Page 1452 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
delayed the pushing of the Albert Hall case is gratuitous in the extreme. I see that the minister is batting his eyelids.
I turn briefly to the government’s amendment. The government’s amendment is typical of their arrogant approach of wiping from the notice paper a sensible motion and simply replacing it with one of their spin-doctored pieces of work. We reject that entirely. I want to pick up on the minister’s comments about consultation. The minister said here today that his department had consulted with the community about the Albert Hall. I accept the minister’s words that his department had identified a number of community user groups that had been known to use the hall in the past. But the consultation process must go much more broadly than that. If the department’s consultation process had been really effective and had incorporated all the people who share an interest in what happens to the Albert Hall, then why did we see a meeting the week before last of 300 to 400 people? Why were there 300 to 400 people concerned about the status of DA53 if consultation had been conducted properly? I put to you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that the government has failed yet again to consult.
What is the definition of consultation? The definition of consultation is that parties speak with each other, share their views and take information from each other before decisions are taken. But what is this government’s definition of consultation, as we have seen with the school closures program, we have seen with the Griffith library closure and we have seen with the absolute disaster with the management of the Tharwa bridge? Their definition of consultation is that you speak to the community only if you are pressured to do so and you do that after the event, after the decisions are taken at cabinet level, and you then spin why you have taken a decision and what you are going to do about it. That is this government’s definition of consultation and they have failed yet again with the Albert Hall to consult properly.
In conclusion, community use of the Albert Hall has fallen off because this government has neglected to maintain that hall. It has been allowed to run down to a dilapidated position. In management terms, that is a crime. Any concern about the drop-off in community use is because the government has not maintained it at the condition at which it should have been maintained. We are concerned too about whether 50 days is sufficient for community use. Mr Hargreaves interjected during Mr Seselja’s speech that 50 days is a minimum.
Mr Hargreaves: That’s right.
MR PRATT: He has again indicated that. It may be a minimum, but we are questioning whether the tendering process and the contract process will guarantee that minimum or whether it will mean that if the community wants to use that place for more than 50 days a year they will have the opportunity to do so, or will they be squeezed out by other commercial priorities?
Mr Hargreaves: They cannot. The national capital plan does not allow it.
MR PRATT: Minister, we look forward to your assuring the community that that is going to be the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .