The ATO confirmed in October 2014 that there had been "no business case or cost-benefit analysis, as required by the Finance Department's rules, for the plan to build a 6500-square-metre office block in downtown Gosford" [1].
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann acknowledged the government was bypassing standard value-for-money guidelines but defended it as "delivering on its election commitment" [1].
The Tax Office had 6,200 desks sitting empty in buildings across Australia at the time, was shedding up to 4,700 jobs, and was trying to exit leases on office space equivalent to 2.5 times the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground's playing surface [1].
In 2017, only 129 public servants applied to transfer to the new Gosford office from the 19,000-strong ATO workforce, raising the prospect of forced relocations [4].
The ATO's own Commissioner of Taxation, Chris Jordan, stated there was "never the intention to move large numbers of public servants to Gosford from Canberra" and that the plan was to recruit "the vast bulk of people from that local area" [4].
缺失的脈絡
此 cǐ 指控 zhǐ kòng 省略 shěng lüè 了 le 幾個 jǐ gè 重要 zhòng yào 的 de 背景 bèi jǐng 元素 yuán sù : :
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
1. **Electoral Context**: The Gosford office was announced as part of a $21 million package for the Central Coast during the August 2013 election campaign, with the explicit purpose of winning the federal seat of Robertson [2].
Tony Abbott stated: "We will look for a Commonwealth agency or instrumentality that could usefully be transferred to Gosford" [2].
2. **Regional Development Policy**: The project was part of the Coalition's broader "Decentralisation Agenda" to move public sector jobs to regional areas [5].
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann characterized this as normal government practice: "Submissions to the expression of interest will be evaluated in line with normal processes...
This is normal practice to ensure the best possible value for taxpayers' money" [1].
3. **ATO's Existing Oversupply Problem**: The ATO had been fined by the Finance Department for "lacklustre performance in managing its property portfolio" in 2015 [3].
The agency had 6,200 empty desks and was trying to exit significant office space leases.
4. **Community Opposition**: The building site had been originally earmarked for a performing arts school, and community groups were "furious about the site of the project" [3].
SMH is generally considered a credible source for factual reporting.
次要 cì yào 來源 lái yuán 包括 bāo kuò : :
The secondary sources include:
- **ABC News**: Australia's national public broadcaster, generally regarded as balanced and authoritative [2]
- **The Canberra Times**: Local newspaper covering federal politics and public service matters [3]
- **Coast Community News**: Regional newspaper covering the Central Coast area [4]
All sources are mainstream media outlets without obvious partisan bias.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Yes, Labor governments have engaged in similar regional office relocation and electoral pork-barrelling:
1. **Kevin Rudd's 2007 Election Promises**: During the 2007 federal election campaign, Kevin Rudd promised $50 million for health services in the marginal seats of Bass and Braddon in northern Tasmania [6].
* * * *
This followed a similar pattern of election-eve regional spending commitments in marginal seats.
2. **NBN Regional Offices**: The Labor government established the National Broadband Network (NBN) with significant regional office presence, including offices in locations like Hobart, Launceston, and other regional centres, though these were accompanied by business cases.
3. **Decentralisation Under Labor**: While Labor did not have a formal "Decentralisation Agenda" like the Coalition, they engaged in similar regional infrastructure spending for electoral purposes.
The pattern of making campaign promises to relocate government functions to marginal regional seats is a bipartisan practice.
**Comparison**: The Coalition's Gosford ATO office was more overtly linked to a specific marginal seat (Robertson) without proper procurement processes.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann stated the government was "delivering on its election commitment to open a new building on the New South Wales Central Coast, with the Australian Taxation Office leading this initiative" [1].
The broader policy context was the Coalition's "Decentralisation Agenda" - a legitimate attempt to stimulate regional economies by relocating public sector jobs.
Nations Deputy Leader Fiona Nash defended this approach: "We are a Government that wants to invest in those communities and to invest in their futures...
然而 rán ér , , 執行 zhí xíng 過程 guò chéng 存在 cún zài 問題 wèn tí : :
Part of our commitment to growing jobs outside of our major capital cities is to look at opportunities to decentralise Government agencies to rural and regional areas" [4].
However, the execution was problematic:
- No business case or cost-benefit analysis was prepared, violating Finance Department rules
- The ATO had massive oversupply of office space (6,200 empty desks)
- The agency was simultaneously cutting 4,700 jobs
- Only 129 staff expressed interest in relocating to Gosford
- The total cost reached $92 million ($72m building + $20m fit-out) [3]
Labor's shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh's criticism was validated by subsequent events: "Without a business case or any kind of cost-benefit analysis for this building, it risks looking like naked pork-barrelling...
If the Abbott Government actually consulted with the tax office, the agency would rather keep some of the 4700 staff that are being forced out the door than spend money on a brand new building when it already has thousands of desks sitting idle" [1].
**Key context**: This is **not unique to the Coalition**.
The key difference here was the explicit bypassing of Commonwealth value-for-money guidelines, which is unusual even for politically motivated spending.
The core factual claims are accurate: the Coalition did indeed bypass Commonwealth value-for-money rules and proceed without a business case or cost-benefit analysis for the ATO's Gosford office.
The project was clearly linked to an election promise to win a marginal seat (Robertson) and proceeded despite the ATO having substantial excess office capacity and facing staff cuts.
However, the claim omits the broader context of the Coalition's decentralisation policy agenda and fails to acknowledge that Labor has engaged in similar regional spending promises for electoral purposes.
While the procurement process breach was unusual and problematic, the underlying goal of regional development is a legitimate policy objective pursued by governments of all political persuasions.
The core factual claims are accurate: the Coalition did indeed bypass Commonwealth value-for-money rules and proceed without a business case or cost-benefit analysis for the ATO's Gosford office.
The project was clearly linked to an election promise to win a marginal seat (Robertson) and proceeded despite the ATO having substantial excess office capacity and facing staff cuts.
However, the claim omits the broader context of the Coalition's decentralisation policy agenda and fails to acknowledge that Labor has engaged in similar regional spending promises for electoral purposes.
While the procurement process breach was unusual and problematic, the underlying goal of regional development is a legitimate policy objective pursued by governments of all political persuasions.