When a project cannot tell its whole story

In October 2022, part of the structural steel roof at Melbourne’s Kew Recreation Centre redevelopment collapsed after working hours. Nobody was on site. The incident halted construction, prompted regulatory investigations and changed the questions residents asked about the project. A new facility was still the goal, but the immediate concern was whether the building could be completed safely, who was accountable and what the disruption would cost.

For elected councillors, answering those questions was not as simple as sharing everything they knew. Information about legal advice, investigations, commercial negotiations and closed meetings can be confidential under Victoria’s Local Government Act 2020. Litigation adds practical constraints on what can responsibly be said about disputed facts. Meanwhile, constituents reasonably want an explanation. When those responsible for a project cannot give a full account, others can fill the space with confident claims that the available evidence may not support.

I served as Mayor of Boroondara and have reflected on this redevelopment in my studies of major programmes. Its lessons extend beyond a single council project. They concern a problem common to public programmes: how to maintain trust when leaders have a duty to be candid and a duty to protect information at the same time.

Follow the assurance chain beyond the contract

The roof collapse was a physical event, but the safety proceedings also raise a question about how a global supply chain was checked. The council engaged ADCO as principal contractor. Colab, the structural-steel subcontractor, engaged a company based in China to fabricate the GT1 truss. WorkSafe Victoria said the truss was not fabricated in accordance with design drawings and fabrication requirements. The concern in the proceedings was whether quality-assurance documents had been properly reviewed and verified before the truss was erected. The chain ran from council, through ADCO and Colab, to the overseas fabricator.

There have been distinct legal outcomes. In July 2026, Colab Building Tech Pty Ltd (ACN 632 753 765), in liquidation, was convicted and fined $400,000 after a hearing it did not attend; the court also ordered $7,403 in costs. The court found that it was reasonably practicable to have a competent person review and verify specified welding and inspection documentation before erection. ADCO Group Pty Ltd entered an $850,000 enforceable undertaking in March 2026 in resolution of its WorkSafe prosecution, without a finding of guilt. WorkSafe can reinstate the charge if the undertaking is contravened or withdrawn. Its terms include developing an industry standard for structural-steel procurement and fabrication, providing training and donating $160,000 towards engineering and construction pathways. The council says separate building-regulator proceedings against ADCO and a company director remain ongoing, as do civil proceedings related to the collapse.

These outcomes should not be flattened into a verdict on every participant or every disputed question. They do show that an assurance chain must reach the actual work, wherever it is done. A certificate in a procurement file is not the same as verified compliance with a design. A sponsor should know which organisation checks fabrication evidence, what competence is required, what happens when documents are incomplete and who has authority to stop installation. Outsourcing fabrication cannot outsource the need to understand those interfaces.

Explain the limit on what can be said

Public accountability and confidentiality are both real duties. Section 125 of Victoria’s Local Government Act 2020 applies to people who are, or have been, councillors: subject to its exceptions, they must not intentionally or recklessly disclose information they know, or should reasonably know, is confidential. The duty does not end when a councillor leaves office. The Act defines categories, including privileged legal advice, information that could prejudice law-enforcement investigations or fair hearings, certain commercial information and records of meetings closed to the public. It also permits a council to determine that information otherwise confidential should be made publicly available, subject to the applicable legal framework.

This is not a blanket prohibition on discussing the project. The question is what particular information may be released, when and by whom. Victoria’s Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner starts from a presumption that council information should be made available proactively. Its framework then tests confidentiality and other exceptions, whether the council should release information, the interests of third parties, the public interest and whether protected details can be redacted so the remainder can be shared. Confidentiality should be assessed against those steps, not assumed to cover the whole story.

That distinction mattered in practice. As an elected representative, I understood the frustration of residents who wanted direct answers. I also experienced how legal and confidentiality constraints narrowed what councillors could responsibly disclose. Political debate did not pause while we worked within those limits. Claims we regarded as unfounded gained room to circulate, and a restrained response could be mistaken for an inability to answer them. The difficulty was not resolved by simply asking councillors to be more forthcoming: a response must still respect the law and avoid prejudicing live proceedings.

The better response is to plan public communication as carefully as legal defence. State what has happened and what remains unverified. Identify the independent processes under way without predicting their findings. Publish a dated timeline, the status of works and the next expected update. Explain, in plain terms, why particular questions cannot yet be answered and commit to reviewing that position as proceedings change. Silence may sometimes be necessary on a particular fact; it need not become silence about the whole project.

Recognise when the definition of success changes

Kew Recreation Centre also shows why a project cannot rely indefinitely on an early picture of stakeholder agreement. Following three stages of consultation, the council chose a 25-metre lap pool alongside other water spaces. That engagement addressed what residents wanted from the eventual facility. It could not settle every question that would arise after a structural collapse, prolonged closure and a revised timetable.

Different groups may ask different questions at different times. A contractor needs a workable scope and allocation of risk. Technical advisers need evidence that a structure meets its requirements. Residents need to know when they can use the facility and whether it is safe. Councillors must account for expenditure and decisions without compromising protected information. None of those perspectives can be reduced to a single project dashboard.

Later, council chose an all-electric heating system instead of gas boilers. Its project page says the June 2025 decision required design changes and extended the works programme. This separate policy choice was not a cause of the roof collapse. A sponsor should explain such a trade-off, including its timetable effect, instead of presenting a revised date as a purely technical adjustment.

The council gives the current project budget as $78.7 million. It expects construction to finish in May 2027 and the centre to reopen in July 2027 after operational preparation. Those dates remain forecasts. Residents should be able to see what has been completed, what remains and what could move the dates again.

Keep accountability open as facts become available

Major projects often need confidential discussions. Commercial disputes, legal privilege and pending proceedings cannot be wished away in the name of transparency. But confidentiality should be assessed item by item and revisited as circumstances change. It should not become an all-purpose explanation for failing to tell the public what can safely be said.

The Kew case offers three practical disciplines: trace assurance through the full supply chain; distinguish charges, undertakings, convictions and unresolved litigation; and build a public record that grows as verified information becomes available. These disciplines will not prevent every rumour or disagreement. They give a sponsor and elected representatives a defensible way to communicate while the project, and the facts about it, are still developing.

Further reading

• City of Boroondara, Kew Recreation Centre redevelopment (project timeline, consultation, budget and legal proceedings).
• WorkSafe Victoria, “$400,000 fine after Kew Rec Centre collapse” (30 July 2026).
• OHS Reps, “Second company fined after quality assurance verification failures” (5 August 2026).
• WorkSafe Victoria, “$850,000 safety spend after Kew Rec Centre collapse” (10 March 2026).
• Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, Framework for releasing Council information proactively and informally.
• Local Government Act 2020 (Vic), authorised version 025, section 125.

Disclosure: Jim Parke is a former Mayor of the City of Boroondara. His reflections on communication constraints are drawn from his experience; the stated legal outcomes and project dates are drawn from the public sources above.