HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

TOURISM COMMISSION

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Tourism a question about the visitor information centre.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As members would be aware, as part of a savings measure and a budget announcement last year, the government tendered to shift the visitor information centre from its previous location on King William Street to a basement location on a side street, being Grenfell Street. On Tuesday 13 March, I asked the Minister for Tourism a question in relation to an ex gratia payment that had been made to Holidays of Australia just before Christmas. My question was:

Could the minister explain the $32,000 ex gratia payment made to Holidays of Australia just before Christmas?

The minister's response was:

Any payments that were made, my understanding is that it was not an ex gratia payment but, rather, the payment was part of the original lease agreement.

My questions to the minister are: which original lease agreement is the minister referring to and, secondly, was the commission paying the lease on the building, given that this was meant to be a savings measure to deliver some $900,000 worth of savings?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for his important questions. In relation to the issue of which lease agreement, I have been advised that it was the lease agreement that was current at that time when the payment was actually made. I believe it was around December sometime, but I don't have the exact date in front of me; it was the lease agreement that was current at that particular time.

My understanding is that there was a discussion about a particular payment and there was a disagreement about that payment. However, we argued the point that that particular payment was not covered by the lease, the owner put forward an argument that he believed it was covered by the lease, and the final advice that we received was that it could be included in the lease, so we were advised that we should pay it. As I said in my initial answer, the advice that I received at the time was that it was not an ex gratia payment: it was a payment pertaining to those lease arrangements at that time.

In terms of the lease agreement, the specific terms of that lease agreement are commercially confidential, so I need to be fairly careful about any details that are divulged because it could, in fact, limit any future tender process that the government might be involved in, and it could prejudice the ability of the government to be able to maximise returns to this government. I know that no responsible person in this chamber would want to disadvantage the government's negotiating position, but I will consider the question, and if I am able to provide some detail I will take that on notice and bring back a response.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT