Page 4609 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government office building is an important project. Yes, we do have some concerns about it. But we dealt with these in August. We told the government what our concerns were and we said, ‘Government, go away, do some more work on it and report back to the Assembly by December 2011.’” The appropriate thing to do is let the government do what we asked the government to do and see what the government has to say in its report back. It is possible that then there will be some further motions on the subject. We have asked for information; let us see that information before we make any more decisions.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.31): The minister in his address said that the great big government office building and the office facility in Gungahlin influence the government’s office accommodation strategy, and that is the problem. Surely the strategy should guide the location and size of public service accommodation in the ACT into the future. That is the approach the chief planner wants. He wants the diversification of employment consistent with the Y plan that was adopted in the 60s, the town centre plan, so that we get a spread across the territory. Indeed, the government have upstairs their draft plan for the future of Canberra which is saying, “Let’s have employment corridors and support the town centres.” This great government office building flies in the face of that.
You have to ask the question about priorities, and the minister confirmed it again today. He said: “It’s not a priority for the government. Gungahlin is, but this building is not.” And he said it on ABC radio on 30 May this year when Ross Solly asked him, “Why do you need the new ACT government building first off?” Andrew Barr: “Well, it’s not a particular priority, Ross.” So we have got a $432 million item on the agenda that is not particularly a priority. The reason it is not particularly a priority is that they have not done the work.
We do not have a government office strategy. It was clearly the pet project of the previous Chief Minister, but what we do not have today and what we have not had since Mr Stanhope left is the sort of leadership this territory deserves, this public service deserves and the people—the taxpayers—of the ACT deserve. Again, Mr Barr makes the case, “Gungahlin is the strategy, but we’re going to spend $432 million anyway.” And there is the flaw.
We all know what happens when this government makes decisions on major capital projects without having done the work. I do not have to go over them; I will just give you some of the names—the Gungahlin Drive extension, the hospital car park, the Tharwa bridge, the prison, the Emergency Services headquarters. All were debacles in their own way because the government did not do the work. That is why it is quite appropriate that Mr Seselja moves this motion today and why it is quite appropriate that the members of this Assembly should pass it.
You have to ask the questions: what do the Greens stand for? What do the Greens believe in? When will the Greens stand up for what they say? Are there divisions in the Greens? Are they divided on issues like this? How long will they continue to kowtow to the government, their coalition partners who get whatever they want?
Remember the history. Ms Le Couteur and I have sat on two committees—the public accounts committee and the estimates committee—that both said, “Do certain things
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video