Mr BAILEY - 1994-11-23
Yesterday, the minister was unable to tell this Assembly why Tipperary Developments was paid $1.75m. We all hope the minister has done some homework now. Can the minister tell us today what the payment was for? Was the claim for payment audited by the Auditor-General or was it simply a gift?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I pointed out yesterday that it was a developer's fee. I pointed out also to the member for Wanguri that he refer to the Parliamentary Record of 23 November 1988 when the previous minister ...
Mr Finch: Today, 6 years ago.
Page 300
Mr MANZIE: Today 6 years ago, that is right. The previous minister pointed out the fee structure.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: That is what you were told yesterday but, once again, we have a problem. One could almost describe the member for Wanguri as the Forrest Gump of the Territory. To him, life is like a box of chocolates. He is not too sure what will happen next. I think it would be advisable ...
Mr Bailey: What did we get for $1.75m?
Mr MANZIE: If he listened to what was told to him, he would know that I pointed out to him that those details had been provided in this House. I even told him on which day. It is a developer's fee. It is a fee. This particular area, which relates to the developer, is being paid for in 2 separate ways. One is through a development fee and the other is through a project management fee. The development fee is a fixed amount and the project management fee is a percentage fee.
Mr Bailey: What did we get for the $1.75m?
Mr MANZIE: It is the total fee, at the end of the job ...
Mr Bailey: They told us that it was for the plans and all the work that was done in the past. They have done nothing.
Mr MANZIE: If the member for Wanguri wants to answer the question himself, that is fine, but I will say it very slowly. There is the development fee and the project management fee. The development fee is a fixed cost. It is fixed at $1.75m. The project manager's fee is a percentage of the job. It is usual that it is a percentage fee.
Mr Bailey: That is the one where the more it costs, the more they get ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is going a little too far. I advise him that, if he continues along this line, I will name him. The Minister for Transport and Works.
Mr MANZIE: There was full discussion and justification of the developer's fee given by the then Minister for Transport and Works in this Assembly on 23 November 1988. That is readily available in the Parliamentary Record. For the benefit of members opposite, I will reiterate the justification for the payment of this fee.
In late 1987, Warren Anderson and his company, Tipperary Developments, approached the government to assist the Territory in financing, designing and constructing a Northern Territory government precinct that was to include the new Parliament House, a new Supreme Court, a tower office block for government accommodation and appropriate landscaping for the whole area. We all remember that. The estimated cost of that was around $300m. In November 1988, some 11 months later, an agreement was signed
Page 301
between Tipperary Developments and the Northern Territory government. It was a government ...
Mr Bailey: The Chief Minister was sacked.
Mr MANZIE: Wait a minute. It was a government-financed project that we know now as the State Square project. In those days, the cost was an estimated $100m in 1988 dollars.
Mr Ede: Fixed!
Mr MANZIE: During the period 1987 to November 1988, the developer employed southern consultants in conjunction with local consultants to develop the original concept. There were many other concepts. A series of concepts were looked at until the concept as we know it now was determined. Models were constructed. There were options for construction times. There were estimated costs. There were estimates of the cash flow. An endeavour was made to obtain for the Territory sorely-needed facilities and a large building project that would afford maximum benefit to its flagging building industry. That is all fairly clear, and it has all been said in here on previous occasions.
In November 1988, the developer, who was to become the project manager, obviously required reimbursement for the time and sustained efforts over a period of 11 months on the part of himself and his many consultants. That has been stated very clearly in here previously. To determine an appropriate level of reimbursement, information was sought from right across Australia in relation to similar types of arrangements. Eventually, a figure of $1.75m - it may have been 1.75% of the estimated cost - was agreed on. The government then entered into the present project management agreement with Tipperary Developments.
Mr Ede: Was it audited?
Mr MANZIE: That was a fixed cost. There was also the project management fee which is calculated at a rate of 3.75% of the project's costs. It is paid progressively as part of the monthly payments. This has all been said before.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister is getting away from the point. He went through it fairly well at the beginning.
Mr Manzie: I have not ...
Mr EDE: You are getting to the percentage fee. You said that the fixed price of $1.75m ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr Ede: It is reasonable that we ask that he answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister is on his feet answering the question, and the member should allow him to continue. If, at the end of his response, he has not answered
Page 302
what was sought, the Leader of the Opposition may ask the question again. The Minister for Transport and Works.
Mr MANZIE: We then have the project manager's fee, calculated as 3.75% ...
Mr Ede: You are confusing it now.
Mr MANZIE: It was part of the total fee. Listen, I am going over what is in the Parliamentary Record and what has been said in this Assembly in the past. I am going over the information that has been supplied to the member for Wanguri in relation to his public questioning of people involved - officers of the department. The information has all been supplied. Opposition members do not want to know about it. They want me to sit down. I do not intend to do so. Opposition members do not intend to hear the information because obviously they cannot pull together what they have asked for and have been supplied with over the years. This is a disgraceful performance by opposition members.
This is important. Research undertaken by officers of the Department of Transport and Works, prior to entering into that agreement with the project manager, confirmed that 3.75% is a very reasonable fee when compared with other major projects of this type. This is the kind of cost that is considered to be fair and reasonable by the industry itself. We had 2 areas: one was a fixed fee and the other was a percentage. I am advised that the fee is usually a percentage fee, and certainly that would have escalated at higher cost to the Territory. I believe the arrangements made previously by my colleague are very sensible in that they save the Territory taxpayer money in relation to a variation in cost.
All those details have been provided many times. They are on the record, and I ask members opposite to do some reading instead of wasting the time of this House by requiring the regurgitation of these details repeatedly. It does members of the opposition no good and it does the Territory community no good. It only wastes the time of this House. Time and time again, the same questions are asked requesting the same information. I have been fair and reasonable, and I have provided the information.
Mr Perron interjecting.
Mr Ede interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much chatter across the Chamber. The minister is answering a question, and I request all members to remain reasonably silent.
Mr MANZIE: Members know very clearly also that, whilst there was a $100m cost in 1988 dollars, variations made to that since that time have resulted from changes requested by the government. We know that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: Those changes were agreed to in principle by opposition members on the New Parliament House Committee. There is no doubt about that. The cost of those variations and prolongations were provided in great detail to members opposite when they cross-examined officers of the Department of Transport and Works in hearings before the
Page 303
Public Accounts Committee. They were detailed line by line, indicating what the variations were and what the cost estimates were.
Mr Bailey: Rubbish!
Mr MANZIE: I refer the member to his cross-examinations in relation to the variations and their cost which appear in the published minutes of the Public Accounts Committee hearings. He has an extremely short memory.
Mr Bailey: Table them.
Mr MANZIE: I do not intend to table them. They are public information, you clown!
Mr Bailey: There is nothing in them ...
Mr MANZIE: Indeed, the member for Wanguri lacks not only integrity but also memory. His attempts to regurgitate information demonstrate real ignorance on his part - ignorance of what he has requested in the past and of the information that has been provided to him previously.
Page 304
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I pointed out yesterday that it was a developer's fee. I pointed out also to the member for Wanguri that he refer to the Parliamentary Record of 23 November 1988 when the previous minister ...
Mr Finch: Today, 6 years ago.
Page 300
Mr MANZIE: Today 6 years ago, that is right. The previous minister pointed out the fee structure.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: That is what you were told yesterday but, once again, we have a problem. One could almost describe the member for Wanguri as the Forrest Gump of the Territory. To him, life is like a box of chocolates. He is not too sure what will happen next. I think it would be advisable ...
Mr Bailey: What did we get for $1.75m?
Mr MANZIE: If he listened to what was told to him, he would know that I pointed out to him that those details had been provided in this House. I even told him on which day. It is a developer's fee. It is a fee. This particular area, which relates to the developer, is being paid for in 2 separate ways. One is through a development fee and the other is through a project management fee. The development fee is a fixed amount and the project management fee is a percentage fee.
Mr Bailey: What did we get for the $1.75m?
Mr MANZIE: It is the total fee, at the end of the job ...
Mr Bailey: They told us that it was for the plans and all the work that was done in the past. They have done nothing.
Mr MANZIE: If the member for Wanguri wants to answer the question himself, that is fine, but I will say it very slowly. There is the development fee and the project management fee. The development fee is a fixed cost. It is fixed at $1.75m. The project manager's fee is a percentage of the job. It is usual that it is a percentage fee.
Mr Bailey: That is the one where the more it costs, the more they get ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is going a little too far. I advise him that, if he continues along this line, I will name him. The Minister for Transport and Works.
Mr MANZIE: There was full discussion and justification of the developer's fee given by the then Minister for Transport and Works in this Assembly on 23 November 1988. That is readily available in the Parliamentary Record. For the benefit of members opposite, I will reiterate the justification for the payment of this fee.
In late 1987, Warren Anderson and his company, Tipperary Developments, approached the government to assist the Territory in financing, designing and constructing a Northern Territory government precinct that was to include the new Parliament House, a new Supreme Court, a tower office block for government accommodation and appropriate landscaping for the whole area. We all remember that. The estimated cost of that was around $300m. In November 1988, some 11 months later, an agreement was signed
Page 301
between Tipperary Developments and the Northern Territory government. It was a government ...
Mr Bailey: The Chief Minister was sacked.
Mr MANZIE: Wait a minute. It was a government-financed project that we know now as the State Square project. In those days, the cost was an estimated $100m in 1988 dollars.
Mr Ede: Fixed!
Mr MANZIE: During the period 1987 to November 1988, the developer employed southern consultants in conjunction with local consultants to develop the original concept. There were many other concepts. A series of concepts were looked at until the concept as we know it now was determined. Models were constructed. There were options for construction times. There were estimated costs. There were estimates of the cash flow. An endeavour was made to obtain for the Territory sorely-needed facilities and a large building project that would afford maximum benefit to its flagging building industry. That is all fairly clear, and it has all been said in here on previous occasions.
In November 1988, the developer, who was to become the project manager, obviously required reimbursement for the time and sustained efforts over a period of 11 months on the part of himself and his many consultants. That has been stated very clearly in here previously. To determine an appropriate level of reimbursement, information was sought from right across Australia in relation to similar types of arrangements. Eventually, a figure of $1.75m - it may have been 1.75% of the estimated cost - was agreed on. The government then entered into the present project management agreement with Tipperary Developments.
Mr Ede: Was it audited?
Mr MANZIE: That was a fixed cost. There was also the project management fee which is calculated at a rate of 3.75% of the project's costs. It is paid progressively as part of the monthly payments. This has all been said before.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister is getting away from the point. He went through it fairly well at the beginning.
Mr Manzie: I have not ...
Mr EDE: You are getting to the percentage fee. You said that the fixed price of $1.75m ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr Ede: It is reasonable that we ask that he answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister is on his feet answering the question, and the member should allow him to continue. If, at the end of his response, he has not answered
Page 302
what was sought, the Leader of the Opposition may ask the question again. The Minister for Transport and Works.
Mr MANZIE: We then have the project manager's fee, calculated as 3.75% ...
Mr Ede: You are confusing it now.
Mr MANZIE: It was part of the total fee. Listen, I am going over what is in the Parliamentary Record and what has been said in this Assembly in the past. I am going over the information that has been supplied to the member for Wanguri in relation to his public questioning of people involved - officers of the department. The information has all been supplied. Opposition members do not want to know about it. They want me to sit down. I do not intend to do so. Opposition members do not intend to hear the information because obviously they cannot pull together what they have asked for and have been supplied with over the years. This is a disgraceful performance by opposition members.
This is important. Research undertaken by officers of the Department of Transport and Works, prior to entering into that agreement with the project manager, confirmed that 3.75% is a very reasonable fee when compared with other major projects of this type. This is the kind of cost that is considered to be fair and reasonable by the industry itself. We had 2 areas: one was a fixed fee and the other was a percentage. I am advised that the fee is usually a percentage fee, and certainly that would have escalated at higher cost to the Territory. I believe the arrangements made previously by my colleague are very sensible in that they save the Territory taxpayer money in relation to a variation in cost.
All those details have been provided many times. They are on the record, and I ask members opposite to do some reading instead of wasting the time of this House by requiring the regurgitation of these details repeatedly. It does members of the opposition no good and it does the Territory community no good. It only wastes the time of this House. Time and time again, the same questions are asked requesting the same information. I have been fair and reasonable, and I have provided the information.
Mr Perron interjecting.
Mr Ede interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much chatter across the Chamber. The minister is answering a question, and I request all members to remain reasonably silent.
Mr MANZIE: Members know very clearly also that, whilst there was a $100m cost in 1988 dollars, variations made to that since that time have resulted from changes requested by the government. We know that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: Those changes were agreed to in principle by opposition members on the New Parliament House Committee. There is no doubt about that. The cost of those variations and prolongations were provided in great detail to members opposite when they cross-examined officers of the Department of Transport and Works in hearings before the
Page 303
Public Accounts Committee. They were detailed line by line, indicating what the variations were and what the cost estimates were.
Mr Bailey: Rubbish!
Mr MANZIE: I refer the member to his cross-examinations in relation to the variations and their cost which appear in the published minutes of the Public Accounts Committee hearings. He has an extremely short memory.
Mr Bailey: Table them.
Mr MANZIE: I do not intend to table them. They are public information, you clown!
Mr Bailey: There is nothing in them ...
Mr MANZIE: Indeed, the member for Wanguri lacks not only integrity but also memory. His attempts to regurgitate information demonstrate real ignorance on his part - ignorance of what he has requested in the past and of the information that has been provided to him previously.
Page 304
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016