Page 3777 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
premium. We should be open to the different options and the various costs and benefits of each option. And in talking about putting it out for adaptive reuse, let me say that we do know that there is quite a high vacancy rate in buildings in the CBD at the moment. These are not all A-grade buildings; many of them are C and D-grade buildings. The minister has talked about the importance of providing incentives for those who can change their office accommodation to residential accommodation. That should be encouraged, and many buildings will be able to do that. But we also need to be looking at those that might be part of an option put forward by the property sector on how we could retrofit current buildings and still achieve the sorts of co-location and benefits that the government has put forward around one building and one new building.
The amendments also call on the government to ensure that a whole of life cycle analysis of the environmental impact is considered. I spoke earlier about the need to look at more than just the carbon neutrality. We do need to consider the total ecological impact of the building across its useful life. I understand that some analysis of this has been done and I would welcome confirmation from the minister that it will form a central part of the evaluation of any proposal.
The amendments call on the government to complete the government office accommodation strategy. As I said earlier, this has been mooted for a significant period of time now. It is problematic that so much has been spent on considering the office building in the absence of a broader strategy when the reality is that the majority of public servants will not be housed in this building.
I want to pick up on something that Mr Seselja said earlier. He was noting some letters to the editor in the paper and feedback from members of the public. One was talking about the importance of being able to decentralise government accommodation and offices across the ACT and the town centres. Of course, this new office building does not stop that from happening. We have 20,000 public servants. It is said that only about 3,500 will actually be in Civic. The majority of them will still be spread right across the territory, in various types of accommodation, carrying out their daily duties, whether that be at the hospital, a community health centre, a school—or a gardening depot, for that matter. But we do need that comprehensive across-government accommodation strategy.
I have proposed that the government report on progress in December. I think this allows a reasonable time frame for the commencement of the market testing process. Certainly, given the delays that have already occurred, it is a more than adequate time frame for the delivery of a finalised government strategy.
That is why we have put forward these amendments to Mr Seselja’s motion this afternoon. It is important that we get this right. It is important because we do have public servants currently housed in accommodation which is just not up to standard. We do need to improve their workplaces, whether that is going to be in one new building or whether that is going to be, as I said, in a precinct within the Civic area or through retrofitting current buildings. I am quite sure that the property sector, through the Property Council, will come back with some, I hope, very innovative and cutting-edge ideas about how we might be able to move this forward.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video