Council overturns proposal for financial reporting of Bundaberg Aquatic Facility project

A bid for better public transparency around the costs and expenditure for the $75m Bundaberg Aquatic Facility has been rejected following a heated council debate.

Design images for the new Bundaberg Aquatic Centre.

A motion to provide financial reports detailing the progress of the controversial Bundaberg Aquatic Facility was overturned following robust debate in the Bundaberg Regional Council meeting on Tuesday, March 21.

Councillor Greg Barnes proposed that a financial report detailing the current expenditure of the project be provided at the next council meeting in April, with quarterly reports to be provided thereafter.

He said the purpose of the proposal was in the interests of public transparency in relation to the project, the costs for which blew out by $30m to $75.8m in August 2022.

“The purpose of this motion is to ensure that ratepayers can take comfort in the knowledge that the expenditure of their funds are being monitored on a regular and responsible basis,” Mr Barnes said.

Councillor Greg Barnes proposed regular financial reporting of the Bundaberg Aquatic Facility project to council in the interests of public transparency.

The proposal was opposed by councillor Bill Trevor on the grounds that the project was “being scrutinised to death”.

Mr Trevor gave a lengthy exposition of the credentials of the members of the council’s Audit and Risk Committee which is overseeing the financial reporting for the project.

Wide Bay and Burnett hardest hit in summer of wild weather

The non-council members of the committee include Stephen Coates, partner of boutique professional services firm Anchoram Consulting and president of the Asian Conference of institutes of Internal Auditors, and Mitchell Patrick, a non-executive director of superannuation giant SPSL Ltd and special advisor to audit and risk committees across the state for the past 5 years.

“This thing is being scrutinised to death by people with qualifications that wouldn’t be out of place anywhere in the world,” Mr Trevor said.

Bill Trevor opposed the motion for regular financial reporting of the Bundaberg Aquatic Facility project on the grounds that the project is “being scrutinised to death”.

Mr Trevor also said if Mr Barnes wanted more insight into the financial details of the Aquatic Facility project, he could join the audit and risk committee meetings at any time.

In response, Mr Barnes said he was “surprised at the pushback”.

He suggested that regular financial reports are the usual practice for projects of the scale of the Aquatic Facility, noting that council received regular financial reports during the undertaking of the $92m Rubyanna Wastewater Treatment Plant project in 2015, then the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken by Bundaberg Regional Council.

Mr Barnes reiterated the purpose of the proposal in maintaining transparency of the project before the public, who cannot join committee meetings.

Costs for the Bundaberg Aquatic Centre project blew out by $38m to $75.8m in August 2022.

“The purpose of this (proposal) is to bring (financial reports) to a council meeting where members of the community can see quite clearly ... what we have budgeted and where we are at (with the project),” he said.

“It’s as simple as that, it’s transparent ... and it gives some clarity and openness on behalf of this council to the community whose money we are spending.”

Dead in the water: What’s killing fish at iconic swimming spot?

The motion failed to pass with Mayor Jack Dempsey and councillors Bill Trevor, Jason Bartels, Tanya McLoughlin, Vince Habermann, Steve Cooper and John Learmonth opposing.

Mr Barnes, Tracey McPhee and Wayne Honor supported the proposal.

Originally published as Council overturns proposal for financial reporting of Bundaberg Aquatic Facility project