Page 176 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
exactly the same position as I am in. If I want to go and try to remove some graffiti from a private lessee’s or business’s wall, I have to get their permission to do it.
The guys over there missed that. They say that the government has to scream around there with a can of black paint and paint over it the instant it appears. It is not that easy. Even if we had plenty of money to do it, we would have to get permission to do it, and exactly the same thing will apply with this one. This scheme will be administered in a transparent and audited fashion, but at the end of the day it will not be the government’s money and it will not be government programs that the money will be applied to. The priorities for its allocation will be determined by the people who contribute to it when they actually create the selection criteria themselves.
What we are seeing here is a facilitation mechanism. Mr Corbell has provided a section of the private sector, the city heart people, with a mechanism whereby they can collectively put money into a bucket and spend it on whatever they like to beautify and maintain their particular part of the world over and above that which the government provides as core service, and the people opposite are belting the government for actually assisting the private sector. I have to say that I am really surprised about that, really disappointed about that. I would have thought that the private sector champions sitting over on the other side of the chamber would have thought, “This is a reasonably good one; we will just let this one go through.”
I accept the view taken by Dr Foskey when she said, “Tell us how it is going to work. Give us the absolute detail.” She wants to see the dots on the i’s and the crosses on the t’s and all that sort of stuff, and I understand that. But if in fact this is a process which is going to be driven largely by the private sector itself, perhaps a little patience might apply here. Dr Foskey might like to have a talk to Mr Emmanuel Notaras. I will bet you that she has not approached Mr Notaras to say, “Manny, how do you think this is going to work? You have been advocating this for a goodly number of years now, Manny. How exactly is it going to work?” I will bet you that she has not done that. She has popped up in this chamber and said to Mr Corbell, “Show us how it is going to work and I will support it. If you cannot do that, I am not going to do it.” Minimum effort—absolutely minimum effort! All she has to do is to cart herself down there and talk to Emmanuel Notaras. At the same time, she ought to have a good look at the place. It is not as bad as people portray it.
Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, in your dissertation on this fabulous subject you referred to the quality of the footpaths. No doubt, your foot has stuck to the pavement from some rather hot chewing gum from time to time. You will, of course, realise that that is a perennial and international problem. You are quite right: steam cleaning is one of the ways of getting rid of it. It also involves the use of chemicals, which is not a crash-hot idea. It is a problem which challenges us all, but I have to say that if you take a walk from Marcus Clarke Street—even beyond now—through to Akuna Street you will walk through a beautiful bit of Canberra. It looks great. It looks terrific and most of the time it is full of people enjoying themselves. Mr Mulcahy would say, “No, Manny Notaras, you cannot have a process to make it even better.” Shame on him.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (11.53): The Rates Amendment Bill amends the Rates Act to provide the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .