❓ Opposition questions the government's changing stance on equity in the convention centre project, particularly regarding the $110 million contribution. The Minister defends the government's position, clarifying it's not a 'normal' equity stake and criticises the previous government's dealings.
AnsweredQoN 155Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Page 23 of the convention centre request for proposal document dated 23 August 1999 states clearly that the State will hold no equity in the project. When did the minister change this position and did he advise all the tenderers of his change of heart prior to the close of tenders? (2) What are the options that the Premier referred to yesterday that are being considered with respect to the Government's taking equity in the convention centre? (3) Will the minister now explain the nature of this equity? Is it, as he has previously said, largely symbolic, or what is the content of this equity, the meaning of which escapes most commercial and economic analysts? Hon N.F. MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
(2) What are the options that the Premier referred to yesterday that are being considered with respect to the Government's taking equity in the convention centre? (3) Will the minister now explain the nature of this equity? Is it, as he has previously said, largely symbolic, or what is the content of this equity, the meaning of which escapes most commercial and economic analysts? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
(3) Will the minister now explain the nature of this equity? Is it, as he has previously said, largely symbolic, or what is the content of this equity, the meaning of which escapes most commercial and economic analysts? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
(1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
(2) What are the options that the Premier referred to yesterday that are being considered with respect to the Government's taking equity in the convention centre? (3) Will the minister now explain the nature of this equity? Is it, as he has previously said, largely symbolic, or what is the content of this equity, the meaning of which escapes most commercial and economic analysts? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
(3) Will the minister now explain the nature of this equity? Is it, as he has previously said, largely symbolic, or what is the content of this equity, the meaning of which escapes most commercial and economic analysts? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
(1)-(3) I will endeavour, again, to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. As I said in response to a similar question recently, “equity” may be the wrong word in its normal accepted use. As the Government is making a significant contribution of $110m to the facility, it decided to take an equity position in the project. The Government also recognised that it did not want to go down the same path as the previous Government in having a normal equity position by being involved with the private sector in business activities, such as building Underwater World at Singapore; I refer to the sorts of things that happened in the bad old days. That is what the Premier was talking about when referring to having an equity position in the broadest sense of the word; it recognises our $110m worth of ownership but does not require our involvement with the operation of the facility - with any liabilities or any the profits of the facility. That is what is being negotiated. If it cannot be negotiated in those terms, the Government will not take a “normal” equity position in the convention centre. There is nothing sinister and nothing underhand going on; it is simply a way in which we can reflect - Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: Clear as mud, minister. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: That is why I have always said, since this whole issue was raised, that the word “equity” is probably the wrong word. Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: What is the right word? Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: If I knew what it was, I would tell members. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It seems that some members are not interested in the answer. I am happy to call another question. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I am describing a situation that the Government is seeking to achieve. It can be given that name or I can create a name; however, a rose by any other name smells the same. The fact is that the Government is hoping a position can be arranged with the preferred tenderer to recognise the $110m being put in by the Government. However, if it is now the view of the Labor Party that Governments should be completely at arm’s length from any involvement with the private sector, I am pleased to know it has changed its views. Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Ken Travers: Don’t call it equity then. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not called it equity. It was called equity by a journalist at the beginning of this debate some time ago and I sought to explain what the Government has been trying to achieve. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Is it a gift? Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The $110m is a gift; I have told the House that before. That has been the Government's position from the very beginning, as was the land to be freehold. We started with a particular offer and have negotiated an improvement to the Government's position, as members who have taken an interest in this matter would know. We have now negotiated a 35-year lease of the land, after which time the whole project will return to the Government. That is an improvement over simply providing freehold land to the consortium. However, $110m has been provided to the consortium, as was intended. That funding is up front and obvious and anybody vaguely interested in the matter would know that that was the Government's proposal in the first place. The negotiations for this contract will be completed in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, members of the Opposition will be informed of the details of the final contract. Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.D. Griffiths: That will be a first. Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, I get a little irritated by the constant interjections of members of the Labor Party on issues of propriety and accountability, having previously sat on the opposition benches for 10 long years and watched the deals in Singapore - Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: You learnt nothing. Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Learnt nothing? I will tell members what we learnt. Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Peter Foss: What about Geoff Gallop and the Bond thing? Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes, and tell us about David Parker and Fremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. Tell us about all these sorts of things that we sat here and endured as taxpayers of this State for 10 long years. The Opposition should tell me of the number of occasions on which it ever had a probity audit of any project in which it was involved. It had never heard of them. This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
This project has had a probity auditor go through everything that has happened from the beginning until now and the probity auditor will continue to be there until the contract is signed. If members care to read the papers I tabled yesterday, they will see that the auditor believes the procedures have been totally proper. He has ticked off the process. If members do not believe him, they should go and see him. His name is Gary Gliddon of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Members should ask him if he believes this project has anything wrong with it. Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens interjected. The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He should calm down. There is no need to scream in the way he does at times. Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: If opposition members have has a problem with anything to do with the Perth convention and exhibition centre project, would they please do me a favour and go to the probity auditor? They should see him and ask him whether everything was done properly. Alternatively, if members have a reason to believe it was not done properly, they should see him and not stand in this House or go to the Press and make these allegations willy-nilly. They should ask him. If they are still not satisfied - Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.D. Griffiths: You don’t even know what it is called. Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I know what a probity auditor is. I suspect the Opposition has never heard of one as it never used one. Members opposite should ask Mr Gliddon if there has been a problem. Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: Has he completed it? Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: He has ticked off everything up to this point. Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: Is the audit complete? Has he certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been signed yet. He will remain until the project is signed. Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon Tom Stephens: He still has concerns, hasn’t he, otherwise he would have certified it? Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Mr President, can I take a moment to try to explain? It will take me more than a moment because the Leader of the Opposition is obviously thick. The probity auditor was involved in the process from the beginning. He sits in on the meetings and ticks off all the decision-making processes. At various times he asks people whether they have a problem; if they do, he deals with that problem. That has happened all the way through the project. He has written to the project team on one occasion and to me on another occasion saying that as far as he is concerned everything that has been done so far is squeaky clean. At the signing of the contract, he will finalise his position on that part of the activity. Up until now he is totally satisfied with the project as it is. However, if opposition members have a problem, they should please go and see him; in fact, I implore them to do so. If they believe there is something wrong with this project, they should ask him about it. If he then tells me that something was done incorrectly, it will be fixed. I implore them to do that if they have a reason to believe that something has not been done properly.
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.