Page 1913 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
topped and tailed the same release. It begs the question as to who wrote it. Was the release actually written by Catherine Carter and referred to the Liberal Party or did the Liberal Party write it and refer it back to the Property Council—because it is the same release?
I must say I am stunned—I am quite astounded—today to see the release by Catherine Carter in relation to “Oh, we need a public inquiry into this; we can’t trust the government and we can’t trust the government’s advisers”. Who were the government’s advisers? Indeed, two of the most significant and influential advisers to the government on this project were members of the ACT Property Council. (Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, a supplementary question.
MR HARGREAVES: My supplementary is: can the Chief Minister outline the cost savings to be realised through the building of a government office block, and who was it that gave advice to the government which gave rise to this decision?
MR STANHOPE: There will be significant cost savings, and we have, as you would understand, engaged the most significant experts in relation to the process of developing and scoping this particular project. We have along the way engaged Fife Capital, KPMG, led by Craig Sloan, Arup, David Trebeck, formerly the chairman of ACIL Tasman, CBRE, Clayton Utz, Cox Humphries Moss, among others. The collective advice is that the proposal that the government has on the table is the best for the government, the best for this community, representing cost savings in the order of—up front, straight, in relation to rent, utility costs and other savings—$19.3 million, with another $15 million of savings as a result of the co-location, a $30 million annual saving to the ACT budget.
Why is the Liberal Party, again in lockstep with the Property Council, indistinguishable on these issues, defending the interests and the income stream of their mates, millionaire developers, against the public interest? When it comes to a conflict between the public interest and the private interest of these millionaire developer mates of the Liberal Party, you see Zed Seselja there supporting his developer mates. You see it in relation to the lease charge—$3 million a year that he thinks should not go to the community but should go to developers. In this particular instance, in relation to this building, there is $30 million that he believes should go to his developer mates and not to the community. Just on those two items together, there is $50 million that he does not want the community to have access to but wants it to go to his millionaire mates.
MR HANSON: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Chief Minister, of the $430 million to be spent on the new office block, how much will be dedicated to public art?
MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister, could you keep this very brief. It is 2.30, so could you give a very brief answer, thank you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video