Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(5.36 p.m.) —I move:

That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority, on behalf of the Domestic Property Group, to lower the parapets on the Administrative Building.

I want to put a couple of things on the record about the controversial parapet proposal, which A Current Affair seems to have taken an interest in. I congratulate Senator Faulkner, a member of the waste watch committee of which I was a member for six years. When I ran stories about the previous government's waste in relation to office space, I found that A Current Affair —

Senator Calvert —A waste of space, it was.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Yes, a waste of space—or space waste, as it was called. A Current Affair always took an active interest in these matters. I encourage Senator Faulkner to weed out waste in the Commonwealth government where he can find it. But, although his intentions are absolutely impec cable in relation to this matter, I do not think he has stumbled up against any waste.

The reality with the Administrative Building is that both sides of this chamber recognise—the Australian Labor Party certainly did when it was in government—that the building does need to be refurbished, that it can be put to better use and that it can achieve an economic return as office space once it has been refurbished and brought up to a commercially occupiable level. Clearly, as part of that, repairs to and retrofitting of the building are required.

Anyone who bothers to go to look at the building will see that the removal of the parapets is absolutely essential to the repair, rectification and modification of the building to fit it out as a suitable modern office environment. This particular motion is seeking approval to remove these parapets, which is basically the bricking up of a number of windows. I am told that this removal work will allow light to come back into this section of office on the second top floor of the building and make it habitable office space.

The cost of removing the eight parapets—to correct the A Current Affair report—is actually $98,000. The tenders that have come in bring the cost of the work required to $98,000. On the advice I have had and from my own experience in office leasing I know very well that if you do not remove these bricks you are affecting the value of the property.

Senator Robert Ray —What—Commonwealth to Commonwealth?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senator Ray knows a lot about a lot of things but he does not know much about this. What he should realise is that when you have a piece of office space, whether it is owned by the Commonwealth and leased to the Commonwealth, or owned by the Commonwealth and leased to someone else, or owned by someone else and leased to the Commonwealth, there is a value involved.

Senator Robert Ray —Yes.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senator Ray, if the Commonwealth owned the building and leased it to someone else it would have a rental value. If it does not have that rental value it has an opportunity cost.

Senator Robert Ray —Tell us about the 15 per cent social opportunity cost.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senator Ray, when you find some waste in relation to office space and show us a case where we waste money, you tell us and we will fix it. This is not one of them.

In relation to the A Current Affair story, one of the things they did when they ran our space waste stories was that they always got the Minister for Administrative Services on to give the alternative point of view—they always had Senator McMullan, when he was Minister for Administrative Services, and even Frank Walker once. But when the minister, Senator Nick Minchin, offered to brief A Current Affair and put the government's point of view the program took absolutely no interest whatsoever.

I noticed when I was watching that program last Thursday night that they said that the parliament had approved this money. Again, they did not pay any cognisance to the information the government had put to them. I can only say that they join with the Labor Party in supporting the fact that this money should not be spent. They want to make sure that the rental return on that space—the value—is not maximised. So to save $98,000 they would prefer to see the rental return rate on this property reduced to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the life of the building. That is the economic absurdity of what these people are proposing.

There is an analogy which even Ray Martin and possibly Senator Robert Ray may be able to draw on. This is the best way for people to understand the famous parapet issue. The analogy is: when you are going to buy a three-bedroom house in your suburb, how would you value a house that had most of the windows bricked up to above eye level compared with a house that had windows that you could see out of and that let the light in? That is the comparison. Those blokes say, `Look, we have this building and in the interests of the Commonwealth let's knock down these parapets and let the light shine in.' Those opposite say, `No, don't spend that money'—even though the value of the house may improve massively because light can get back in through the windows, people can have their desks by the windows and actually see and it can be commercially viable office space again.

Senator Ray's lunatic economic assessment of this is that because it is a Commonwealth lease of a Commonwealth building you do not have to actually improve the rental value of it. He is saying to Commonwealth public servants who might go and work in that building, `Sorry, it is okay for everyone else in this building or any other Commonwealth building to have offices with windows where light can come in but, if you are going into this building, it is bad luck. You can work in a bricked-up office—you can have your windows bricked up.'

What we should do for Senator Robert Ray so that he appreciates this issue is get the Parliament House services company to go around and brick up his windows—put a few parapets in his windows—and see how he likes it.

Senator Robert Ray —I'd like to open a window. You can't even open a window here.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senator Ray, if you think opening the windows is a good idea, you and I agree on that much.

Senator Faulkner —Have you seen the inside of the building?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Yes, I have been inside the building.

Senator Faulkner —All right. When did you go?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I went there when I was part of an inquiry into the whole Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade building. I do not know the exact date but it was when Peter Wilenski was there. So it was some time ago.

Senator Faulkner —You have not been there since the refurbishment?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —No, I have not. But I am fully aware of the issues. Firstly, this refurbishment was agreed to under the previous Labor government. Secondly, the $98,000 we are talking about to remove some layers of bricks from these parapets is 0.1 per cent of the total contract price of the refurbishment. It is something that anyone who has ever looked sideways at a building or spent a day in one knows makes a lot of commonsense. I am quite sure that had the Australian Labor Party been in power they would have proceeded with this full refurbishment to bring the building back to a habitable, sensible commercial state.

Quite clearly, the most important point is that not to spend this money would diminish the rental value of this building. Senator Faulkner is very well intentioned in trying to draw people's attention to any waste of Commonwealth moneys. As I said, if he can bring us a case where there is a waste of money—and not just a cheap political exercise—then we will take it seriously. But we cannot take him seriously when he draws attention to these sorts of matters.