Mr EDE - 1994-11-22
Does the minister agree with the Auditor-General who states, at page 49 of his latest annual report, that the scope of his audit did not extend to a review of government policies and decisions that related to design changes throughout the period of this building's
Page 276
construction? Will the minister agree now that those changes were significant and did add substantially to the cost of this building? Given that they were unable to be examined by the Auditor-General, will the minister agree now that that puts the lie to his statement that the PAC is able to examine the whole range of decisions made in relation to this building, and highlights the need for the PAC to carry out a full investigation?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have never heard a more ridiculous presumption made by anybody.
Mr Ede: The Auditor-General?
Mr MANZIE: The Leader of the Opposition is saying that policy decisions made by government are matters that should be audited by the Auditor-General. What a ridiculous ...
Mr Ede: No!
Mr MANZIE: I am sorry, but you made it very clear. Do not tell me what you wanted to say ...
Mr Ede: What I said!
Mr MANZIE: Listen, be quiet and let me answer the question.
Mr Bailey: No, you are not answering the question. You are changing the question.
Mr MANZIE: You can look it up in Hansard ...
Mr Ede: You are changing the question so that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked of the Minister for Transport and Works ...
Mr Ede: I asked the wrong question apparently.
Mr MANZIE: The Leader of the Opposition points out, quite rightly, that the Auditor-General was unable to audit matters of government policy. It is not appropriate that he do that. However, why would he suggest that the PAC should carry out an inquiry into government policy? The policy of the government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr Bailey: And a huge waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr MANZIE: The government makes and settles policy, thereby saying what it intends to do. In relation to the new Parliament House ...
Page 277
Mr Bailey: Waste money!
Mr MANZIE: The member for Wanguri is so small-minded and ignorant that one would think that he would listen and perhaps learn a little.
Mr Bailey: Okay, tell us.
Mr MANZIE: However, he wants to remain ignorant. So be it.
The government makes policy and enunciates it. The expenditure of funds to bring that policy to fruition is an area in relation to which, quite properly, the Auditor-General will investigate, audit and report, as he did in report No 69 which has been tabled in this Assembly. That is how the government expends money in order to meet the policy objectives it sets, but you do not have a PAC audit into how the government makes its policy.
Mr Ede: Of course, you do! Rubbish!
Mr MANZIE: The policy is enunciated by government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MANZIE: Government policy is put to the people - for example, it is our policy to do X or to do Y - and the people make a decision. The Public Accounts Committee's role is not to investigate the processes of expenditure employed in order to achieve the policy objectives ...
Mr Bailey: $117m of taxpayers' money.
Mr MANZIE: You are stupid people. It is very simple to understand.
In relation to our policy with regard to the new Parliament House, I remind members opposite that the extensions and variations made to this Parliament House were made and agreed to by the Sessional Committee on the New Parliament House ...
Mr Ede: Wrong!
Members interjecting.
Mr Ede: You were not even there.
Mr Bailey: Check the minutes!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 278
Mr MANZIE: ... which included members of the opposition who, as we know, have been very diligent in their role on the New Parliament House Committee by absenting themselves from meetings. It is absolutely ridiculous!
Mr Ede interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: Firstly, he makes the accusation that, somehow or other, it is wrong that the PAC does not have the right to examine how government policy is arrived at. He then forgets that his side of the House was involved in the New Parliament House Committee and in the decision processes in relation to those variations. He forgets also that the opposition totally abdicated its responsibility in the regard to the parliament and the people of the Territory by refusing to participate in that committee.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister has just made a statement about the responsibilities to this parliament of this side of the House. He knows that that position is denied categorically by this side of the House and is quite at variance with the facts as set out in the minutes of that committee and in the Parliamentary Record. If he wishes to take up a matter of that nature, I suggest he bring on a substantive motion under standing order 62 so that we can debate it rather than attempt to use the Question Time as a means of changing history.
Mr SPEAKER: Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me exactly what he takes offence at?
Mr EDE: I take offence at the minister stating that members on this side abdicated their responsibility to this parliament. That is a very serious charge to make. It should be made under standing order 62.
Mr SPEAKER: I believe there is no point of order. Much worse things have been said across this House repeatedly.
Mr Ede: We have been taken to task on the same point.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Page 279
Page 276
construction? Will the minister agree now that those changes were significant and did add substantially to the cost of this building? Given that they were unable to be examined by the Auditor-General, will the minister agree now that that puts the lie to his statement that the PAC is able to examine the whole range of decisions made in relation to this building, and highlights the need for the PAC to carry out a full investigation?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have never heard a more ridiculous presumption made by anybody.
Mr Ede: The Auditor-General?
Mr MANZIE: The Leader of the Opposition is saying that policy decisions made by government are matters that should be audited by the Auditor-General. What a ridiculous ...
Mr Ede: No!
Mr MANZIE: I am sorry, but you made it very clear. Do not tell me what you wanted to say ...
Mr Ede: What I said!
Mr MANZIE: Listen, be quiet and let me answer the question.
Mr Bailey: No, you are not answering the question. You are changing the question.
Mr MANZIE: You can look it up in Hansard ...
Mr Ede: You are changing the question so that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked of the Minister for Transport and Works ...
Mr Ede: I asked the wrong question apparently.
Mr MANZIE: The Leader of the Opposition points out, quite rightly, that the Auditor-General was unable to audit matters of government policy. It is not appropriate that he do that. However, why would he suggest that the PAC should carry out an inquiry into government policy? The policy of the government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr Bailey: And a huge waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr MANZIE: The government makes and settles policy, thereby saying what it intends to do. In relation to the new Parliament House ...
Page 277
Mr Bailey: Waste money!
Mr MANZIE: The member for Wanguri is so small-minded and ignorant that one would think that he would listen and perhaps learn a little.
Mr Bailey: Okay, tell us.
Mr MANZIE: However, he wants to remain ignorant. So be it.
The government makes policy and enunciates it. The expenditure of funds to bring that policy to fruition is an area in relation to which, quite properly, the Auditor-General will investigate, audit and report, as he did in report No 69 which has been tabled in this Assembly. That is how the government expends money in order to meet the policy objectives it sets, but you do not have a PAC audit into how the government makes its policy.
Mr Ede: Of course, you do! Rubbish!
Mr MANZIE: The policy is enunciated by government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MANZIE: Government policy is put to the people - for example, it is our policy to do X or to do Y - and the people make a decision. The Public Accounts Committee's role is not to investigate the processes of expenditure employed in order to achieve the policy objectives ...
Mr Bailey: $117m of taxpayers' money.
Mr MANZIE: You are stupid people. It is very simple to understand.
In relation to our policy with regard to the new Parliament House, I remind members opposite that the extensions and variations made to this Parliament House were made and agreed to by the Sessional Committee on the New Parliament House ...
Mr Ede: Wrong!
Members interjecting.
Mr Ede: You were not even there.
Mr Bailey: Check the minutes!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 278
Mr MANZIE: ... which included members of the opposition who, as we know, have been very diligent in their role on the New Parliament House Committee by absenting themselves from meetings. It is absolutely ridiculous!
Mr Ede interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: Firstly, he makes the accusation that, somehow or other, it is wrong that the PAC does not have the right to examine how government policy is arrived at. He then forgets that his side of the House was involved in the New Parliament House Committee and in the decision processes in relation to those variations. He forgets also that the opposition totally abdicated its responsibility in the regard to the parliament and the people of the Territory by refusing to participate in that committee.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister has just made a statement about the responsibilities to this parliament of this side of the House. He knows that that position is denied categorically by this side of the House and is quite at variance with the facts as set out in the minutes of that committee and in the Parliamentary Record. If he wishes to take up a matter of that nature, I suggest he bring on a substantive motion under standing order 62 so that we can debate it rather than attempt to use the Question Time as a means of changing history.
Mr SPEAKER: Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me exactly what he takes offence at?
Mr EDE: I take offence at the minister stating that members on this side abdicated their responsibility to this parliament. That is a very serious charge to make. It should be made under standing order 62.
Mr SPEAKER: I believe there is no point of order. Much worse things have been said across this House repeatedly.
Mr Ede: We have been taken to task on the same point.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Page 279
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016