Mr EDE - 1994-11-24
Mr Speaker, given that the Attorney-General was unable to answer my previous question on State Square, I refer it to the Minister for Transport and Works. Can the minister tell us specifically what the difference was between the agreement for State Square that was signed on 28 October 1988, which has never been made public, and that signed on 23 November 1988, a copy of which has been made public?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I find it amazing that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wanguri continue to beat their breasts about this. This morning and last night's adjournment debate are good examples of that. This morning, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that there is a secret agreement. It is very secret! On 31 October 1988, the then minister issued a press release and held a press conference to talk about an agreement that was reached to establish the processes to put together the contract relating to the project management of this particular development and an agreement in relation to the developer's fee. Very secret!
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: It came out in a press release!
Mr Ede: Where is it?
Mr Bailey: Table the details!
Mr MANZIE: Members opposite cannot do their homework. This is another example. It took them 6 years to discover it. Where were they 6 years ago? Mr Speaker, I will tell you where they were. They were not creating problems for our community by making wild accusations in an attempt to gain a few headlines. Probably, they were taking their role a little more seriously.
The press release said that the minister announced the signing of an agreement between the government and Tipperary Developments for Darwin's State Square project and that the agreement opened the way to commence site work on the project in the near future.
Page 313
Mr Ede: What is the date of that?
Mr MANZIE: This press release was issued on 31 October 1988.
We are talking about agreements, one of which was a memorandum that prepared ...
Mr Bell: It did not happen until a month later. You are telling lies.
Mr MANZIE: ... the basis of how the contract would be drawn up. It was a memorandum. I remind members ...
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: The member for MacDonnell seems to be making a few noises in the background. I remind him to refer to the contract between Tipperary Developments and the Northern Territory of Australia that was tabled in this House.
Mr Ede: Is this the one that they ...
Mr MANZIE: It is the one that was signed on 23 November 1988. I will read out the very first paragraph of this contract:
This agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements and contains the entire agreement between the parties
relating to project management services to be provided by the project manager from the date of this agreement.
This is the only agreement relating to the project management that has any basis at all. Nothing else is relevant. This supersedes all other project management agreements. Thus, the memorandum, which I will table, has no status at all. It was the prior agreement as to how the project management agreement would be put together. It is like an interim agreement and it has no basis. The agreement proper states in the first paragraph that it is the only agreement that counts. This is the secret document which was discussed ...
Mr Ede: You have already tabled it - a constant price and no rise and fall.
Mr MANZIE: Get it into your head! Can't you understand? Don't you understand?
Mr Ede: No rise and fall, and a constant price!
Mr MANZIE: Of course, he does not understand. Members opposite do not understand what a press release means, but it means a little publicity. It does not mean a secret. They do not understand a clause that states that a particular document supersedes everything else with regard to project management.
Mr Ede: We know exactly what you did.
Page 314
Mr MANZIE: In other words, the memorandum has no standing whatsoever. It was used to develop the contract. Members opposite do not understand that. It is fairly simple but, of course, the Leader of the Opposition is not serious about factual matters. He is only serious about attempting to create some kind of a furphy. So much for that.
The second part of it was an exchange of correspondence between the minister and Tipperary Developments, confirming the arrangements with respect to the payment of the project development fee - the so-called secret fee. It is very secret! On 22 October 1988, the minister made a statement to this House wherein he detailed what that so-called secret development fee was all about. For the benefit of opposition members, I will read out what the minister said so that they can see how secret it is. Opposition members will be embarrassed again on account of their lack of research. On 22 November 1988, the minister stated:
Some 14 months and many thousands of man-hours after work began on the project, it now meets with the Territory's architectural, physical and
economic requirements as well as meeting the government's balanced assessment of its objectives. It is the extensive work that has been put
into this lengthy and costly process which has earned Tipperary Developments its $1.75m developer's fee.
This is the secret, Mr Speaker. Remember that it was announced publicly in this Assembly on 22 November 1988. The minister continued:
It should be remembered, however, that a good proportion of this money will be paid out by Tipperary Developments to consultants that it engaged.
This money was not, as certain politicians would have the public believe, a spotter's fee. The term 'spotter's fee' is deliberately misleading. I
would ask those with lingering doubts about the developer's fee to contact some major developers and ask them what it costs to get projects
of this magnitude up and running. I can assure honourable members that those inquiries will produce one result: both the developer's fee
and the project manager's fee being paid to Tipperary Developments will be shown to be quite reasonable.
I wonder whether, over the last 6 years, any opposition members took any note of that advice. I wonder whether they contacted any developers. I bet that they did not because it would be a little embarrassing for them. They would have found that what the minister said was quite correct. However, they do not want to know that, do they? No, they want only to create mischief.
Mr Bailey: No.
Mr MANZIE: The minister continued:
The point is borne out by a brief examination of the fees for the development, project management, head contractor and consultants when
weighed against the level of fees paid on projects of comparable size. We will be paying $1.75m for development costs. Of that, 3.75%
is for project management, 3.3% for the head contractor and 8.85% for various consultancies. This
Page 315
makes a total of about 17.75% of the cost of the new Supreme Court building and Parliament House.
That was on 22 November 1988. It related to the exchange of letters that was referred to and the agreement on the project manager's fee. It is very secret - it is in the Parliamentary Record! I will read a little more because members opposite have a fixation about its being secret. They think that it was a secret deal. I will read from the Parliamentary Record of 23 November 1988 for the benefit of members opposite who believe that this is a big secret. It is quite pathetic that I have to stand here and beat them around the ears with what has been said, but it is important that I do it so that the community understands not only that members opposite refuse to do any homework, but that they attempt deliberately to twist the truth and the facts to suit themselves. They think that, 6 years down the road, no one will remember what was said in the past. I intend to ensure that they remember and that the community remembers.
Mr Bailey: You said that it was fixed.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MANZIE: On 23 November 1988, the then minister was asked:
What portion of the $1.75m payment to Mr Warren Anderson's Tipperary Developments covered documentation costs and, secondly,
what was the exact financial formula applied in calculating the $1.75m payment to Mr Warren Anderson's Tipperary Developments?
This is the secret that no one knows about! This relates to the secret agreement that was announced in the press release. Let us hear the minister's reply to that question:
In arriving at the fee of $1.75m, cognisance was taken of a great number of factors. The figure was not based only on the experience
of the Department of Transport and Works and local industry. Statistics and information from right round Australia were evaluated in
order to arrive at an appropriate fee for the developmental work. One is not in a position to indicate all of the individual components
for a very good and logical reason. The developmental fee does not encompass only the return to the developer for his concept, the
high risk investment that he has made through the engagement of consultants and the putting together of all the various drawings etc.
In this case, it involves also a great deal more, and I refer to the working up of the program to the starting point of detailed documentation.
That includes the conceptual floor plans, the interpretation and the sketching of client requirements through the various proposals.
It should be remembered that a number of proposals ...
Mr Ede: This is garbage.
Page 316
Mr MANZIE: This is the secret. It is garbage because it is being forced home to members opposite that there was nothing secret about it. It was laid out in great detail. I will continue because it is starting to hurt and members opposite are becoming upset. The minister's answer continued:
The range of work included the evaluation of the government's requirements for office space, currently and for the future, the
interpretation of usage of those buildings in the precinct, and the production of detailed sketch plans, models and perspective
drawings.
In response to an interjection from Mrs Padgham-Purich, the minister said:
Yes, some of the raw sketch proposals, cost evaluations and area requirements that were part of the original office building, whilst
only minimal, would have been part of the expense to which the developer was put. The study for the original office building was
included.
There is more to it. This is the development fee, the secret fee that no one knew the reason for. It is very secret - it is all in the Parliamentary Record. The answer continued:
Also involved was liaison with the NT government and its officers to finalise design requirements and the production of developed
sketch plans and detailed cost plans. It was necessary to obtain the approval of the Territory government through the Department
of Transport and Works. There was the submission of the maximum guaranteed cost of the works, including provision for escalation
and various other components such as consultants' fees. The company was responsible for the early commissioning of consultants,
the preparation of the cash flows accordingly, and the production of the construction programming to meet the government's requirements.
Members interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: This is the secret! The opposition said that it did not know what it was about. The answer continued:
In the early days, one option was that the 2 buildings would proceed together. For very logical reasons, such as meeting the
government's requirements as well as other practical considerations, construction of the 2 buildings has been planned to occur
almost 12 months apart. Thus, there is the development of various construction programs and the cash flows.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I have a problem with this. The minister is demonstrating once again that, if we do not ask the right question, he has extreme difficulty with the answer. We asked him to table the documents. He is now reading from the Parliamentary Record a speech that his predecessor made. That was not what the question was about. The question was about the agreement. We asked him to table the agreement. He has indicated now that he will table those agreements, and I ask him to do so.
Page 317
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, would the minister please wind up his remarks as as possible.
Mr MANZIE: I am attempting to point out - and it is important for everyone to understand - that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wanguri's claim that there was some secret involved in the developer's fee, some secret agreement of which no details were available, is totally and patently false.
Mr Ede: We asked you whether it was audited.
Mr MANZIE: The Leader of the Opposition can bleat. He can raise points of order in an attempt to stop me. He can do all kinds of things. However, he must understand that his claims of a secret agreement are wrong. All he had to do was read the public record. The claim that a press release relating to memorandums of agreements to establish this project somehow or another referred to secret documents is totally and utterly incorrect.
Mr Ede: Table it.
Mr MANZIE: I have said already that I will table the Memorandum of Agreement dated 28 October 1988. It is a primary memorandum to establish the contract proper, and the first paragraph of the contract proper states that all other processes are totally null and void. I table the exchange of letters which confirm the arrangements in respect of the project developments. I ask that in future the opposition make an attempt not to waste the time of this parliament by regurgitating false accusations.
Page 318
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I find it amazing that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wanguri continue to beat their breasts about this. This morning and last night's adjournment debate are good examples of that. This morning, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that there is a secret agreement. It is very secret! On 31 October 1988, the then minister issued a press release and held a press conference to talk about an agreement that was reached to establish the processes to put together the contract relating to the project management of this particular development and an agreement in relation to the developer's fee. Very secret!
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: It came out in a press release!
Mr Ede: Where is it?
Mr Bailey: Table the details!
Mr MANZIE: Members opposite cannot do their homework. This is another example. It took them 6 years to discover it. Where were they 6 years ago? Mr Speaker, I will tell you where they were. They were not creating problems for our community by making wild accusations in an attempt to gain a few headlines. Probably, they were taking their role a little more seriously.
The press release said that the minister announced the signing of an agreement between the government and Tipperary Developments for Darwin's State Square project and that the agreement opened the way to commence site work on the project in the near future.
Page 313
Mr Ede: What is the date of that?
Mr MANZIE: This press release was issued on 31 October 1988.
We are talking about agreements, one of which was a memorandum that prepared ...
Mr Bell: It did not happen until a month later. You are telling lies.
Mr MANZIE: ... the basis of how the contract would be drawn up. It was a memorandum. I remind members ...
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: The member for MacDonnell seems to be making a few noises in the background. I remind him to refer to the contract between Tipperary Developments and the Northern Territory of Australia that was tabled in this House.
Mr Ede: Is this the one that they ...
Mr MANZIE: It is the one that was signed on 23 November 1988. I will read out the very first paragraph of this contract:
This agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements and contains the entire agreement between the parties
relating to project management services to be provided by the project manager from the date of this agreement.
This is the only agreement relating to the project management that has any basis at all. Nothing else is relevant. This supersedes all other project management agreements. Thus, the memorandum, which I will table, has no status at all. It was the prior agreement as to how the project management agreement would be put together. It is like an interim agreement and it has no basis. The agreement proper states in the first paragraph that it is the only agreement that counts. This is the secret document which was discussed ...
Mr Ede: You have already tabled it - a constant price and no rise and fall.
Mr MANZIE: Get it into your head! Can't you understand? Don't you understand?
Mr Ede: No rise and fall, and a constant price!
Mr MANZIE: Of course, he does not understand. Members opposite do not understand what a press release means, but it means a little publicity. It does not mean a secret. They do not understand a clause that states that a particular document supersedes everything else with regard to project management.
Mr Ede: We know exactly what you did.
Page 314
Mr MANZIE: In other words, the memorandum has no standing whatsoever. It was used to develop the contract. Members opposite do not understand that. It is fairly simple but, of course, the Leader of the Opposition is not serious about factual matters. He is only serious about attempting to create some kind of a furphy. So much for that.
The second part of it was an exchange of correspondence between the minister and Tipperary Developments, confirming the arrangements with respect to the payment of the project development fee - the so-called secret fee. It is very secret! On 22 October 1988, the minister made a statement to this House wherein he detailed what that so-called secret development fee was all about. For the benefit of opposition members, I will read out what the minister said so that they can see how secret it is. Opposition members will be embarrassed again on account of their lack of research. On 22 November 1988, the minister stated:
Some 14 months and many thousands of man-hours after work began on the project, it now meets with the Territory's architectural, physical and
economic requirements as well as meeting the government's balanced assessment of its objectives. It is the extensive work that has been put
into this lengthy and costly process which has earned Tipperary Developments its $1.75m developer's fee.
This is the secret, Mr Speaker. Remember that it was announced publicly in this Assembly on 22 November 1988. The minister continued:
It should be remembered, however, that a good proportion of this money will be paid out by Tipperary Developments to consultants that it engaged.
This money was not, as certain politicians would have the public believe, a spotter's fee. The term 'spotter's fee' is deliberately misleading. I
would ask those with lingering doubts about the developer's fee to contact some major developers and ask them what it costs to get projects
of this magnitude up and running. I can assure honourable members that those inquiries will produce one result: both the developer's fee
and the project manager's fee being paid to Tipperary Developments will be shown to be quite reasonable.
I wonder whether, over the last 6 years, any opposition members took any note of that advice. I wonder whether they contacted any developers. I bet that they did not because it would be a little embarrassing for them. They would have found that what the minister said was quite correct. However, they do not want to know that, do they? No, they want only to create mischief.
Mr Bailey: No.
Mr MANZIE: The minister continued:
The point is borne out by a brief examination of the fees for the development, project management, head contractor and consultants when
weighed against the level of fees paid on projects of comparable size. We will be paying $1.75m for development costs. Of that, 3.75%
is for project management, 3.3% for the head contractor and 8.85% for various consultancies. This
Page 315
makes a total of about 17.75% of the cost of the new Supreme Court building and Parliament House.
That was on 22 November 1988. It related to the exchange of letters that was referred to and the agreement on the project manager's fee. It is very secret - it is in the Parliamentary Record! I will read a little more because members opposite have a fixation about its being secret. They think that it was a secret deal. I will read from the Parliamentary Record of 23 November 1988 for the benefit of members opposite who believe that this is a big secret. It is quite pathetic that I have to stand here and beat them around the ears with what has been said, but it is important that I do it so that the community understands not only that members opposite refuse to do any homework, but that they attempt deliberately to twist the truth and the facts to suit themselves. They think that, 6 years down the road, no one will remember what was said in the past. I intend to ensure that they remember and that the community remembers.
Mr Bailey: You said that it was fixed.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MANZIE: On 23 November 1988, the then minister was asked:
What portion of the $1.75m payment to Mr Warren Anderson's Tipperary Developments covered documentation costs and, secondly,
what was the exact financial formula applied in calculating the $1.75m payment to Mr Warren Anderson's Tipperary Developments?
This is the secret that no one knows about! This relates to the secret agreement that was announced in the press release. Let us hear the minister's reply to that question:
In arriving at the fee of $1.75m, cognisance was taken of a great number of factors. The figure was not based only on the experience
of the Department of Transport and Works and local industry. Statistics and information from right round Australia were evaluated in
order to arrive at an appropriate fee for the developmental work. One is not in a position to indicate all of the individual components
for a very good and logical reason. The developmental fee does not encompass only the return to the developer for his concept, the
high risk investment that he has made through the engagement of consultants and the putting together of all the various drawings etc.
In this case, it involves also a great deal more, and I refer to the working up of the program to the starting point of detailed documentation.
That includes the conceptual floor plans, the interpretation and the sketching of client requirements through the various proposals.
It should be remembered that a number of proposals ...
Mr Ede: This is garbage.
Page 316
Mr MANZIE: This is the secret. It is garbage because it is being forced home to members opposite that there was nothing secret about it. It was laid out in great detail. I will continue because it is starting to hurt and members opposite are becoming upset. The minister's answer continued:
The range of work included the evaluation of the government's requirements for office space, currently and for the future, the
interpretation of usage of those buildings in the precinct, and the production of detailed sketch plans, models and perspective
drawings.
In response to an interjection from Mrs Padgham-Purich, the minister said:
Yes, some of the raw sketch proposals, cost evaluations and area requirements that were part of the original office building, whilst
only minimal, would have been part of the expense to which the developer was put. The study for the original office building was
included.
There is more to it. This is the development fee, the secret fee that no one knew the reason for. It is very secret - it is all in the Parliamentary Record. The answer continued:
Also involved was liaison with the NT government and its officers to finalise design requirements and the production of developed
sketch plans and detailed cost plans. It was necessary to obtain the approval of the Territory government through the Department
of Transport and Works. There was the submission of the maximum guaranteed cost of the works, including provision for escalation
and various other components such as consultants' fees. The company was responsible for the early commissioning of consultants,
the preparation of the cash flows accordingly, and the production of the construction programming to meet the government's requirements.
Members interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: This is the secret! The opposition said that it did not know what it was about. The answer continued:
In the early days, one option was that the 2 buildings would proceed together. For very logical reasons, such as meeting the
government's requirements as well as other practical considerations, construction of the 2 buildings has been planned to occur
almost 12 months apart. Thus, there is the development of various construction programs and the cash flows.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I have a problem with this. The minister is demonstrating once again that, if we do not ask the right question, he has extreme difficulty with the answer. We asked him to table the documents. He is now reading from the Parliamentary Record a speech that his predecessor made. That was not what the question was about. The question was about the agreement. We asked him to table the agreement. He has indicated now that he will table those agreements, and I ask him to do so.
Page 317
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, would the minister please wind up his remarks as as possible.
Mr MANZIE: I am attempting to point out - and it is important for everyone to understand - that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wanguri's claim that there was some secret involved in the developer's fee, some secret agreement of which no details were available, is totally and patently false.
Mr Ede: We asked you whether it was audited.
Mr MANZIE: The Leader of the Opposition can bleat. He can raise points of order in an attempt to stop me. He can do all kinds of things. However, he must understand that his claims of a secret agreement are wrong. All he had to do was read the public record. The claim that a press release relating to memorandums of agreements to establish this project somehow or another referred to secret documents is totally and utterly incorrect.
Mr Ede: Table it.
Mr MANZIE: I have said already that I will table the Memorandum of Agreement dated 28 October 1988. It is a primary memorandum to establish the contract proper, and the first paragraph of the contract proper states that all other processes are totally null and void. I table the exchange of letters which confirm the arrangements in respect of the project developments. I ask that in future the opposition make an attempt not to waste the time of this parliament by regurgitating false accusations.
Page 318
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016