MERCURY CAMPAIGN - Main Event
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws show the NSW government ignored some of its own guidelines when it rejected a funding request to turn WIN Entertainment Centre into a fully fledged convention centre.
The documents reveal the convention centre plan was knocked back using a narrow and incomplete definition of how Restart NSW funds should be spent.
The request for $28.05 million to transform the WEC into a convention centre did not make the short list for spending the Illawarra Infrastructure Fund, the $100 million set aside for the region from the privatisation of Port Kembla.
The decision was made by ‘‘senior officers from the Department of Premier and Cabinet and Infrastructure NSW’’, the documents show.
Venues NSW was not satisfied with the outcome and asked for the decision to be reviewed.
The documents show the office of the Sports Minister – then Graham Annesley – also wanted to see the reasons for the decision documented.
Infrastructure NSW CEO Jim Betts wrote to both parties saying the project ‘‘failed to meet the criteria’’, but the criteria he then listed were incomplete.
His letter says the Restart NSW Act defines ‘‘eligible infrastructure projects’’ as those which improve the economic growth and productivity of the region by improving:
• Public transport,
• Roads,
• Infrastructure required for the economic competitiveness of the region,
• Hospitals and health infrastructure, or
• Workplaces for staff providing frontline services to the public.
This is taken from section 6(1) of the Restart NSW Act.
But Mr Betts’ list leaves out section 6(1)(iv) of that Act, which says projects are also eligible if they are ‘‘local infrastructure in regional areas that are affected by mining operations’’.
Wollongong is one of the areas specifically listed by the state government as being affected by mining.
Mr Betts wrote ‘‘the Restart NSW Illawarra Fund Guidelines also explicitly define the above assessment criteria’’.
But the Illawarra guidelines, available on the Infrastructure NSW website, include the ‘‘mining affected’’ criteria.
They also list other criteria for assessing the projects , including net economic benefit for the Illawarra and NSW, strategic benefits (such as transformation and employment opportunities), reach, resilience, project attributes, and alignment with NSW government objectives.
Advocates for the WEC convention project argue that because it would help boost economic competitiveness in an area affected by mining, it would comply with the criteria – if all were considered.
It would also score points in the economic benefit and employment transformation criteria.
The documents obtained by the Mercury show Venues NSW chairman John Quayle pointing out that the ‘‘mining-affected’’ criteria had been left out, and asking that the decision be reviewed.
Mr Quayle argued the purpose of the centre would be to ‘‘grow the visitor economy in the Illawarra’’, by attracting more events and people, supporting regional investment and jobs.
The original decision was reviewed by an ‘‘Illawarra Assessment Panel’’ which included former UOW vice-chancellor Gerard Sutton, former Wollongong lord mayor Alex Darling, and former Illawarra Coal president Colin Bloomfield.
Also present at the panel meeting were Brendan Leary from the NSW Treasury, Finance Department representative Hugo Harmstorf and Infrastructure NSW executive director Erin Flaherty.
The review panel confirmed the original decision.
Yesterday the Mercury asked Infrastructure NSW if the decision would be reviewed owing to the omission of a key criterion.
‘‘The WIN Convention Centre Expression of Interest (EoI) was twice considered against the full suite of criteria, including local infrastructure in regional areas that are affected by mining operations, and was deemed ineligible on both occasions,’’ was the reply.
‘‘The detailed explanation of the criteria can be found on Infrastructure NSW’s website.
‘‘The email and related notes...were overviews of a structured and complex assessment process, and do not purport to be the assessment process itself.
‘‘As you can see from the minutes of the [assessment] panel’s meeting, there was a full discussion ‘at which a range of views were canvassed’ but the panel again determined its original assessment was appropriate.’’
Projects that were successful in making the Illawarra short list include the South Coast Sporting and Football Complex at West Dapto, the Bald Hill Improvement Project at Stanwell Tops, a new wharf and amenities at the Kiama Blowhole, the new SES unit headquarters in Wollongong, and Stage1 of the Grand Pacific Walk in Wollongong’s northern suburbs.
The Mercury has obtained most of the documents relating to the project’s rejection, but much of the minutes of the assessment panel meeting were redacted.
Related stories