The public cost of the race ended up $10 million more than the $35 million cap approved. To make matters worse, the estimated economic benefit was more than 24 per cent less than projected. Cabinet approval had been given before a business case was prepared and without advice from the government's in-house event experts.
In July 2002, the Capital Territory auditor-general produced a biting report on the V8 series in Canberra, exposing the way bureaucrats and politicians had got swept up in the boosterism of the promoters. Cost benefit and visitor numbers were hugely over-stated. The plug was pulled after race two of a five-year series, as Canberra seemed headed for a $33 million loss.
It's through this bone yard that Mayor Brown and his team reckon they can wade without stumbling to their doom. Here's hoping. But the insultingly inadequate briefing document put to councillors yesterday is hardly reassuring.
For example, attendance claims are based on the unsupported statement that 22 per cent of adult New Zealanders "are considered V8 fans" and the "fan base within easy driving distance to support and enjoy the proposed Auckland event is 419,763."
How reassuring it must have been to councillors to have the figure down to the last 63. Though they might have paused to wonder why the richly rewarded board of ATEED didn't make the decision themselves. They could have - it was within the bounds of their delegated authority. Instead, they chose to pass this hot potato over to their elected masters. The politicians might have also paused to consider the stern warning of the three earlier audit post mortems from both sides of the Tasman, emphasising the need for accurate cost benefit studies before public money was committed.
All we're told is that in return for a $10.6 million investment from ratepayers over the five-year series, Auckland will get "an economic return" of $7.068 million a year or $35.34 million in total. No further details were provided.
Like, for instance, the figures presented to their Auckland City predecessors in 2004 in support of a failed bid to race V8s around downtown Victoria Park. The so-called feasibility study on that occasion claimed an annual economic benefit of $45 million or $315 million over the seven-race series.
The huge disparity between the claimed benefits of two similar events throws both estimates into doubt. It also underlines the various audit report warnings that politicians should demand to examine the hat from which such figures are pulled, before spending ratepayers' money.
Because of my opposition to the crazy 2004 proposal to gridlock inner Auckland with a week of V8 mayhem around Victoria Park, I've been denounced as anti-motor racing. Not true. My opposition was to the site, not the activity.
To me, one of the advantages of the Super City is that we're now large enough to splurge on a few "circuses" that will appeal not just to ourselves, but visitors as well. Motor racing, Pasifika, Auckland Festival, whatever spins your wheels.
But we're not rich, so must spend our party money wisely. The casualty count trailing behind the V8 Supercars Australia caravan suggests there are safer investments. If you doubt me, ask Mr Redman and the citizens of Hamilton, or Canberra or Sydney.
