Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 2:03:32 to 2:10:57
A heated exchange occurs regarding the scale of spending on international meetings compared to the costs of the 2014 G20 summit in Brisbane.
Topics: Diplomatic events, Government spending
Speakers: Hon Tim Ayres, Hon Sarah Henderson, Varun Ghosh, Unknown Speaker, Sally Box, Ms. Sally Box
>> I would have to take that on notice. Senator,
>> can you find that or could someone find it? >> Certainly. The the reason we are so concerned about this is um the expenditure in this department is just simply out of control. $150 million has been allocated for preop and related activities. Is this money part of that $150 million?
>> It certainly is. Senator,
>> why are you spending nearly $700,000 on meeting rooms and accommodation in Sydney?
>> Because we were hosting um a number of mandated events under the UNFC and a number of workshops to support the facilitation of the negotiations in our role as president of negotiations. But
you can always buy a hotel for that amount of money. I mean, seriously, >> how much was each meeting room?
>> Senator, um,
>> I'm entire Minister, I'm entitled to ask
>> Listen, I'm entitled to I'm entitled to um offer an answer.
>> Well, you do you know the answer?
>> Uh, what what I can tell you is
>> or are you just, you know, is this just interference control?
>> Please allow the minister to answer and then you can ask a further question.
What what I can tell you uh is uh that uh you could not buy a uh hotel uh for the amount of money that you have indicated. Um that is um that is uh not the case. Uh and that in these kind of international events I point you to the G20 in 2014 which >> was in Queensland. Um, no. I get to I get to answer the question of order,
please. I'd like to take a point of >> On direct relevance, I was asking the official about this contract. Minister, you are not being directly relevant. Uh,
we've got very raised a point of order and I'll rule on it. The minister is being relevant because he's responding to part of your question. Now, that was a political part or it may have been a rhetorical part, but it's a it's he's entitled to respond to it if it's part of the question.
>> A very direct question. That's what he
>> So the G the G20 in 2014 >> involved a contract for $2.6 million in one hotel, the Sopetel Brisbane, a $1.6 million contract for another hotel, the Stamford Plaza, a $1.6 million contract for the Pullman Brisbane, a $1.4 million contract for the Hilton Brisbane, a $1.4 million contract with the Ridges South Bank Brisbane, and a $1.4 4 million contract with the Brisbane Marriott uh at that uh at that conference.
>> Minister, could you please ask you to address my question?
>> I am I am addressing it.
>> No, you're not. $682,000
contract. the hypocrisy of your question
scale. That's right. I've just entire many many many millions of dollars
>> many many millions of dollars uh on uh one conference uh when the coalition was in power that
you are utterly unconerned about
about that conference.
>> Minister complete your answer and then
>> 7,000 hotel rooms were booked. direct Brisbane including luxury five-star resorts.
>> Minister, Senator Henderson is raising a point of order. Senator Henderson.
>> Um, on direct relevance, chair, I am seeking information about this contract and nothing else. If I could please be allowed to ask these questions. We are under huge time pressure. Uh, and if we could continue please and if you could rule that the answers must be directly relevant to the question which is what the standing orders require.
>> Well, I understand what the standing orders require, Senator Henderson. The minister is being relevant because your question did involve a rhetorical preamble to it which the minister is responding to. If you keep your questions entirely forensic and don't engage in the political element, then there is less room for that kind of sense you have and so the minister is responding to that. I'd ask the minister to respond in as brief as a way as he can in order to give his answer substance and do it justice and then we'll return to your questions. So, so
for that conference over 7,000 hotel rooms were booked, some of them in luxury five-star resorts
interrupt now? I've made my ruling on the relevance.
>> It's not relevant to it.
>> Well, you might not agree with my ruling, but I have made it. The minister is entitled now to give >> Well, you've made that point. I've explained my ruling. The minister's entitled to give his answer without interruption and then we'll return to your questions.
>> According to Oz tender contracts for that conference alone, $20 million was spent on hotels. $20 million. I
>> really don't want to answer the question.
>> Uh and your your questions
>> all I can conclude.
>> Your questions about a much smaller amount of money really do underline the lack of seriousness with which the coalition views this set of issues in the Pacific.
is not a small amount of money.
>> I did not interrupt you. I did not interrupt you.
>> Interrupting the whole
>> badgering me or badgering the officials does not assisting.
>> Well, that is precisely refusing to
bring to just some order for a moment. Senator Henderson, please stop interrupting the minister while he's giving the answer. Minister, please give the answer and then we'll move on to the
next question. I I mean this is this is the same coalition >> that made jokes about water lapping at Pacific leaders doors just a moment ago. One of you I can't remember which of you or Senator McDonald said that the local BS were coming. I can't imagine I can't imagine either of you saying that about a meeting of European leaders. I can't imagine you doing it. It is the most
disrespectful approach that undermines our security running interference undermines our national interest in a taxpayers money. Do not reflect on me.
Well, if the questions were less porative, >> if the questions were framed in a less political and insulting way, um you might get a different response from me.
But but it is allowed to do my job. Could you allow me to do my job, please?
>> Well, I I can't help you with that.
>> Senators, please stop interrupting each other. >> Minister, do you want to complete your
conclude by saying this? The costs were fully funded >> by the $500 million coalition era strategic international partnership that Angus Taylor, Mr. Taylor uh uh put together to bribe his way out of the naughty corner when when the previous government became so isolated on these questions in the region and around the world.
>> Talking Minister,
>> Senator Henderson, please stop interrupting and
>> point of order.
>> You I raise a point of order and I recognize that point of order, but it is also important that we do this in a sequenced way. What is your point of
>> Minister Ayres has just egregiously reflected on Mr. Taylor and I would ask him to withdraw that comment
>> uh unconditionally in in the interests of moving along. Minister, just >> happy to withdraw. >> Happy to much appreciate.