Page 2718 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
approach. The government will get its budget if the Assembly agrees to it. I think what the committee is saying is that you need to satisfy us if we are to work with you to deliver a budget that ultimately will build this building.
Recommendation 17, for instance, speaks of options 2 and 4 in the CB Richard Ellis costs analysis report. They were excluded at a very early date, but the committee recommends that they be included in the analysis so that we see what the case there is. The government is not agreeing with us. It states:
Those options were ruled out following an earlier study …
What the committee is saying is “Go back and do some more work, Chief Minister, because we think all options should be on the table.” The most disturbing part of this is that the public accounts committee, being forward looking and endeavouring to look at ensuring future mistakes on government office accommodation were not repeated following the debacle at the Emergency Services headquarters, came up with an interim report. It did so with a view to making the process work better. The estimates committee recommends that the government should respond to the public accounts committee.
That was due on 17 May. We are now well passed 17 June and there is no sign of that report. The government’s response is “noted” and it goes on to state:
The Government’s response is currently being considered by the Government and will be provided to the Public Accounts Committee as soon as it is finalised.
You have got a 90-day time limit, a three-month time limit, because these reports are important. It is an important issue and it needs to be responded to. In relation to the re-use of existing accommodation verses new construction, what the public accounts committee said was this:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government make no final decision with regard to the whole-of-government office building project until the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has received a copy of the business case, and the economic and environmental analysis, together with any other relevant considerations, and had time to consider this information and report to the ACT Legislative Assembly.
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with an assessment of the opportunity cost of a whole-of-government office building project against other significant infrastructure projects, such as the Majura Parkway, a light rail network, a new convention centre, or a third major hospital.
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government whole-of-government office accommodation strategy should be finalised, and considered by the ACT Legislative Assembly, prior to any final decision, or awarding of any contract, with regard to the whole-of-government office building project.
There are some warnings there for the government. The public accounts committee, with representatives of all three parties on board, have said, “Do the work and come back to us first and foremost on your government office accommodation strategy.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video