Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 1:42:03 to 1:48:10
Discussion focuses on the department's planning for the event, including venue bookings and contingencies for world leaders versus ministerial-level delegates.
Topics: Climate change, Government spending
Speakers: Hon Tim Ayres, Susan McDonald, Mr Mike Kaiser, Varun Ghosh, Unknown Speaker
>> Can I just clarify Mr. Kaiser, it's correct that this department is responsible for organizing the preop as opposed to the invitations
>> uh aspects of preop. Yes. Um, as has been explained in earlier testimony, we weren't involved in the organizing of the Tuvaloo visit. Um, but broadly matters that occurred in Fiji was our responsibility.
>> Right. So, you'd be booking accommodation and
>> Yeah. For those that accepted the
invitation. So you didn't book any you didn't make any planning around like if the president of the of America was coming then you would have to have different arrangements than if you were just having the
>> the question was about our knowledge of
who was invited. No, no. My question to you is when you were deciding on the location and booking accommodation that you would have had to you would have planned a different event if you had thought that you were having world leaders as opposed to foreign ministers
>> based on the acceptance of invitations not issued by us.
>> Oh, I it's like planning any sort of event. You you book the venue based on who you think is coming and what what their requirements would be and the caliber of the guests and but you had no input into that. You just blindly booked a venue and then said well if the president comes we'll have to book out half the island and if he doesn't then we'll just have foreign. Is is that the sort of approach it was? We'll just book an event, book a location and then whoever turns up we'll we'll sort it out
after that. Well, we were involved in booking accommodation on the basis of some of those costs being returned if the accommodation was taken up by by other nations. ample provision for those who may who may show up on the basis of reimburseable cost.
>> So, you contemplated the idea that you might have had world leaders. You may have had world leaders. You didn't, but you may have had world leaders. And so you planned in that eventuality and you must have kicked around a list of names of people who might have turned up you'd hope would turn up.
>> It's not I'm not sure what the names are um what relevance that would have.
>> It's the capacity of the department to make good planning and decisions because we're worried about the waste of No, I won't allow you just yet. Let me finish my question please. >> Well well what is the point of No, let me finish my question please. My question is we are concerned about the egregious expenditure of money on this event that then didn't attract the world leaders that the environment minister promised would come and so we're trying to understand was there even the most basic level of planning like we're going to plan for world leaders to come or are we just planning for the local BS to come from uh from the local community. It it's a very different event. you would have planned it very differently. But I'm getting an assertion that you didn't know who was invited, you didn't know who was coming, you just booked out of a a a local resort and hope that it all work out. And you spent a hell of a lot of money doing so.
>> It is I I'll um uh deal with that question. There may be more that officials can provide in terms of what the arrangements were. Uh um however it is not unusual uh in organizing these events for a large num for um contingencies to be put in place for a large number of delegates from countries to attend. I mean in in 2007 when Prime Minister Howard hosted APEC the forecast was for 6,000 delegates. The final numbers well short of expectations. thousands of Sydney hotel rooms had to be released. That that that is not unusual. I make no criticism of those APEC arrangements. I just say that it's not unusual. Uh in relation to the G20, um it's very very similar. Um when you say the local BS I I can't help but think that that question reflects No, it doesn't. I'm trying to understand whether or not you thought >> you must allow me to finish my answers. You must allow me to finish.
>> But you don't let me finish my question.
So, >> well, I had started to answer your question and you provided an additional question. Um, uh, I I I can't help but think that the coalition has not learned the national security lesson. this >> uh that that should have been learned following uh 2029 to 2022. Um I mean Senator Canavan said just a few weeks ago I don't look as silly as Anthony Albanzy and Chris Bowen in those stupid Hawaiian >> Could you can you can you imagine can you can you imagine >> that that there is any utility in being derogatory about the national dress >> of those things is is that there is
senators and minister senators and minister. Minister, just one moment, please. Senators, as well, I have let this go because it has sort of been done in relatively good humor, but I think we're at risk of going off the rails for a moment. Um, so let's just bring this back to the to the classic way that this works best, which is questions and answers. Minister, I think you're coming to the end of that and then maybe to to officials in response to Senator McDonald's questions and then we'll move
on. Serious issues require serious people >> saying serious things when it goes to our security and resilience in the region and there is a lack of seriousness about the approach uh that has been taken in relation to this set of issues. That's all I say.