Page 1791 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Chief Minister, do you agree that announcing a move of more than 500 public servants to Gungahlin and advocating at the same time for a $340 million office block to accommodate ACT public servants in one location is a direct contradiction?
MR STANHOPE: No, I do not. We employ as full-time public servants in excess of 17,000 people. The question that the member proposes really would beg: why aren’t we co-locating all 17,000 in an office block? We are not because many of them perform services that, for instance, are not administrative.
Mr Hanson: So they are all going to be nurses going to Gungahlin, are they, or doctors or—
MR STANHOPE: That is basically what Mr Smyth is suggesting and I must say it is what Mr Seselja, in his ignorance this morning, suggested—that we needed to ensure that front-line service delivery was not impacted by moving public servants into an office block in the city; Mr Seselja, of course, for the time being forgetting that the majority of our public servants are doctors and nurses and teachers and police officers and firefighters and ambulance officers who of course will remain precisely where they currently are.
Let us bring just a little bit of common sense and a little bit of intelligence to the debate. We are proposing that our essential administrative staff, our policy makers, our administrators, will be co-located. It will create very significant efficiencies and synergies in relation to the capacity of our public service to work as a single public service. Over and above that, the capital investment will of course be an asset, will not affect our bottom line and will produce very significant savings, savings in the order of $20 million a year in direct costs, let alone the indirect economic costs or benefits that come from co-locating a workforce. So this is a project that I do hope that the Liberal Party at some stage takes the trouble to engage with, does acknowledge the $20 million in direct savings that would result from this particular proposal, and that we have to house our staff, our public servants, somewhere. (Time expired.)
MR SMYTH: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: Chief Minister, you said this morning at the Canberra Business Council budget breakfast that these would be front-line staff. Now that you have told the Assembly it will be upwards of 500, can you detail what front-line services will constitute the upwards of 500 public servants moving to Gungahlin?
MR STANHOPE: I must say I have some difficulty answering the question. I am not quite sure what comment of mine this morning Mr Smyth alleges I made and the context in which I made it. So I really cannot answer the question. I really have absolutely no faith in anything that Mr Smyth, or indeed any member of the Liberal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video