Page 3774 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This reality underpins the need for a comprehensive strategy for government office accommodation, something that has been talked about for a number of years and considered by two committee inquiries, something that I will return to later.
This is not just a question of whether we should go ahead with the office building or do something completely different with the money. There is not $430 million there to be spent on any project of our choosing.
The reality is that we have to provide offices for our public servants to work in. Every day we are spending money providing office space and wasting money on inefficient buildings that do not deliver good environmental outcomes. Nor are they conducive to good overall workplace productivity.
We have to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that come about from government operations. It would be foolhardy to think that just continuing in current buildings would be the most economically prudent course of action.
To suggest that this is a simple question is disingenuous, to say the least. We cannot continue with the status quo. We will have to spend some money. Of course, there is a large spectrum of options available to us. The exact manner in which we address the problem and find the best solution remain to be determined.
The Greens have said very clearly that we want the best value for money that delivers the best overall outcomes for the territory balance sheet, our public servants, the environment and the community more broadly. We are not convinced that a single government office building is the best model. We certainly remain open to it, but there does remain work to be done. We have appropriated money for this task, for this extra work to be done, and we have repeatedly said that further work will need to be completed to satisfy us that the proposed building is the most appropriate model.
The Greens will not support Mr Seselja’s motion as proposed. I will move an amendment shortly that reflects the Greens’ views on where the process should go now and the outputs we expect from the government at this stage of the process.
As I have said before in this place, particularly in the debate on the appropriation bill, the Greens remain concerned that the adaptive reuse of the existing building stock has not been adequately considered throughout the process. We believe that this funding for further studies needs to incorporate some options which were excluded very early on in the process, including the retrofitting of existing buildings and looking at a wider range of buildings which could be used which are in the vicinity of the Assembly building. Although we agree that there could indeed be many benefits in co-location, having an ACT government office precinct could be just as good as housing all our ACT public servants in one very large building.
I should acknowledge at this point that the process has changed somewhat since the minister’s announcement that the project will be market tested and tenders invited from the private sector so that we have the full suite of options available to us before we commit to any particular project. As I said during the budget debate, the Greens
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video