Page 1443 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
under significant threat. Even having allowed this to happen, the government should have consulted more widely and sought to resolve the issues that are important to the community before commencing any tender process. The future of the hall needs much more consideration. (Time expired.)
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.11): I was surprised, but pleased, to see Mr Pratt’s motion on the notice paper for today. As members would be aware, I had a similar motion on the notice paper last week. I would like to thank Mr Pratt and the ACT Liberals for their support but not for their lack of consultation with the Greens on the matter. In particular, I welcome the delayed interest of the ACT Liberals in this issue. I note that they are much more interested in attacking the ACT government than in joining in the concerns about the way this matter was handled at the federal level.
The two motions relating to the Albert Hall follow the well-attended public meeting at the Albert Hall on 24 May in response, first, to the NCA’s planned changes to development and uses in and around the site and, second, to the ACT government’s tender process for its management. It seems clear to all of us that the proposed changes to permitted use and adjacent development by the NCA and the attempt by the ACT government to generate more activity in the hall—at a constrained cost, presumably—are in conflict or, at the very least, are unresolved. It is also evident that the changes and the manner in which they have come to light have generated a great deal of hostility and frustration. As is appropriate in this place, the motion that is now before us addresses the responsibilities of the ACT government.
Because we did not get around to discussing the motion that I had placed on the notice paper, I raised this matter last week during the adjournment debate and put on the record the motions that were passed at the 24 May public meeting. After looking at the order of business in this place, I agreed yesterday to take my motion off the notice paper, and I thank Mr Pratt for submitting his motion. While the motions passed at the 24 May meeting are pertinent to today’s discussion, I do not plan to read them out again. Nonetheless, I hope that these resolutions have informed the government’s thinking on this matter and future decision making.
It may not be clear from the debate so far that Albert Hall has been managed by a private operation for some years now, and the minimal maintenance carried out on this old building probably reflects its low level of use for community as well as commercial activities. I acknowledge that substantial work needs to be done on better using and managing the hall and that some new scoping from both the NCA and the ACT government is in order. But I recognise two key problems with the processes to date. One is that the NCA and the ACT government appear to be acting independently of each other. The other is that there has been, and is likely to continue to be, no real partnership with interested members of our community.
Let us not underestimate the significance of this building and the importance of establishing an open process to decide on its future. The public reaction, first to the NCA’s proposed variation of the national capital plan and then to the ACT government’s management strategy, makes that clear. I do not believe the level of reaction ought to have surprised either party. I am using this debate as an opportunity for them to get off their high horses and seek common ground with each other and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .