Territory Stories

Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 23 November 1994



Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 23 November 1994

Other title

Parliamentary Record 6


Debates for 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 23 November 1994 Mr BAILEY: I am concerned because $ 170m o f taxpayers money was spent on this building and the Supreme Court building. It is my belief that a significant proportion of that money was wasted - not actually in the construction o f the buildings, but in the way that the decision was made to build them and in the way the design changes etc occurred. M r Stone: Territorians disagree with you. M r BAILEY: If you ran that as a single issue, I believe you would find that they do not. I hope the minister will be able to explain the discrepancy between his announcement and the media statement that the agreement was signed on 28 October, and the actual agreement, copies o f which have been tabled, which states that the agreement was made on 23 November. I would him also to explain and table the second agreement made with Tipperary Developments in relation to the $ 1,75m. It is my understanding that the Public Accounts Committee required the agreements between the government and Tipperary, and Tipperary and Multiplex to be tabled with that committee. Could it be that the government and/or Tipperary actually breached the privilege o f that committee by not complying with its request? That is an issue that I will be raising at the next meeting o f the Public Accounts Committee because it was my understanding that we had been given the contracts. However, it appears that that is not the case. In the time remaining, I would like to raise one other issue relating to the new Parliament House. It has been fascinating to sit here today watching the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk attempting to get the time clocks to work correctly. That brings me to a fascinating little story. The other week, I was in Sydney visiting some friends. While I was there, a woman arrived who asked what I did in Darwin and I told her that I was a politician. She told me that she was the person who made the 3 clocks - the one in this Chamber, the big one in the main hall and the one in the library area. She said that she was very annoyed with the developers and the government etc because o f the way that she had been treated. She said: I am an artist. I make these things. That is my living. She said that the contractual arrangements to provide these clocks came down to her through the contractor, subcontractor etc. She said that she examined the design brief and it required solid brass with glass and solid brass hands and it specified a particular internal mechanism. She said that she communicated backwards and forwards by telephone and by letter indicating that there were real problems with the specifications. The first was that, if the clocks were all to be made o f solid brass, they would cost a great deal and they would be very heavy. Secondly, she said that, if the specified mechanism were used, she would have some difficulty with it, particularly with the big clock. She said that it was not what she would recommend and that, if she were forced to use it, she could not guarantee that it would work. She pointed out also that the hands would not work if they were made in that way because o f the weight o f the materials involved and the design itself, given that the counterbalancing etc is very sensitive. However, they were adamant that hands and the mechanism had to comply with what was in the specifications. 1854