Page 1912 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR STANHOPE: I thank Mr Hargreaves for the question. It is a very important question. The government office block is indeed a very good investment for the people of the ACT. It is a very good investment in a number of ways: firstly, because it delivers the best financial outcomes of all options available to the government in relation to its accommodation needs; secondly, as I went to earlier, it delivers the best environmental and sustainability outcomes possible and will help us meet our targets in relation to carbon neutrality; and, thirdly, it invests in our people and will improve the efficiency and quality of services delivered to the Canberra community. It is very consistent with the report of Dr Hawke.
I will go into some of the detail of that. The member asks, of course, for a comparison of views of the Property Council. We reject absolutely the attitude the Property Council has taken to this particular development. I think this would be almost an historic first—the Property Council of the ACT not agreeing with or supporting the development of property.
Ms Gallagher: Well, it’s not their property.
MR STANHOPE: It is not their property, and I was going to go to that point. The Property Council are coming out and declaring themselves fundamentally opposed to the development of a major piece of infrastructure, a government office block. They do not normally do that. Why are they doing it this time? They are doing it this time because of the inherent conflict of interest for the Property Council and its members in relation to this. Who is it that is opposing this development? They do not normally oppose development. They only oppose development that might actually provide some competition to members of the Property Council. This is about members of the Property Council trying to defend their position in relation to the market.
Of course, they are concerned about the fact that the government’s proposal would involve us moving staff from 19 separate locations, many of them—surprise, surprise—rented to members of the Property Council. Who owns the buildings that we will no longer need to rent? Members of the Property Council. Who is it that is objecting to the construction of the office block? The Property Council. We know, and we accept and understand it—and we would be the same—that members of the Property Council just love to have government tenants. We are the preferred tenant always, the number one tenant. Major owners of office blocks love government tenants. They love being able to get their teeth around the government teat. They love their nose in the government trough. When it comes to the Property Council, we know where the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Seselja, likes to have his nose.
The interesting aspect of this debate is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is in lockstep with the Property Council. I have previously referred to the Property Council rather unkindly, but I think truthfully, as the daytime branch of the Liberal Party. I have not before seen a representative organisation behave in the way that Catherine Carter and the Property Council have this week. I must say when I saw the Property Council’s press release on the change of lease charge, when I first read it I actually assumed it was the Liberal Party’s release. Then I read the Liberal Party’s release and indeed the language was the same. It occurred to me that really they just
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video