Re: You get what you (don't ) spec
>>but the Client had his day in court,<<
Actually they didn't. The Inquiry is not a Court of Law and its remit is limited to gathering facts.
One of the senior people from IBM had a meeting with one of the senior people from Queensland in 2010 and somehow persuaded him to sign away QH right to sue for damages (it seems primarily because IBM threatened to sue for damage of reputation; which under Queensland Law they cannot, which IBM were probably aware of).
"Secondly, if you've ever tried to manage a project when the requirements keep changing"
I have and it's a PITA; but I would argue that in far too many cases, it's not that requirements change, just the understanding of those requirements previously defined.
If you read the whole document, you'll see that most of the items that IBM said were new requirements were actually nothing of the sort. Many of the defects identified were also "re-classified" by IBM in severity; and again, IBM took an aggressive approach to negotiation insisting that the work to fix these was outside of the agreed project.
They also took a very belligerent stance over reports from UAT that highlighted failures in areas where they insisted it was working correctly despite evidence to the contrary; and once the system went live, they declared the performance issues as "minor" when by any basic understanding of the requirements, it was not meeting the most simple of specifications.