❓ Question regarding Water Corporation's expenditure on renovations at Mount Eliza House and corporate entertainment. The Minister deflects direct responsibility, highlighting the corporation's autonomy.
AnsweredQoN 287Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to a recent report in The West Australian that in November 2001 the Water Corporation paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation of Mount Eliza House to allow for corporate entertainment by the Water Corporation and other government agencies. (1) Was the minister aware of this renovation; and, if so, when did he first become aware of it? (2) Was the minister required to approve expenditure on the renovation; and, if so, when did he give that approval? (3) What has been the total level of funds expended on corporate entertainment, seminars and the like by the Water Corporation at Mount Eliza House since that renovation was completed? (4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(1) Was the minister aware of this renovation; and, if so, when did he first become aware of it? (2) Was the minister required to approve expenditure on the renovation; and, if so, when did he give that approval? (3) What has been the total level of funds expended on corporate entertainment, seminars and the like by the Water Corporation at Mount Eliza House since that renovation was completed? (4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(2) Was the minister required to approve expenditure on the renovation; and, if so, when did he give that approval? (3) What has been the total level of funds expended on corporate entertainment, seminars and the like by the Water Corporation at Mount Eliza House since that renovation was completed? (4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(3) What has been the total level of funds expended on corporate entertainment, seminars and the like by the Water Corporation at Mount Eliza House since that renovation was completed? (4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(1) Was the minister aware of this renovation; and, if so, when did he first become aware of it? (2) Was the minister required to approve expenditure on the renovation; and, if so, when did he give that approval? (3) What has been the total level of funds expended on corporate entertainment, seminars and the like by the Water Corporation at Mount Eliza House since that renovation was completed? (4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(2) Was the minister required to approve expenditure on the renovation; and, if so, when did he give that approval? (3) What has been the total level of funds expended on corporate entertainment, seminars and the like by the Water Corporation at Mount Eliza House since that renovation was completed? (4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(3) What has been the total level of funds expended on corporate entertainment, seminars and the like by the Water Corporation at Mount Eliza House since that renovation was completed? (4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(4) Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended as part of the renovation, including the cost of the airconditioning system at Mount Eliza House? (5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(5) Will the minister confirm that a contract to handle bookings for the facility has been awarded to Impact Communications Pty Ltd; and, if so, what is the value of that contract? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
That is a wonderful question to ask a minister without notice. However, I will provide relevant information if I am permitted to do so. Yes, I did read an interesting observation in a newspaper several weeks ago. This issue was drawn to my attention when I read that. Secondly, it was not a matter that required my approval, and I did not approve of it, nor do I disapprove of it - I was not part of the process. I should point out to the House that the Water Corporation came into being, along with other bodies, during the term of the previous Government. It is a corporatised entity run by a board; it is not a government department. A minister’s role for a corporatised entity is not the same as a minister’s role with regard to a government department. A number of operational activities of corporatised entities such as the Water Corporation are not brought to the attention of a minister in the normal course of events. There are moments - I am not singling out the Water Corporation - when I wish we did not have corporatised entities but had only government departments. If that were the case, when someone criticised the actions of a government agency that happened to be a corporatised entity and had a go at the relevant minister, the minister could be made properly accountable and would be in a position to direct the government agency to do the things that the minister wished it to do. However, that is not the way our system operates. With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
With regard to this matter, I must pay attention to a number of points if I am to provide a very detailed answer to the member’s question. I note that he has now offered to provide me with a copy of his question, which has several parts, but he has not yet handed it over. I am not in a position to give the details of the Water Corporation’s entertainment expenditure that relates to Mount Eliza House. The member has sought a number of items of information. Frankly, they are items that would normally be addressed to a minister by giving some notice or, more properly, given the detail he seeks to obtain, the member should have put the question on notice. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should have taken note of the appropriate procedure. However, now that he has just provided me with a copy of his question - Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
Hon Bruce Donaldson: I did that to assist you. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: It would have assisted me if the member had put the question on notice. (1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(1) I am aware of Mount Eliza House. The first occasion I went there was for a Water Corporation function when it presented its annual report several weeks ago. That event preceded the report in the newspaper to which the honourable member referred. Last year, the Water Corporation did not hold a function for the presentation of its annual report. However, a function was held in the previous year and the year before that. I sought details of the functions of the previous years. I was concerned about last year’s proposed function because the corporation intended to hold it at a particular place. I sought costings on that and considered it to be lavish, so I put a stop to it. I have sought a comparison between what took place this year and in previous years. I assure the honourable member that the corporation’s function this year was somewhat more restrained than it was under the previous administration. (2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(2) The Water Corporation is alleged to have paid $350 000 for a luxurious renovation. I invite the honourable member to contact my office, the Water Corporation or me. I could arrange to have him shown around Mount Eliza House so that he can form his own view of the renovations that have taken place. I was not required to approve expenditure on the renovation, and nor did I. Nobody asked for my approval. I sought a briefing from Water Corporation on the issue, although not necessarily in the terms of the honourable member’s question. I was advised that none of the decisions involved in the renovation procedure required ministerial approval, as they were part of day-to-day operational activities. Again, the previous administration put that provision in place. (3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(3) I should be able to answer this question, but I am sorry, I just cannot answer it off the top of my head. I will have a rest in the forthcoming break so that I am in a position to answer questions of this type when they are next asked of me. (4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(4) I refer to a document of a confidential nature in order to provide a relevant answer on this matter. A conforming tender of $200 000 for the building restoration was accepted on 27 September 2001. Variations identified during construction related to structural modifications, poor foundations, poor plasterwork and other minor items amounting to an additional $25 000. The building restoration also included new access and toilet facilities for the disabled, together with a covered pavilion between the house and the facilities constructed. An appropriate airconditioning system was also installed. The cost of the building restoration amounted to $275 000. During these renovations, the Water Corporation funded electrical work, painting, security, landscaping, carpet and window treatments from its building maintenance budget, which amounted to an additional $75 000. This document of a confidential nature advises me that the total cost of the restoration work was approximately $350 000, which accounts for the building renovations to the appropriate heritage standard, airconditioning, disabled facilities, covered pavilion and landscaping. (5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
(5) I cannot confirm that. The member might have read that in an interesting newspaper column. I recollect that I read something to that effect in a newspaper column, but I did not consider that I had to follow up the matter. I am not aware that that issue has been raised before. If the member is so fascinated with it, I invite him to correspond with me or to place another question on notice.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.