Page 1441 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In contrast, it is apparent by the process undertaken by the government that they had not adequately consulted prior to their decision to issue a tender. They should have consulted more widely with current, prospective and former users of the hall. They should have learnt to listen to the people of Canberra. It is interesting, to use Mr Pratt’s phraseology, that the napalm air strike on this motion that has been presented by the government has all the characteristics of the previous mishandling of the Griffith library. They will not tolerate dissent out there. They will not tolerate people who question their decision making. So attempts to debate that in this chamber are stifled by these all-embracing amendments that in fact are nothing more than an attempt to take the Assembly out of the equation.
While there were a number of issues and resolutions that were raised at the recent Albert Hall meeting, the clear message which was reaffirmed to me from the Our Albert Hall group was that their primary concern is to maintain a high level of affordable community access to the hall. I could not attend that public meeting as I was on a flight that night from Singapore, where I had been attending briefings on water. I could not be there but I have had very detailed reports from my colleagues, including Mr Seselja, who will speak on this matter shortly.
Many ACT residents are concerned that the current tender process will see the end of community use of the hall. The tender provides for 50 days of community access per year, which is below the previous level of community access. The community is concerned that the current tender process will result in the successful enterprise having to neglect community use of the facility to generate enough revenue to cover the significant costs required to bring the building to an acceptable standard. This is unacceptable and fails to appreciate the importance of the Albert Hall to the Canberra community.
Residents have called for a joint ACT and commonwealth body to consider the future of the hall and many have expressed a concern that, whatever happens, there should be an open and transparent public process dealing with the hall. Indeed, on this occasion I think there is compelling argument for equal representation from the community on such a group, which is not a position I would normally favour, but I think that there is a very clear message coming from the people of Canberra that this is what they expect. This motion supports these proposals.
As mentioned earlier, the hall’s decay and disrepair are a disgrace. Mr Hargreaves spoke of declining demand for the facility. I have conferred with those who are championing the saving of the Albert Hall and the protection of its previously enjoyed use and they have indicated to me that there is a range of factors that are impacting on declining community use. They have cited the cost as one factor. They have cited the terrible state of the facility and its failure to meet a range of standards that are expected these days. Of course, one of the most pressing issues which have not been adequately addressed is the requirement for public liability insurance, which many small organisations can no longer meet and they are simply precluded from use because of the impositions now in place which they have to meet. For many smaller community organisations, that simply rules them out as prospective groups to access those facilities.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .