Page 4603 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If we want to see some extravagance, let us look at the extravagance of this. This is a rolled-gold, expensive way of delivering office accommodation for public servants. It is doing so at a time when vacancies are high, when there are good rental deals to be had and there are numerous options for the government to actually be housing people in the right places and housing them in appropriate accommodation.
But let us have a look at some of the largesse. We have got the $11 million ministerial wing made complete with private ministerial suites, lounge, crisis room and a reading room and a $2 million fit-out. That is a fair amount of money. There have been whole office complexes that have been delivered for less than that but that is just the ministerial wing. Of course there is a ministerial wing here in the Assembly at the moment. Let us not forget about the $2 million sky bridge which is about ensuring that ministers do not have to walk on the same level as everyone else, that ministers do not have to go down in the lift or down the stairs, across to the Assembly and vote in the chamber—a $2 million sky bridge.
Let us look at the shoddiness of the government’s case. We can look at the macro, as I have, but let us look at some of the micro. Let us look at how they have actually made their case. They have spent, reportedly, something like $5.7 million in consultant fees. This is before they decided that it might be a good idea to go out and test the market. The problem with that idea of now testing the market is that they have given their price. They have gone to the market and said, “We would like to build a $432 million office building.” It is like going to an auction. It is like taking your house to auction and telling them the reserve. It is like going to auction and telling them beforehand what you are prepared to accept. That is not how you negotiate. You actually need to be sensible about these things.
But we looked at this during estimates, trying to get the information, trying and trying. We asked about these savings. We asked about the savings that the government were claiming, because they were claiming some pretty big savings. We could not get a clear explanation. We had all these mountains of reports but none of them mentioned the apparent $19 million in savings and the extra $15 million in economic savings. We said, “Where are these numbers?” And we eventually got them. Here they are. This is the government savings case. Here it is on one piece of paper. Here are their savings. These are the claimed savings that the government have been spruiking on this office building. Here it is, an A4 piece of paper.
We can run through it, because it does not take very long. Look at the benefits. There are potential rental savings of $12.7 million. There is a good saving, $12.7 million. When I looked at that I thought, “If you are saving on rent you are probably paying interest when you either borrow the money or it might be revenue forgone by not having the money in the bank.” But that is not anywhere. So they are claiming the saving on rent but not the expense that goes with building. It would be like a couple who are renting and saying, “We will save $400 a week because when we buy a house we will not be paying the $400 a week in rent anymore.” They will be paying their mortgage repayments. This government will also have to finance this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video