Page 3949 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 25 November 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that community input. Certainly, at the time there were those in the community saying to us that they wanted to have a greater involvement. We were not trying to be absolutist in the continuance of the board, and indeed we suggested that the government, firstly, postpone the abolishment of the board for 12 months to assess how it performed under the new portfolio, reduce the fees of the board in order to seek a level of savings and investigate alternative models of governance which engage the community. Now, five years on, some of those things have taken place. Having reviewed what has happened in those intervening five years, I think that it is right to look at a further change.
The community advisory group was abolished after two years due to a lack of issues for the community to focus and engage on. Mr Smyth has given great chapter and verse today about how it is outrageous that five years on I am changing my mind. Five years down the track some of the things we talked about in 2009 have been tried. I think it actually takes a level of integrity to be able to come into this place and say, “I have changed my mind.” Things were done. Mr Barr followed through on some of the commitments he gave in 2009. They have not proven to be the solution that we hoped for, so now it is time to look at something different. I am a bit more comfortable with my position than one that comes in here and says, “I’m not prepared to move my position. I’m going to give the same speech I gave five years ago.” I am more comfortable with the position I sit in on that one than I might be in the other position.
I was talking about the community advisory group. It was established and, as I said, after two years it was abolished due to a lack of engagement. But there has, however, been ongoing, regular contact with stakeholders and users. In 2011 the Assembly passed a bill to reduce the number of board members. We now have three members—the CEO and two others. So it is quite a small board.
Over the past four years, I understand, the operations of Exhibition Park have been more closely aligned with government. They have aligned reporting arrangements, and the IT and HR systems have been aligned. That has been done in order to improve efficiency. Exhibition Park has continued to struggle to balance its bottom line. These steps have already been taken to try and achieve that. But EPIC has been left with overly onerous governance and business obligations for the size of the organisation. It is important to reflect on the sheer size, or lack thereof, of the actual facility.
Its legal status means that Exhibition Park is required to have a separate internal audit and risk management committee. It is also required to have separate policies and procedures and business systems in place for things such as fraud control, emergency management plans, business continuity plans, a range of financial systems, asbestos management plans, board and staff codes of conduct, annual reporting and statements of intent—all of those things that need to be done in an entirely separate way and where there is clearly a potential for greater efficiencies if some of these things are integrated with some of the other venues across the city.
In terms of its financial performance, Exhibition Park has provided around $700,000 of in-kind support to the community. This would mean it is not necessarily a viable commercial venture, particularly when providing that level of in-kind support. However, I am not sure that it is appropriate for EPIC not to provide that kind of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video