Mr MITCHELL - 1994-11-24
In the adjournment last night, the member for Wanguri claimed that he had met the person who designed a clock for the main hall in Parliament House. The member said that, during their social chat, the clock designer relayed a story to him about how she had not been paid for her work in designing that clock. Has the member for Wanguri taken any action, other than speaking in the adjournment last night? If so, what action has he taken?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is another example of the member for Wanguri being totally mischievous. Indeed, it is more than that. There is a question of propriety here. I was advised this morning that the clock designer was given a job specification to design, test and commission a clock for the main hall in Parliament House. I was advised also that the specification required that the clock's mechanism be compatible with other feature clocks within the building. That was the primary specification. The designer was responsible for designing, testing and commissioning the clock.
Obviously, the member for Wanguri has had some social interaction with this person and has decided to take up the cudgels, regardless of the contractual arrangements or responsibilities. He is not interested in that. He is interested in looking after his mate or his new-found friend. There is a process for contractual arrangements, and I presume that it involves a subcontract through to Multiplex which, again, is through to Tipperary Developments. What makes it worse is that, instead of finding out about it, the member for Wanguri approached and requested a public servant to make some arrangements to allow payment to be made to his mate, thereby bypassing the appropriate contractors.
There are proper procedures in relation to contractual arrangements. It is reprehensible for an opposition member to attempt to bypass those contractual arrangements totally and, even worse, to suggest to a public servant that they sneak around
Page 328
the back way to his mate. There are proper and appropriate steps to be taken in relation to financial dealings with government. The member for Wanguri is always the first to stand up and cry foul but, when he sees an opportunity, he attempts to do something through the back door. I find his double standards totally inappropriate, and I suggest that he refrain from making such suggestions to public servants. I am sure that the situation in relation to the clock will be solved by appropriate mechanisms provided for under the contractual arrangements, and I believe no one would suggest that payment should be made for something that is not working.
This matter was brought to the attention of the general public via the radio this morning, and the member had his 5 minutes-worth of publicity. However, a number of calls were made on the subject to talkback radio later, one of which sticks in my mind. Someone suggested that we place a platform under the clock and stand the member for Wanguri on it so that he can call out 'cuckoo' every 30 minutes.
Page 329
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is another example of the member for Wanguri being totally mischievous. Indeed, it is more than that. There is a question of propriety here. I was advised this morning that the clock designer was given a job specification to design, test and commission a clock for the main hall in Parliament House. I was advised also that the specification required that the clock's mechanism be compatible with other feature clocks within the building. That was the primary specification. The designer was responsible for designing, testing and commissioning the clock.
Obviously, the member for Wanguri has had some social interaction with this person and has decided to take up the cudgels, regardless of the contractual arrangements or responsibilities. He is not interested in that. He is interested in looking after his mate or his new-found friend. There is a process for contractual arrangements, and I presume that it involves a subcontract through to Multiplex which, again, is through to Tipperary Developments. What makes it worse is that, instead of finding out about it, the member for Wanguri approached and requested a public servant to make some arrangements to allow payment to be made to his mate, thereby bypassing the appropriate contractors.
There are proper procedures in relation to contractual arrangements. It is reprehensible for an opposition member to attempt to bypass those contractual arrangements totally and, even worse, to suggest to a public servant that they sneak around
Page 328
the back way to his mate. There are proper and appropriate steps to be taken in relation to financial dealings with government. The member for Wanguri is always the first to stand up and cry foul but, when he sees an opportunity, he attempts to do something through the back door. I find his double standards totally inappropriate, and I suggest that he refrain from making such suggestions to public servants. I am sure that the situation in relation to the clock will be solved by appropriate mechanisms provided for under the contractual arrangements, and I believe no one would suggest that payment should be made for something that is not working.
This matter was brought to the attention of the general public via the radio this morning, and the member had his 5 minutes-worth of publicity. However, a number of calls were made on the subject to talkback radio later, one of which sticks in my mind. Someone suggested that we place a platform under the clock and stand the member for Wanguri on it so that he can call out 'cuckoo' every 30 minutes.
Page 329
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016