Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2014 Week 12 Hansard (29 October) . .
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Ms Lawder.
MS LAWDER: Minister, what did your directorate say was the indicative cost to implement a program such as this?
MR CORBELL: I would have to review the advice provided to me.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: Minister, have you taken any further action towards implementing an environmental upgrade agreement program or something similar in the ACT?
MR CORBELL: No, I have not, and the reason for that is the circumstances I outlined earlier. We have a particularly distinct commercial office market in the ACT, which is dominated by the commonwealth government and its agencies and their request for environmental upgrades as part of their own arrangements. The commonwealth's own standards in relation to the environmental performance of commercial office stock is already driving significant improvements across the commercial office sector as building owners compete for commonwealth government tenancies. Given that the very large proportion of the commercial office market is dominated by commonwealth-related tenancies, there is more limited usefulness for an environmental upgrades program in the ACT. I intend to keep the matter under review, but at this point in time the government has decided that there are other priorities when it comes to upgrading the performance of the built environment, particularly in the residential sector.
MR SMYTH: Minister, did you undertake any consultation with builder-owners or their representative groups before you took that decision not to proceed?
MR CORBELL: No, I did not, because the government was initially looking at the usefulness of the proposal and whether it should be explored further. It was an initial consideration as to whether or not further time and resources should be put into engaging with the sector more broadly. We determined that at this point in time, given other priorities, particularly in relation to improving investment and performance of residential building stock, that is where our priorities lie at this time. I do not rule it out for the future, but it is not a priority at this time.
MR COE: My question is for the Minister for Capital Metro and it relates to light rail. Minister, on 25 June and 13 August this year you confirmed on the record that the $20 million provided in this year's budget to TAMS for the Gungahlin to city corridor upgrades was not included in your cost estimate for capital metro. Minister, has the $20 million since been included in your revised cost estimate of $783 million?
MR CORBELL: No, it is not included in that cost estimate.
Next page . .
Previous page. . . .
Speeches . . . .
Contents . . . .
Sittings . . . .