Page 40 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
passed a motion on the government office building. It was a motion that was originally proposed by Mr Seselja, although I admit that after it was amended the Liberal Party did not vote for it.
What the government has done is basically to look at the motion that the Assembly put forward. It asked the government to look at feasibility studies and market testings and to see what was the best option; to look at an examination of adaptive reuse of existing office buildings and consideration of options for an ACT government office precinct as opposed to just a single building model; to look at the life cycle analysis of the environmental impact of the building; and finalise the government office accommodation strategy—and, unfortunately, the government has not yet done that.
I think it is a pity that Mr Seselja in his censure motion did not look at some of the real issues where the government needs to lift its game. As far as office accommodation goes, the fundamental thing of getting a strategy first and then implementing it would have been an excellent thing for Mr Seselja to think about on this issue. I am very surprised that Mr Smyth did not in fact think of this, as he, through PAC, has been a strong supporter of the idea that the government should get its accommodation strategy done first.
Mr Seselja’s motion is, as I said, just silly. The government have spent some money on this project. Yes, it would have been better if the government had spent less money on this project, but I think it is reasonable to believe that the government can spend money on feasibility studies before they make large capital investments.
In looking at it, that is what the government did here. I think that the government should have instructed their consultants differently. I think the government should have worked out earlier that there were other options. I do not think they followed the best options. But to say that they deserve censuring for doing feasibility studies and then deciding on a different course of action is just straight out and out silly. This is what a government are meant to do. They are meant to get evidence together and then choose the best course of action. They are not meant to say, four years ago—
Mr Smyth: But they made the decision. They were going to do it and they’re being held to account.
MS LE COUTEUR: What do the opposition want the government to do? Do the opposition want the government to govern on the basis that four years ago they said something, therefore nothing can ever change? That is patently ridiculous. I cannot see how the opposition could for one moment think that this was a reasonable censure motion. The Greens will not be supporting this censure motion.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.24): I am surprised at Ms Le Couteur, but this of course is the standard approach from the Greens and the Labor Party here—that there is nothing to see. Mr Seselja’s motion is quite clear: in putting forward the proposal to build the house of hubris across the way here for $432 million and in putting forward the reasons for doing this—that this would save the ACT taxpayers in excess of $30 million—Mr Barr and Ms Gallagher have consistently and persistently over time misled this place and the people of the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video