PS Re the roof top garden. Most timber we use is from plantations, and furniture made from such harvested timber is a carbon 'sink' - the carbon is taken out of the atmosphere. Growing the next crop of trees takes more carbon out. The old growth forest issue is a different one - about maintaining biodiversity. Plantation forest are monoculture, no variety of other plants, animals. We need biodiversity because we don't know yet all the current and future benefits - potential medicines, refuges for birds and insects we need to pollinate out crops, and so on.

The artificial grass have been cheaper than tiling, part of an insulation set-up, etc. or just looked good in an area used for formal receptions, events etc. Setting this up on the roof is an effective use of space.

The criticisms of this are just silly.

Cossomby,

<<artificial grass ...cheaper [looks good] >>

No you are not giving the matter proper consideration.

In the Greens we are talking about the staunchest opponents of waste and conservation --and,they are promoting the use of artificial grass?

Think of how damaging that could be if everyone copies their example --à la the Greens are doing it it must be environmentally sound.

Artificial grass should be a complete anathema to a party with the Greens platform!

@Cossomby, Wednesday, 23 April 2014 11:30:04 PM

First, government does not have its own money. It is taxpayers' money and it is very limited, according to the previous and present federal governments and so limited that the 'must dos' of government are not being adequately funded. Public infrastructure is stretched to the breaking point, as any living in the capitals outside of favoured Canberra would attest.

That being so, it is even more important that government and all with a siphon from the limited bucket of taxpayers money demonstrate why their allocations are necessary and prove value for money was obtained.

Secondly, your comments about the entry condition and provisions of the property that is the subject of this thread are ludicrous. It is executive standard and in a highly prestigious location. By not stretch of the imagination could it be regarded as 'dilapidated' as you suggest. Please read the balanced report in The Courier Mail that was linked to in the OP.

As for the costs of fit-out, that is what the OP is about. It is hard to believe that any practical and not necessarily budget but acceptable fit-out of an already executive suite could tot up to $414,000. I cannot imagine that the CEO of a small firm, niche architects, who needed a prestigious building in a prestigious location to market itself would contemplate $414,000 as reasonable. There may be other high expenditures elsewhere but The Courier Mail and the public are interested in what affects Queensland representation.

What about transparency to the public, with reasons, a break-up of costs and photos? It is not illegal yet for the public to ask questions about how their tax dollars were spent and the priority for allocations from the tax bucket.

hey tHERE SOMNAMBULIST..YOUR RIGHT
must buy the votes of the trades people
its sure vote..vote for me i buy your good guy tv
vote for me..i buy your TRADE..politricks is about trade offs

vote for me..i wiLL GIVE 9 BILlion to bailout the fed .who didnt directly[officially]..'ask'..then the 12 billion dollars on planes that suffocate ITS PILOTS/just those two has put us all[each one of us into 5000 extra debt..that we must pay for by semi privatized NOT MEDICARE SYSTEM..THEY ARE PREPARING TO SELL JUST THE RICH ONE THE LOT..

MUCH like obama diD HIS BIT IN DOUBLING UP INSURANCE..FOR YANKIES
THE YANKI PRIVATIZATION CONTAGION IS RAPING US FINANCIALLY/AND WE TAKE IT..buy their over engineered scemes scams planes and plans..

<<The criticisms of this are just silly>

no..The criticisms of this are just THE YIP OF THE ICEBERG,,silly
http://rss.infowars.com/20140423_Wed_Alex.mp3

the worst thing..is..this 'increase...of THE age/of entitlement
and graduated pension incomes..allows those exploiting the top-up/..read free govt cash grab..for those too rich to ever qualify for any other govt bailout/PENSIONS.. any other way.

FOR GOVT TO DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR
THOSE WHO NEVER COULD HAVE GOT A CENT/THATS JUST ELITES p[ayinbg each others rent...middle class welfare shouldn't go to giving cash upfront to the rich/who other wise couldn't get at one cent

yet they tax avoid..and now get paid to grow kids
according to your station/pay scale..its time for a one size peNSION FITS ALL.

FURTHER..RE FOLLOW THE MONey
see how the bailout..of the fed..[9 billion]
then the bying [hidden slush fund..of 12 billion..of over engineered yanki hanger ornaments]..that are suffocating our pilots/please see only 4 could be flown for the fly past for our future king

think of all that f111/fly overs of times gone past
paid in full by the same burdens..its time to cut the cost of war

what..really is us working to death to buy yanki war junk
that is that debt..we can drop..instantly..figure it out with what you got/then inquire why every defense ;procurement'..minester'ss globally is a billionaires..inquire re that onE.

THEN SEE ALL MEDIBANK IS GETTING SOLD/NOT JUST THE PRIVATE ONE
THUS THE FEE UPFRONT..TO MAKE IT MORE COMMERCIAL...ENRON-SCUM

further/the govt is frontloading in a huge burden/blowout
it can then blame on alp..then claim to have fixed[/by working us/taxing us to death
http://rss.infowars.com/20140423_Wed_Alex.mp3

It's sooo easy to get a bite!

Yes, the cost was ridiculous, and yes it's taxpayers money.

However I was pointing out (as others have done) that the money did not go to the politicians themselves, but was recycled to other taxpayers. The fault lies with the department that organises and approves these office fit-outs, and from examples given it seems to be even-handed in treating the offices of politicians of all parties the same way.

Fair enough to attack the system, but using this to pick on the Greens Senator shows a bit of bias.

I was also referring generally to both examples, the city and regional one: I qualified 'dilapidated' to show this and used the term regional.

Also, SPQR, I stand by 'silly'. The artificial grass would be a conservation issue if real grass had been dug up and replaced by artificial. It wasn't. The artificial grass was floor-covering on a rooftop. I imagine it would have been hard to get real grass to grow there without all kinds of other conservation issues - excess water use etc. We could go into the relative carbon production of artificial grass v. tiles v. other floor covering etc.

The artificial grass was clearly a symbolic decor statement - Green - and yes, the roof top could have been painted green instead. But I don't think this was intended to encourage people to replace all the grass in Australia with artificial.