Mr BAILEY - 1994-11-29
Mr Speaker, my question without notice is directed under standing order 100 to the Leader of the Opposition. It relates to a notice of motion that he gave to the House last Thursday calling for a referral of the State Square project to the Public Accounts Committee. Can the Leader of the Opposition advise the House of the relative importance of the motion and the urgency with which he treats the matter?
Mr HATTON: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Questions cannot be asked in relation to matters that are on the Notice Paper.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not correct. There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has carriage of a motion that he put to this House last week, and standing order 100 provides the capacity for him to answer a question in relation to that motion.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for his question. We all know how seriously he treats the matter of taxpayers' money and the way in which it is utilised. The former minister, the Chief Minister and a former Chief Minister all trumpeted proudly that State Square would be developed on a fixed cost basis. Various government members claimed that the project manager, Tipperary Developments, would be responsible for any rise and fall. That is documented in the Parliamentary Record. Several times, the Auditor-General has commented on the State Square project, pointing out the difficulties and constraints within which the Department of Transport and Works was forced to operate. The constraints on the Department of Transport and Works are caused by its inability to supervise claims from Tipperary Developments due to the unsatisfactory contractual arrangements between Tipperary Developments and the government.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I intervene at this stage to remind the Leader of the Opposition that he must not anticipate the debate that will occur under this motion. He must confine himself to the importance of the reasons for bringing forward this motion without anticipating the debate.
Mr EDE: I am aware of that, Mr Speaker. I am simply pointing out the importance and urgency of this matter because the Auditor-General said that much of the supervision of Tipperary Developments relied on informal communications. That is why it is urgent that this House investigate it by means of the Public Accounts Committee.
It is a fact that the government made a policy decision to build the Supreme Court. The questions that go to the nub of the answer that I am providing to the member and which need to be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee relate to how the government carried out the policy decision and at what cost to taxpayers. That is important because we need to know how much the project cost on account of its not being a fixed cost contract as was promised by the government. A very important element is the incremental cost resulting from the changes in design throughout the project - that is a very pertinent point - and the additional cost
Page 343
resulting from the changes to the completion dates. The Assembly needs to know how the decision to utilise local business was implemented, and the costs and benefits of that decision.
Whatever the reason, the minister has been unwilling to answer these and many other questions relating to the project. The parliament should review a project of this size that has experienced the level of cost blow-outs in question. The Public Accounts Committee is the appropriate forum for the parliament's review of the project. Unfortunately, to date, the minister has said that he is opposed to such a review. Given what I have said today, I hope that he will take it on board and understand how important this matter is. I look forward to the active support of government members in terms of referring this to the Public Accounts Committee when the motion comes before the House on the next General Business Day.
Page 344
Mr HATTON: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Questions cannot be asked in relation to matters that are on the Notice Paper.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not correct. There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has carriage of a motion that he put to this House last week, and standing order 100 provides the capacity for him to answer a question in relation to that motion.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for his question. We all know how seriously he treats the matter of taxpayers' money and the way in which it is utilised. The former minister, the Chief Minister and a former Chief Minister all trumpeted proudly that State Square would be developed on a fixed cost basis. Various government members claimed that the project manager, Tipperary Developments, would be responsible for any rise and fall. That is documented in the Parliamentary Record. Several times, the Auditor-General has commented on the State Square project, pointing out the difficulties and constraints within which the Department of Transport and Works was forced to operate. The constraints on the Department of Transport and Works are caused by its inability to supervise claims from Tipperary Developments due to the unsatisfactory contractual arrangements between Tipperary Developments and the government.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I intervene at this stage to remind the Leader of the Opposition that he must not anticipate the debate that will occur under this motion. He must confine himself to the importance of the reasons for bringing forward this motion without anticipating the debate.
Mr EDE: I am aware of that, Mr Speaker. I am simply pointing out the importance and urgency of this matter because the Auditor-General said that much of the supervision of Tipperary Developments relied on informal communications. That is why it is urgent that this House investigate it by means of the Public Accounts Committee.
It is a fact that the government made a policy decision to build the Supreme Court. The questions that go to the nub of the answer that I am providing to the member and which need to be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee relate to how the government carried out the policy decision and at what cost to taxpayers. That is important because we need to know how much the project cost on account of its not being a fixed cost contract as was promised by the government. A very important element is the incremental cost resulting from the changes in design throughout the project - that is a very pertinent point - and the additional cost
Page 343
resulting from the changes to the completion dates. The Assembly needs to know how the decision to utilise local business was implemented, and the costs and benefits of that decision.
Whatever the reason, the minister has been unwilling to answer these and many other questions relating to the project. The parliament should review a project of this size that has experienced the level of cost blow-outs in question. The Public Accounts Committee is the appropriate forum for the parliament's review of the project. Unfortunately, to date, the minister has said that he is opposed to such a review. Given what I have said today, I hope that he will take it on board and understand how important this matter is. I look forward to the active support of government members in terms of referring this to the Public Accounts Committee when the motion comes before the House on the next General Business Day.
Page 344
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016