SAFC at Glenside

[how_good_is_he]

Call it corruption, call it mis-management but I would rather see things being done in this state than wasteland sites like North Adelaide continuing to sit idle.
So the govt could save millions here and there....well guess what, they will just blow the money someone else anyway!
I believe Keynesian ecomomics, which says you are better off paying someone to dig a hole and paying someone else to fill it as it creates a multiplier effect. Money circulates around the economy and the result is multiplied many times over and leads to a better standard of living for ALL.
Govt's are voted in by democracy so basically they are given a mandate to do whatever the F#%$ they want. If you dont agree with their decisions then vote against them next time or start your own party. Anyway I believe this belongs on a political website and not in this forum.

[stumpjumper]

hgih, this issue is certainly political, but it is also intimately involved with development, so it is as legitimate to discuss it here as it is to discuss design or urban planning issues.

Tonight, Rann said on the TV news that we don't need an ICAC because 'we disclose everything'. Patently, his government doesn't. I can give you a list of unexpected non-disclosures.

Example: The publicly funded 'business case' completed by Aurecon (formerly Connell Wagner) which justifies spending $43 million on Australia's worst-performing, loss-making state film body's move to Glenside is not available. The reasons for not disclosing the report cannot be given for reasons that cannot be disclosed. For crying out loud, why the secrecy? It's the SA Film Corporation, not ''Defence SA' or some security outfit.

As for the rough justice of saying that, effectively, the only law is that we have elections, and that once elected a government has a mandate to do anything. An elected government is bound by the law, just as you and I are. We can break it, but we must expect sanctions if we do. That's the 'social contract' at the foundation of responsible democratic government.

I think I know why Rann is not keen on disclosure and ICAC's. Here is the reason: Over the years, the Rann government has developed a way of doing its business in which many deals are done in private meetings, phone calls, private payments (??) and so on, and only a partial record is available to the public. Lack of transparency breeds suspicion.

The cone of silence would be acceptable up to a point if the government were a private company risking the funds of voluntary investors. But it's not. It is a public entity handling taxpayers' money. There is a huge difference.

If you disagree on that basic point, then there's no use in our arguing. However, as I have said, the problem will only get worse if it is not stopped. There are plenty of historical examples for that, and it would be disastrous for SA to go down the same road.

[how_good_is_he]

Ok essentially you have to actually trust in the govt. & that what they are doing is for the good of the people. If you dont believe this basic premise then you will always be skeptical/suspicious and you may as well move to another place [ps can you give me an idea of which place/govts you consider as a role model to look up to].

Sure there may be kickbacks, sweetners, grubby deals blah, blah, blah but that is life & the cost of doing business.
People don't do nothing for nothing. Sometimes you have to be prepared to grease the cogs to keep the big machine working. Look at the big picture & not just focus on the back room wheeling and dealing.

If the SAFC development [or any other] creates 1 or 1000 jobs what value to you put on that? What value do you put on a family having the financial security to buy a house in this state, bring children up here, be able to afford them a good education etc?

You almost expect a running commentary from the govt about the decisions they are making to spend our money - well you ain't going to get it.

Maybe not because they are corrupt or have something to hide. It is just that they havent the time or the inclination to explain to us the numerous permutations and factors that go into the decision making process. Its a bit like going on a plane flight and you sitting behind the pilot & wanting to know what is going on every step of the way. Well you paid for the flight but it doesnt give you control to try to take over/distract him/her from the operation. If you can do better - why dont you give it a try rather than be just another armchair critic. Lets see how you go in the pilots seat if you think you can steer this thing better!

In short, they have been voted in to do a job, just let them do it.

[stumpjumper]

hgih you are saying, essentially, that the government is not to be bound by the law - that their job is to deliver and if they choose to use bribery and corruption in delivering, well, that's ok.

I have 'tried it', by the way. I have project managed several building projects in which I have had to stay within the law regarding tendering etc. I have employed and fired people, again having to regard the law on discrimination and unfair dismissal.

But you wouldn't mind, for example if you applied for a job as a media adviser in Kevin Foley's office, a $90,000 pa job for an experienced journalist etc. There were many applications, but the job went to Rob Manilauskas, younger brother of Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association state secretary Peter Manilauskas. Young Rob was a 22 year old cadet journalist on about $35,000 pa until his sudden elevation to $90,000 in a minister's office.

Let's say you have extensive experience in labor law and insurance. You put yourself up for the spare spot on the WorkCover board - a handy $50,000 pa for the part-time position. You miss the job - it goes to 27 year old Peter Manilauskas who has little relevant experience but is state secretary of the SDA.

Your sister goes for a job as liaison officer in the office of Michael Atkinson, the Attorney-General. Your sister is well-qualified, but the job goes to Elizabeth Malinauskas, who is not really qualified but who is the sister of SDA chief Peter Manilauskas.

Oh well, there's another adviser job going in the A-G's office and your sister applies for that, but the job goes to Elizabeth Hollidge, who is not really qualified but is SDA boss Peter Manilauskas' girlfriend.

All this within a few weeks of Peter Manilauskas taking up his position.

Best to forget the A-G's office altogether. Almost everyone there is associated with the SDA including of course the A-G himself who is a 'Shoppie'. In fact the SDA loyally guard the A-G Michael Atkinson, who would have been sacked long ago if it weren't for the SDA's support.

'The Attorney-General doesn't go anywhere, Premier, no matter what he does and no matter how many unions go public and say that this bloke is hopeless and that he should be got rid of.' (
The Advertiser - SDA State Secretary Don Farrell issuing instructions to Mike Rann in 2007 .

The SDA grip on the A-G's department and on the government in general is just one facet of the way this government operates. It's the reason we don't have 24 hour trading in the CBD. It's the reason Tom Koutsantonis got and is keeping his job.

It's the reason departing SDA state secretary Don Farrell picked up a $60,000 termination payment as he left the job to take up the SDA's senate seat. He wasn't made redundant - there was no restructure, yet he got the $60K kick from taxpayers' funds. A question in parliament asking for a justification has joined the almost 600 questions on notice awaiting a government response.

If you're happy with this sort of thing, with a government where merit has little to do with appointment, then good luck to you.

I'm simply putting forward the radical suggestion that the government be subject to the same rule of law it imposes on the rest of us.

And now we are seeing the same thing happen at Glenside with the SAFC move. Secrecy, papers being taken into cabinet meetings to give them protection from Freedom of Information applications, secret tenders, refusal by ministers to answer questions - I say again, why the secrecy?? It's a film corporation, not ASIO.

[how_good_is_he]

Your line where you say the govt may choose bribery & corruption highlights your slant. Have you ever thought that the govt itself is the one compromised and are forced down a particular path [and not neccessarily because they want to.]
People in power are often faced with tough decision where sometimes there is no easy answer or infact collateral damage.
I give you the example, a high-jacked plane flight with many innocent people is heading for a major skyscraper. The person in power gets the plane fired upon and taken down [even though its illegal for us to kill others ie murder]. The family members of the victims say they werent consulted, it wasnt transparent, it could have been averted blah, blah, blah because the decision affects them adversely - however it is the right decision for the greater good of the society.
Have you ever thought that the govt gets told by the developers of say Port Adelaide that unless they give x,y,z commitment[ie get rid of the shipyards, spend $50m to get rid of the contamination etc they [or anybody else] arent going to touch it & not spend there billions of dollars on our wasteland creating a better place & thousand of jobs? What would your decision be?
Have you ever thought the federal govt. tells the state govt. you need to to do this, this and this if you want say a grant for $100m for Glenside?
So is this corruption or bribery? Ok then dont play the game & the society is the one that misses out.

[stumpjumper]

Your line where you say the govt may choose bribery & corruption highlights your slant. Have you ever thought that the govt itself is the one compromised and are forced down a particular path [and not neccessarily because they want to.]

Slant? Wanting the government to keep within the law and be accountable is a 'slant'?

People in power are often faced with tough decision where sometimes there is no easy answer or infact collateral damage.

Absolutely true.

I give you the example, a high-jacked plane flight with many innocent people is heading for a major skyscraper. The person in power gets the plane fired upon and taken down [even though its illegal for us to kill others ie murder]. The family members of the victims say they werent consulted, it wasnt transparent, it could have been averted blah, blah, blah because the decision affects them adversely - however it is the right decision for the greater good of the society.

There are emergency powers, already agreed by parliament, which the government can invoke to cover its actions, even homicide, in the case of rogue planes etc. These include shooting down such planes. No problem there.

Have you ever thought that the govt gets told by the developers of say Port Adelaide that unless they give x,y,z commitment[ie get rid of the shipyards, spend $50m to get rid of the contamination etc they [or anybody else] arent going to touch it & not spend there billions of dollars on our wasteland creating a better place & thousand of jobs? What would your decision be?

If I were in the government, I would not rule out or guarantee supporting the project without assessing it. The project would be investigated by the appropriate authority and debated in parliament. On the other hand, if I were a developer who claimed that if the government gave me a $50 million legup, I would deliver a fantastic new housing development at say, Jupiter Creek in the Adelaide Hills, I would not expect the cheque in the mail tomorrow. Before the government funded the project, it would have a good look at it.

I might try to influence the government decision, by bribery etc, but any minister or public servant taking up my bribe would have to justify the decision to approve in the event that the project was a dud and the government money was wasted or disappeared in my consultancy fees.

Have you ever thought the federal govt. tells the state govt. you need to to do this, this and this if you want say a grant for $100m for Glenside?
So is this corruption or bribery? Ok then dont play the game & the society is the one that misses out.

Contingent federal funding is not the problem. The problem for SA with Glenside is that the government is both applicant and assessor. The result is a highly secretive process with a lot of contradictory statements around. It's almost impossible for the parliamentary opposition let alone a member of the public to find out what is really going on.

You say that doesn't matter, that I should trust these guys. I say it does matter, and that I'm not prepared to trust some of these guys and their associates.

What's more, even if Foley, Rann and Conlon are angels with only the public benefit in mind, if there are no controls or reviews, then what is to stop a special interest group from gaining effective control in SA, to their own advantage but to the detriment of the taxpayers?

[how_good_is_he]

Your slant is to summarize or suspect a lack of transparency as corruption/bribery - which I think is totally naive.

The plane scenario is an analogy to highlight that people in power need to make decisions which they simply haven't the luxury [or inclination] to report, debate and discuss and it has nothing to do with corruption. They just maybe want to actually achieve something or get something done.

If the govt spent even more time reporting, discussing & debating - it would be just one big talk-fest. The thing about being a leader is the ability to be able to make decisions [often hard ones] & in a timely manner.

Look at North Adelaide as a classic example. There was [and will always be] 2 sides to the arguement, it dragged on for 20 years, the ones that lost still think the decision was wrong/corrupt - so what did all the debate, public consultation blah, blah, blah achieve anyway?

[stumpjumper]

Sure there are things the government must be able to do quickly and without consultation, legitmised by their election mandate.

However, property dealing is a relatively slow process, and where public property and public funds are involved there must be accountability, and that involves transparency. This applies to many other government dealings as well.

[stumpjumper]

Look at North Adelaide as a classic example. There was [and will always be] 2 sides to the arguement, it dragged on for 20 years, the ones that lost still think the decision was wrong/corrupt - so what did all the debate, public consultation blah, blah, blah achieve anyway?

It did drag on for 20 years, during which at least four developments were approved by the Adelaide City Council and the community pressure group/s. Each proposal approved exceeded the planning constraints of the Adelaide Development Plan by a significant amount (floor area, height etc).

However, the owner wanted more height, more floor area, despite its purchase price being based on the development potential allowed under the Development Plan at the time.

The owner's demands were resisted by the government, Council, by the Rundle St traders and by a majority of local residents (whose views you would probably discount). The only way out (other than building one of the four non-complying but previously approved projects) was to get Major Project status, ie to have the government accept that the shopping centre was an important strategic project essential to the economic life of the state as a whole. This was not going to happen - even the local Labor member and Minister for the City of Adelaide said that Major Project status would not happen while she was the local member and Minister.

Then, the owner paid the government a 'donation' of $186,000. Within a very short time, the project was taken by the government out of the hands of the council and awarded Major Project status.

The latest news on the site is that the land with approval is being offered around the world as a great development opportunity, available at a price which will give the owner an excellent profit.

As you said, it drags on.

A footnote: Today the Local Government Association joined the government in opposing the establishment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption.

[stumpjumper]

The Liberals have announced that if they win the March 20th 2010 election, they will not proceed with the move of the SA Film Corp to the Glenside campus, but will look for a site at Port Adelaide for the relocation of the organisation.

Note that a Liberal government would also establish a South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption. Premier Rann has repeated his objection to such a body, and his preference for a national body although he has never made a move towards establishing a national body nor is it part of the ALP's platform.