, so the runoff is less likely to expose to any of those contaminants.
As part of the order that’s before the parliament, there is a requirement to set out some of those storm-water specifics. We have been using the existing storm-water facilities that are in place as part of the development of the precinct. They will need to be increased and we’re working through the specifics of that design and the pathway to remove the water from the site.
Mr BAYLEY – I think Ms Beach did refer to the fact that there was a year hiatus when there wasn’t a ministerial statement of expectations. I’ve raised this in the past, but when minister Barnett, as the previous minister, directed the corporation to pursue the stadium, he issued a new set of ministerial directions which explicitly dropped some commercial activity requirements. I will read them in. He removed the requirement that,
1. the minister expects the corporation to only carry out commercial activities that are consistent with the corporation’s principal objectives and functions;
2. appropriately costed and carefully managed, with the objective that in the absence of a higher priority, the activities deliver a commercial return acceptable to the board; and
3. that are compliant with the government’s competitive neutrality principles.
You’ve issued a new set of statement of expectations in July. Despite the fact that this was brought to the attention of the government, it doesn’t appear that those requirements have been reinserted into the Ministerial Statement of Expectations. Why is that? Do you not think that Mac Point Development Corporation needs to be compliant with the government’s competitive neutrality principles or do you not think it should appropriately cost and carefully manage its commercial expenditure?
Mr ABETZ – All those factors are important factors. I didn’t do a comparison, from recollection, between mine and Mr Barnett’s. I’m happy to take that on notice and have a look at the differences.
Ms BEACH – I note that the existing whole-of-government policies apply to us regardless, so we’re required to follow those. The statements of expectations are often used to highlight key things that the government would like us to focus on, not necessarily all our obligations, so they are required. And our act requires us in our principal functions and objectives to, where practical, make a return. While those things aren’t specifically listed in the statement of expectations, those expectations are otherwise upon the corporation.
Mr BAYLEY – I can appreciate that, but I do find it alarming that on instructing or directing the corporation to pursue the stadium these expectations that you’re consistent with the principles and objectives that appropriately costed and managed and compliant with the government’s competitive neutrality principles are explicitly dropped out of the ministerial statement of expectations.
Mr ABETZ – That’s an extravagant use of language there but as I understand from Ms Beach’s evidence, these are requirements in the legislation in any event.
Unknown – That’s correct.
Mr BAYLEY – That begs the question as to why they were there in the first place if that’s the case.
Mr ABETZ – You know me, a man of few words, so if it doesn’t have to be stated, I won’t state it.
Mr BAYLEY – Can you take on notice an explanation around that? Is that what you offered, minister?
Mr ABETZ – Yes, I’m happy to have a look at that.
Mr BAYLEY – Thank you.
Mr BAYLEY – Minister, can you outline whether the Macquarie Point Development Corporation is subject to the efficiency and productivity unit and is subject to the same lens as every other kind of government agency and department?
Ms BEACH – Through you, minister. We’re an agency but not a department and as a public non‑financial corporation we don’t receive an allocation like departments do. We receive an operating grant, so we’re expected to carefully manage the operating funds that we have and live within those means and I imagine those expectations will continue.
