Page 2854 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

We have looked at the Snow model and seen some of the very enticing numbers there, but I do not think the model is complete. The finances depend on huge parking revenue. I am not sure whether they take account of parking revenue from the existing spaces, which would be forgone, for example. So there is a fair bit of work to do and a fair bit of understanding to be reached between the various stakeholders. But, overall, I think this is an opportunity for us to make some bold decisions and, at the same time, it is an opportunity to assess the potential of this city and the potential for growth of the economy so that it can continue to work and move towards self-sustainability.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.05), in reply: I want to be very brief in my closing remarks because I note that there is tripartisan support for this motion, and that was one of the things that I felt were really essential for us to get a good outcome on City Hill.

In summing up, I would like to remind members of the Assembly—and hope that they do not change their minds—of what they will be voting for, and that is, of course, very good community engagement on the future of the city; that we also are extremely transparent about the processes and the advice that is given to government; that the financial issues are discussed and made public; and that any task force development body set up to manage the process include community, business, territory and federal government representatives. In saying that, I thank the Assembly for its support. I look forward to keeping in touch with the process. I am sure that all of us will maintain this level of engagement.

I should note that I did go looking for the motion put up by the Liberal Party, which Mr Seselja referred to. In that brief time, I did not have time to find it. I do not think it was in the last week of sitting, because I could not find it there. Sadly, not being able to see the words, I could not reiterate why I did not support it. But I trust that I was the same person then as I am now. I am quite sure I had good reasons.

Motion agreed to.

Canberra Theatre Centre

MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (5.08): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) recognises the outstanding contribution of the Canberra Theatre centre to the vitality of Canberra’s cultural community; and

(2) congratulates the Canberra Theatre on 40 years of servicing Canberrans as the principal arts venue of the Territory.

Whilst the constraints of time prevented me from recognising the Canberra Theatre during the weeks of festivities that surrounded its 40th anniversary, the reason for celebration still exists. I sought then, and I am happy now, to be able to celebrate this birthday by recognising the events that the Canberra Centre has held since 1965. It was in that year that the majestic centre was opened, heralding the introduction of the first performing arts centre in Australia. This was labelled as a significant development in

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .