Page 3945 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 25 November 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To me, a question which I still do not understand is: why—
Mr Rattenbury, when you speak I am sure you will tell us why and what has changed—
despite the fact that EPIC has been trying for a number of years to proceed with this plan—
and he was talking about on-site accommodation and, I assume, the master plan—
which strikes me as a very good plan, given the noted shortage of budget accommodation in the ACT, has EPIC not been able to proceed with these plans, despite their clear intent? And that is something that is still not clear to me.
Perhaps you could clarify that for all of us, Mr Rattenbury, when you speak, because five years later it has been a long, drawn-out process. Mr Rattenbury said:
It is not clear to me why moving EPIC into a government department will necessarily improve that situation.
Again, Mr Rattenbury, we look forward to your clarification. He went on to say:
… I think this comes back to the fact there have clearly been some blockages somewhere in the process of EPIC reporting to government. The fact that there is still not quite a full strategic plan for EPIC strikes me as a very odd situation.
A couple of years later we got a strategic plan, which was the forerunner of the master plan but, of course, we do not have that master plan. Mr Rattenbury then went on to talk about the examples of Stromlo Forest Park and Manuka Oval:
… Manuka Oval is an interesting example … The feedback from those organisations is an interesting one. They said that the loss of the board and the movement into Territory and Municipal Services took away some of the real pride and energy that was brought to it by the groups that were the users of the oval. Instead it went into the department as part of a conglomeration, and you have lost that real value, that real community spirit, that was there in running a venue.
Again, Mr Rattenbury, I look forward to your guarantee that that real community spirit will not be lost. Mr Rattenbury said:
This is one of the key concerns for the Greens about the proposal for EPIC. Where does this leave us?
Well, that is a good question, Mr Rattenbury, and we will find out. Mr Rattenbury then went on to say:
Rather than abolishing the board at this point, we thought there were potentially different ways to proceed: to postpone the abolition of the board for 12 months and assess how it performs in the new portfolio; and to ensure that, with this new portfolio, it gets the licence to move forward and do some of the things that the board has been striving to do and have the space to do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video