Page 1445 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to ensure that future plans work on both fronts. However it is structured, we need a transparent process to provide the opportunity for relevant experts and interested members of the community to provide their insights into and perspectives on the potential role and uses of Albert Hall. This might assist in constructing a management plan.
Albert Hall is one of the few buildings in Canberra that have been central to the Canberra community since its early days. The NCA plans for the precinct have already created significant disturbance, and I would be very interested to see what rules the NCA will put in place if further development in the precinct is to occur. If there is to be development adjacent to the Albert Hall, I have no doubt that Canberra people would want to see a sympathetic visual design which is leading edge in energy efficiency, water use and amenity.
The use of the hall over the past several years as a carpet warehouse has been a great irritation to the Canberra people. I am supporting this motion because, like most people in Canberra who are interested in Albert Hall, I would like to see a collaborative, inclusive approach taken to the decision making for one of Canberra’s few community cultural heritage icons. It is absolutely essential that there is a concerted attempt by all players to thrash out the objectives for the future use and management of the site. We need to remember that it is a community icon. It is in the national triangle but it was built as a community hall for Canberra, and that point must be pre-eminent in all our thinking.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (11.21): I commend my colleague Mr Pratt on bringing this important motion forward. I need to respond to Dr Foskey, who spent the first few minutes of her speech lambasting the opposition for daring to have Mr Pratt’s motion brought forward before her motion. According to Dr Foskey, it is all about her. It is not about the issue we are talking about. It is not about protecting Albert Hall and its cultural and heritage values—
Dr Foskey: So you are going to spend your 10 minutes—
MR SESELJA: I will spend a minute or two in response to what Dr Foskey said.
Mr Mulcahy: It is self-promotion.
MR SESELJA: It is about self-promotion. She would prefer that debate on this motion be delayed until August just so that she could get the running on it, just so that she could lead the charge and lead the debate. Well, Dr Foskey, there are seven members of the opposition here as opposed to one member of the Greens party. We are the alternative government and we will lead debates. We are not going to dance to your tune and to your timing as to when we bring forward issues of concern to the community.
Albert Hall is a much loved Canberra building. It is an iconic building in Canberra, and we do not have many buildings of this kind. We do not have buildings that have been around for a long time, that have significant cultural and heritage value and that are much loved by the Canberra community. There is broad consensus in the community that Albert Hall is a building that is worth preserving, protecting and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .