Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees I present reports from the legislation committees, except for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, in respect of the 2011-12 budget estimates, together with the Hansard record of the committees' pro­ceedings and documents received by the committees.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

I wish to highlight one aspect of the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on the budget estimates 2011-12, which is the evidence provided by the Department of Parliamentary Services in relation to the disposal of billiard tables. This issue is canvassed in paragraphs 1.17 to 1.20 and also at paragraph 2.9 of the report. This issue was first raised at the additional estimates hearing on Monday, 21 February 2011. Page 42 of the Hansard records this exchange:

Senator FAULKNER—How do you take account of the heritage value of these items before they are flogged off?

Ms Konig—We have a policy that requires a heritage assessment of any items that the department is getting rid of or that have been declared surplus In this case, these were assessed as having no heritage value.

Senator FAULKNER—Who by?

Ms Konig—The disposal officer.

After the issue was canvassed further at the committee, on page 43 of the Hansard the following was asked:

Senator FAULKNER—You are very confident about the heritage assessment that was made.

Ms Konig—Yes.

Senator FAULKNER—Could you provide copies of the heritage assessment and the valuation of these to the committee, please?

Ms Konig—I can.

The question about providing copies of the heritage assessment was taken on notice by DPS and the answer provided included the production of two documents by the Department of Parliamentary Services described as attachment A and attachment B of question on notice 27. One document, Question 27 Attachment A, was a declaration of surplus or unserviceable items form marked with three different dates: 6 July 2010, 7 July 2010 and 21 October 2010. The second document, Question 27 Attachment B, is a photocopy of one page of a computer printout entitled 'Register of all furniture installed in the New Parliament House'. This document contains a pen-script annotation: 'Given tables purchased by PHCA'—Parliament House Construction Authority—'around 1989 and are about 20 yrs old, thus no heritage value.' This annotation was signed but not dated by the disposal delegate.

The Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Mr Thompson, confirmed in evidence to the committee during budget estimates on Monday, 23 May—this is at page 24—that the annotation was in fact the heritage assessment. I asked Mr Thompson:

Senator FAULKNER: … Did I receive the heritage assessment or not? It certainly was not in the material that was provided to me.

Mr Thompson: The heritage assessment is essentially the handwritten note on attachment B.

Senator FAULKNER: … That is the heritage assessment, is it?

Mr Thompson: You asked for the written heritage assessment. Yes, that was it.

Senator FAULKNER: I see. When was that note written?

Mr Thompson: I cannot tell you.

A little later in the same hearing, and this is at page 43 of the transcript, Mr Kenny, also a senior officer in DPS, informed the committee that the annotation to Attachment B had been written:

… after 21 February, so it was after the estimates hearing in February.

In fact, Mr Kenny said, it was 'not long after the estimates hearings'. The following exchange—and this is at pages 43 and 44 of the transcript—then took place at the committee after that:

Mr Kenny: The tables were sold on 23 September 2010.

Senator FAULKNER: The last estimates hearing was 21 February, so the heritage assessment prior to their sale that I was told about at the last hearing—it was about six months later, for God's sake. Can someone now please explain how that could be?

Mr Kenny: I think it is clear that the advice at the last estimates was not correct, that a heritage assessment had already taken place.

Senator FAULKNER: That is the under­statement of the year, Mr Kenny. It sure is true. Normally, when incorrect advice is provided to Senate committees, someone corrects the record.

Mr Kenny: I understand that. This—

Senator FAULKNER: What happened here was that this annotation was added ex post facto and sent off to me, assuming, 'He is a bit of a dill; he will cop that.'

Mr Kenny: The realisation that the heritage assessment had not taken place—I became aware of that at about 20 past one this afternoon.

Senator FAULKNER: As a result of the questions I asked this morning?

Mr Kenny: Basically, yes. You raised the matter, and, as we said before lunch, there was some more investigation being done internally as to the history, noting that the history of all the billiard tables, in terms of the records available to us, was not clear—therefore it took a little bit longer to work through—but at about 20 past one I was advised that the heritage assessment had not been done at the time of the sale.

Senator FAULKNER: That is a pretty ordinary effort, isn't it, Mr Thompson?

Mr Thompson: I am not very happy about it.

So there we have it. Precisely eight months to the day after the sale had occurred, and only after extensive questioning at the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legisla­tion Committee—only after those processes did we find out that no heritage assessment had been made prior to the sale, contrary to DPS policy; that the Senate's Finance and Public Administration Legislation Com­mittee had been misled; that inaccurate evidence to the committee had not been corrected and that very serious questions remain unanswered about the status of documents provided to the committee.

Some of the truth about the sale of these two billiards tables here at Parliament House has surfaced. Let me assure the Senate that I expect this issue and related matters to get a great deal more attention from, and a great deal more scrutiny by, the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Com­mittee in weeks and months to come, because the Senate this morning agreed to refer this and other matters to the committee for inquiry. I acknowledge that all members from all political parties in this chamber were supportive of that reference and I thank government, opposition and Greens senators for that. As I have said, this matter, and related matters, will continue to be of great interest to me and, I know, to other members of the Senate's Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that that motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.