Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 1:39:07 to 1:48:10
Discussion regarding the $10 million election commitment for the Barangiri respite site in the ACT, including questions on costings, scope of works, and asset management.
Topics: Health, Government spending
Speakers: Mr Luke Mansfield, Senator David Pocock, Senator Ellie Whiteaker, Unknown Speaker
Can I ask about respite, please? Um interested if the department has undertaken commissioned,
Senator, uh the answer is no. There hasn't been a particular commissioning of a review of respite. Did you say demand uh in the ACT?
Yeah, okay. Um what options were analysed before deciding to allocate the the full 10 million to Burangiri?
There was uh election commitment by the government um to for 10 million dollars towards age care respite infrastructure in the ACT. Uh as I recall you were present. The the government convened a round table uh to engage with the community about different options to achieve um that uh intent. Um in that round table um the government put two options on the table. One of those options um was to invest in upgrading the Barangiri site. Um another option was to let the Baranguri site permanently close, as was the ACT government's original um decision and invest in other respite facilities. Um the outcome of that uh what the government heard in that um uh round table was that there was strong support for the Barangiri site remaining um available because it was a valued site. Um the ACT government confirmed that in order for it to remain open there were required um upgrades to that site. Um the option of doing upgrades to the Buranguri site and investing in an entirely new site was not possible within the value of the election commitment.
And did the Commonwealth receive a detailed scope of works or independently verified costings before making a decision the ACT government
did uh supply information to the Commonwealth in relation to the what they anticipated to be the required works and as part of their application to the Commonwealth for access to the 10 million or up to 10 million, I should say. Um they uh provided information as part of that application that went to the different aspects of the works that were required.
Sure. Thank you. That's great to know. Can you walk us through now what the 10 mil will actually pay for?
Um so Senator, the the way that um aged care capital assistance program grants work um is uh that it is payment for what is actually needed to be spent. So just to be clear, if if it comes at in a less than 10 million, it will be less. What's the budget? In terms of in in uh the ACT government is still uh coming back with further information, but in terms of the the component parts, and I don't have a breakdown of the individual costs, um, but there is uh building of the life uh the building's life safety system, which was 40 years old, um, upgrading that so that it's compliant again against the current construction code for Class 9C healthcare building. Um the building amenities to how much was that? I don't have breakdowns, Senator, but I can talk about the components if that's the same.
How come you don't have the breakdown if this money's been committed?
Uh uh Senator, during a construction project, there are various phases of the project. It goes through explicit sort of gates ahead of construction completing. Um we we are eight months. Uh I said, Senator, that we were provided with some information about the elements of the works. The very detailed you know, dollar by dollar breakdown of the components of the works comes during this next phase. Sure. Before construction commences, and then there are estimates of of those costs. And then during the construction itself, there is ongoing monitoring of that through the capital assistance program to look at what the expenditure is doing but across those components.
But Mr. Mansfield You didn't so you didn't get a costing. There's not even an indicative costing of this is what 10 million will pay for. And that the 10 million was essentially committed without actually knowing what the Commonwealth was funding.
Well, the indicative costs, Senator, is that it will be uh less than 10 million dollars.
Yeah, but what what does that actually what does the Commonwealth get for that?
Well, I can I can run through the how's it broken down? Because Senator, it goes to the life safety system, it goes to improving disability accessibility uh compliance, uh including in relation to accessible bathrooms, it goes to uh improving the base building systems, so that's um mechanical, electrical, hydraulics, heating, ventilation, cooling uh to mitigate uh unplanned outages. Um a project concept plan will be further progressed through the detailed design, um, which is happening now and will be required to be submitted to the Commonwealth by the ACT government. Do you have any indicative costing for each of those things, or it's just uh I'll take on notice whether there's anything further that I can supply at this stage, Senator, based on what what has been provided to the Commonwealth.
Ms. Manson, I've I've I've got a real concern about the Commonwealth committing this money with actually knowing what it's going to because the the community actually has the GHD report that the ACT government is relying on when it comes to this facility. Um it says that the essential fire safety upgrades would cost 2.7 million dollars, the thing to actually keep the building open. But then it goes on to say that the remaining seven million could be used for things like end-of-trip facilities, a new code of paint. Um a bunch of these things were already in the ACT asset management plan. This is an ACT asset, and I think taxpayers probably expect them to be painting it. My understanding is that a bunch of this work actually has happened in terms of flooring, your code of paint. And so I'm just unsure what the Commonwealth is actually paying for to keep an existing facility open.
Senator, I ran through the three core elements.
Yeah, but I mean that could be 2.7 million.
No, no, Senator. Senator The Life Safety System that you referred to was that what was in the GHD report was just one component of a very significant level of uplift for a building that is 40 years old.
And what was the estimated cost of that?
Uh I don't have the I don't have the breakdown, Senator with me, and I said that I would take on notice whether there's further information we could provide.
I've got to share the call, Senator Pocock, we can come back to you.
One final one on this.
Final question.
In media, um I seem to recall the Territory and Federal Ministers saying that there was a breakdown of costs.
But I said I'd take on notice, Senator, what we could provide. Has that been provided to the Minister or we'll take on notice what what information is?
Sorry, do you not know or not?
I don't know.
I don't believe they're required to provide an explanation on why they've decided to take the process.
I think they do. If they don't believe they do. Don't know it. You can't just take something on notice because you don't want to answer it. If you don't know it, fair enough. But if you know it and you just want to check with the minister whether you can say it or not, that's not a reason for the Senate.
They've says they have advise that they will take the question on notice a number of times about what information they have that they can provide to you. I'm going to share the call and go to Senator Payman.