Page 2434 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In 2011 the Greens could have put forward a very similar motion to what we have before us today. We had similar concerns about the high cost of a government office building, about adding more commercial space to Civic when it already had such a high office vacancy rate, about the requirement for most of the ACT public service to work in the one building together, about the lack of discussion and consultation with the property sector and—this is one that perhaps others do not care so much about but the Greens certainly do—about the energy efficiency of the project, about whether we could reduce the greenhouse impacts relating to the project, including full life cycle analysis, taking into account operational energy use, the embodied energy of existing buildings and the greenhouse gas implications of a new build.
And they were all issues, as Mr Hanson interjected across the room, that were raised by Ms Le Couteur. She did a very thorough analysis of the proposal that was brought forward in 2011. And, Madam Speaker, with Ms Le Couteur taking a lead, in partnership we, the Greens, did our homework. We looked in significant detail at all the documentation available on the project, we had detailed briefings from the government, we met with key stakeholders and we met with the relevant minister to discuss better options.
As a result, the government also went away and did some more homework. They looked further into life cycle analyses of retrofitting options, what exactly they meant by “carbon neutral enabled”, what onsite and offsite energy production was proposed, further evaluating the various ownership options, undertaking more market testing before going full steam ahead and finalising a government accommodation strategy.
As a result of all this work, the current government accommodation proposal takes into account all of these key issues that were raised throughout the last Assembly. Key to Mr Hanson’s motion is that this registration of interest process includes options for tenderers to build something new, or to offer up existing office spaces—whether that be using one site or multiple adjoining sites, or a combination—perhaps retrofit some existing buildings and also build something new to link them. Mr Hanson’s motion includes that point, in (1)(g)(iii) already:
A campus-style of office accommodation utilising one site or a number of adjoining sites …
So it seems that he has not simply joined up the dots here in what has actually changed since 2011, because this point is exactly to allow for options such as current building owners to offer up their spaces or sites. This could even be a consortium of owners and this would help to alleviate the high commercial property vacancy rate. This option thus opens up the registration process to local property owners as well as local industry.
In his motion Mr Hanson has called for an immediate halt to any plans to build a new office building and instead conduct an analysis and report on suitable office space across Canberra and then to provide a business case and a cost-benefit analysis that compares leasing existing accommodation to constructing a new building. I am completely surprised by this proposal and I wonder whether Mr Hanson spent 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video