Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1997 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

They are quite happy to release 38,000 square metres of office space onto the market in the current environment. I am quite concerned about what this will mean for the ACT property market. I am quite concerned about what this might mean for various regional centres in Canberra if the Government persists with trying to release, by 2002, 38,000 square metres of office space onto the property market.

It also interests me that, after releasing the draft asset management strategy, the Government still found it in their hearts to renew the lease on FAI House, which no doubt suited the Treasury officials because it is just across the road. It is interesting that, while the Treasury officials are happy to write a draft asset management strategy to reduce the amount of office accommodation that ACT government employees have to work in, they were very keen to renew the lease on their own building. While other people have to consolidate their office accommodation, move offices and all that sort of thing, the Treasury officials are not leading by example by vacating expensive office accommodation in the CBD. Perhaps there is a good explanation for that.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.55): Mr Speaker, Treasury officials, apart from those in the customer service area, actually are not in FAI House. Oops, Mr Whitecross! They have actually moved into the Canberra Nara Centre. They are leading by example and moving to the 15-square-metre situation. Other departments and areas are in the process of moving into FAI House, again on the basis of 15 square metres. Wrong again, Mr Whitecross!

Mr Whitecross has just managed to rule out both the No. 1 and No. 2 areas of saving. (Quorum formed) It seems that Mr Whitecross has ruled out our capacity to save money in the area of wages. They have said that that is simply not acceptable; it is not appropriate at all to go down the path of redundancies; we are very naughty in doing that. That is our biggest single expenditure. Our second biggest is more than likely, I suspect, accommodation. In most departments it would be accommodation. Mr Whitecross is now saying that the approach we have taken in accommodation to save $8m per annum is also not such a great idea. We are getting a quite long way down the list of things that we are actually allowed to save money on, but remember that we are supposed to reduce the operating loss.

I come back to what I said before. If you cannot save money in the two major areas of expenditure, there is only one other approach, and that is to increase taxes. That must be what those opposite are planning to do. As I said before, at least Mr Moore had the guts to stand up and say that that is what he would do. He would introduce a bed tax; he would introduce some other taxes that New South Wales has introduced. At least he had the guts to say it. Those opposite will not say it. They will say that we are not allowed to save money anywhere, that that is simply not acceptable; but they do not have the guts to talk about increasing taxes.

Debate interrupted.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .