Page 3778 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At the end of the day, we need to do that cost-benefit analysis. We need to look at a whole range of issues. We need to do a triple bottom line analysis of the government office building on any option that is put forward, because it is important that we get it right. Whatever we build or put in place, we need to know that we are going to reap the benefits of that for many decades to come. This is not going to be a short-term, quick fix. It is a much longer term solution to the issues of office accommodation.
Of course, we need to fit that into the broader picture of where we want Canberra to go. If we want a sustainable city, then we are going to have to build up our residential density along those main transport corridors. One of those main transport corridors is Northbourne Avenue. Many of our current ACT public servants are housed in Macarthur House, Dickson motor registry or a number of buildings along Northbourne Avenue. In the longer term, it makes far more sense to be looking at how we can better utilise that land on a major transport corridor. I think we will find that being able to put in residential housing, and higher density residential housing, will be a much better outcome as far as being able to reach that goal of having a sustainable city is concerned. It links in with how we are going to build our transport system right across the city as well. It links in to whether we are going to have enough people living along that corridor, for instance, to support light rail.
These are really critical things. A whole lot of pieces of the puzzle go together. We do need to look at each clearly to get it right, but I think it is very exciting. There are some great outcomes we can achieve though this one project. But let us do the analysis properly. Let us take the time. Let us give it proper consideration. That is what my amendments today are proposing.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (3.26): It is interesting to see the amendment from the Greens, because it is a tacit approval of what the government is going to do. It does not hold the government to account. It does not say to the government, “Stop.” It simply says, “Do a bit more work; give us a report,” and, of course, the government will continue on its merry way. And that is why the Greens, certainly, should not be supporting Ms Hunter’s amendment. They should be supporting the motion from Mr Seselja, because the government has had a number of chances.
Let me reiterate those chances, for members. We have an interim report from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, from February this year. It is very rare that committees put out interim reports. It is fair to say that the committee was so concerned about what the government was doing that it put out this report, which has three very simple recommendations—three recommendations which, oddly enough, the government has now rejected not once, but twice.
The first recommendation is that the committee makes no final decision until all the information has been provided to the public accounts committee and we report to the Assembly. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr Barr: Sorry, I think you meant the government, did you not?
MR SMYTH: No, the government make no decision until they have given the information back.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video