Page 2930 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are a number of areas I think it is important to respond to. Obviously the government office block has been the subject of a considerable amount of commentary tonight. I think Ms Hunter was the first to observe that it is not simply a case of build it or do nothing, that regardless of the decisions that we take as an Assembly in relation to appropriating funds to accommodate our staff there will be a need for a significant appropriation of funds in the coming period, over the next decade, and that will undoubtedly be one of the more significant decisions that we take.
The government’s view is that it is not a matter of either/or, but that we can pursue our accommodation options through the government office block and also pursue a variety of other major capital works. In fact the government office block will make a range of other projects that are of interest to members of the Assembly much more viable because the office block would have important positive implications for those projects—light rail and rapid transport are examples of this.
I say this for two reasons. Vacating a number of the buildings that we own along Northbourne Avenue would free up a range of sites for redevelopment for a mix of residential and commercial uses. This is of course in addition to the plans that my colleague Minister Burch has in relation to the redevelopment of the Northbourne flats. More dwellings along this approach route in addition to the ongoing growth in Gungahlin will make a dedicated rapid transport corridor along Northbourne Avenue a much more viable option. Furthermore, increasing the number of people who work in the city creates critical mass at a destination point and of course a departure point at the other end of the day. So the location of the government office block would suit a multi-stop transport loop around London Circuit which could then be linked to other rapid transport spines such as a southbound route.
It is important in the context of this debate to look at how this project would fit in with a number of other priorities. I note there is concern in relation to current office vacancy rates. I do point out, as I did in estimates, that this building would not be occupied for six years and that with a range of incentives that the government has put forward to the property industry around redevelopment of C and D grade stock within the city for alternative uses it would be possible, in fact highly probable, that current surplus stock could be adapted for an alternative use, again to support that critical mass around a new rapid transport system particularly within walking distance of a London Circuit loop. I think there is considerable merit in that policy approach and aligning the government’s investments with a range of incentives in the taxation area and in the planning area I think provides a very sound way forward, in fact.
There is always considerable debate—the Leader of the Opposition raised this in his initial contribution—in relation to savings figures. I always find it amusing that, when an estimates committee asks for a particular piece of material to be presented in a succinct way, it then says it is outrageous when there is an A4 sheet of paper. Well, the reams of material that was provided was apparently too much to absorb so there was a request for a simplified version to be provided, and it was.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video