❓ Mr. McGowan questions Premier Barnett about the decision to move the Premier's office to Hale House, alleging misleading statements regarding costs and alternative options. The Premier defends the decision, citing long-term cost savings and the need to vacate Governor Stirling Tower.
AnsweredQoN 325Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PREMIER’s OFFICE — HALE HOUSE
My question without notice is for the Emperor, otherwise known as the Premier. Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, you have been in this place long enough to know the protocol that surrounds this particular element of question time. I instruct you to withdraw that comment and then address your question correctly. Mr M. McGOWAN : I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN : My question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier told the Parliament on 23 March that he had no choice but to move his offices into Hale House and that the total cost was $17 million, yet we now know that Treasury recommended the Premier move into Dumas House with his other ministers. (1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT
My question without notice is for the Emperor, otherwise known as the Premier. Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, you have been in this place long enough to know the protocol that surrounds this particular element of question time. I instruct you to withdraw that comment and then address your question correctly. Mr M. McGOWAN : I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN : My question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier told the Parliament on 23 March that he had no choice but to move his offices into Hale House and that the total cost was $17 million, yet we now know that Treasury recommended the Premier move into Dumas House with his other ministers. (1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, you have been in this place long enough to know the protocol that surrounds this particular element of question time. I instruct you to withdraw that comment and then address your question correctly. Mr M. McGOWAN : I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN : My question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier told the Parliament on 23 March that he had no choice but to move his offices into Hale House and that the total cost was $17 million, yet we now know that Treasury recommended the Premier move into Dumas House with his other ministers. (1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN : My question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier told the Parliament on 23 March that he had no choice but to move his offices into Hale House and that the total cost was $17 million, yet we now know that Treasury recommended the Premier move into Dumas House with his other ministers. (1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER : Member for Rockingham, you have been in this place long enough to know the protocol that surrounds this particular element of question time. I instruct you to withdraw that comment and then address your question correctly. Mr M. McGOWAN : I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN : My question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier told the Parliament on 23 March that he had no choice but to move his offices into Hale House and that the total cost was $17 million, yet we now know that Treasury recommended the Premier move into Dumas House with his other ministers. (1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN : My question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier told the Parliament on 23 March that he had no choice but to move his offices into Hale House and that the total cost was $17 million, yet we now know that Treasury recommended the Premier move into Dumas House with his other ministers. (1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(1) Why did the Premier mislead the house that there were no other options when clearly there was a cheaper option, and why did he say it cost $17 million to refurbish Hale House when it cost $26.9 million? (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Attorney General, I formally call you to order for the first time today. The only person who has the call is the member for Rockingham. Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGOWAN : My question continues — (2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(2) Did the Premier want his own palace so he can keep away from his ministers or because he has delusions of grandeur or because he is suspicious about an office on the thirteenth floor? (3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(3) Will the Premier now abandon his over-the-top palace and take up Treasury’s suggestion? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
(1)–(3) I have answered a number of questions about the decision that this government has taken to establish a cabinet office in the Hale House building. I remind members that it is a state-owned property, it is heritage listed, it is in a state of disrepair and, regardless, would need probably up to $3 million to protect the building, just as a starter. Of course, there were options to using Hale House. Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGowan : That’s not what you said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Where there was not — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr M. McGowan : You should apologise. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member is being discourteous already, so maybe he just might listen for a while. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Members should listen, too. What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
What I was referring to is that the government has no option but to vacate Governor Stirling Tower because the lease expires and the owner will not renew the lease. Therefore, there was no option for all the government departments, some of which have progressively started to move out already. My office will probably be the last to leave and will probably do so in the second half of next year. We had no option but to leave 197 St Georges Terrace—that is, Governor Stirling Tower. We had no option. As for where my office might be located—it is not my office, it is the Premier’s office—and where the cabinet room might be located, there were, of course, a number of options. They were looked at very carefully; the Government Architect, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Treasury were involved. Indeed, the Under Treasurer wrote to me—because we obviously wanted his opinion—and canvassed four options. One option was to relocate to Dumas House. The Under Treasurer also said that there was an option to relocate to an existing ministerial office; in other words, kick someone else out. The third option was to try to renegotiate an extension of the lease on Governor Stirling Tower, which proved not to be possible. The fourth option was to relocate to what is now known as Hale House within the parliamentary precinct. Guess which one of those four options the Under Treasurer recommended? Hale House. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I again make the point that one of several reasons for creating a cabinet office, which will take up most of the ground floor area, and to have a Premier’s office on the first level was that it is the start—in fact, it would probably have normally come last—and part of a progressive project of relocating the central agencies of government into government-owned buildings in the parliamentary precinct, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, the Public Sector Commission and maybe some others. Why? State governments do not pay income tax, so it is always better financially for the state to occupy premises it owns on its land. It is a simple reason. The long-term alternative, which members opposite seem to advocate, is to continue to rent premium property in the central business district. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : By the time this relocation occurs, the anticipated cost of accommodation for the Premier, the cabinet room and the cabinet secretariat in the CBD would be in the order of $2 million a year. Therefore, rather than continue using expensive accommodation in the central business district, we have taken the decision to restore a heritage building and use it for those dual purposes. The estimate is that it will pay for itself in rent savings within 12 years. Thereafter, the state will own at no direct cost a Premier’s office and a cabinet room. I think Western Australia actually should have a proper cabinet room and a proper place to receive visitors to this state. I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
I understand that members opposite think that this is a waste of public money. Okay, they can argue that but governments in this state have known for many years that the lease at Governor Stirling Tower would expire. Indeed, the previous government looked at other options for accommodation within the central business district. Did that stop the Labor Party in government from spending money on a building it knew it would not continue to occupy? No, it did not. May I share with members some information? In 2006, $666 150 was spent — Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr E.S. Ripper : It was five years ago! Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : At that time the previous government knew the lease was expiring and $666 000 was spent on an office on the twenty-first floor for whom? Who do members reckon it was for? It was for the member for Rockingham! The previous government spent $666 000 on an office that will be demolished. Well done, member for Rockingham! That is good value for the taxpayer! Members opposite did not stop there. Not only did they waste $666 000 on a palace for the member for Rockingham, the following year they spent a further $848 000 on other refurbishments in a building that is probably going to be demolished and certainly will be totally gutted. That is a waste of taxpayers’ money, in contrast to what this state government is doing.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.