Page 2445 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 7 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Canberra Theatre Centre, who currently manage Stage '88, pressed strongly for the fence in the ACT Government's submission on the basis of contributions to recurrent funding for the stage. There was also some suggestion during the hearings that there would be three to five commercial uses of the stage to assist in the offsetting of recurrent funding. The committee was concerned at the lack of information provided on the competitive position of Stage '88 and the vague estimates of income likely to be generated by commercial use and was not convinced that fencing Stage '88 would necessarily generate this level of income.
During its deliberations the committee needed to consider the conflicting arguments of the need for economic rationalism in times of economic constraint as against the need to ensure unlimited access by the residents of Canberra to their bicentennial gift from the Commonwealth. We adopted two primary positions, as are identified in the report in paragraph 3.2: that Commonwealth Park belongs to the nation and not just to the residents of the ACT; and that Stage '88 is a gift from the Commonwealth to all residents of the ACT. The committee heard evidence that suggested that it would be possible for economic necessity to eventually lead to a temporary fence becoming a de facto permanent structure. This apparently is something that has taken place in Melbourne in the past. Based on these issues, the committee recommended in its report in paragraph 3.5 that the proposal to construct a fence around Stage '88 not be proceeded with.
During our deliberations we were aware of the commercial responsibilities of the Canberra Theatre Centre and we considered that the Department of Urban Services which manages similar public facilities, for example, Lanyon Homestead, the Nolan Gallery and others, should take on the role of managing Stage '88. We recommended accordingly.
Finally, Mr Acting Speaker, in reaching its decision not to fence Stage '88 the committee was conscious of the Estimates Committee recommendation concerning alternative proposals for the funds consistent with the grant. The committee therefore recommended that the remaining $177,000 from the Commonwealth's initial grant of $1.4m should be expended by the Department of Urban Services on minor works and equipment for Stage '88 that would aid in the reduction of current costs in a manner not inconsistent with the grant.
I think it is important to recall that this particular facility has been a cost to the taxpayer of the ACT, and will be a continuing cost to the taxpayer of the ACT. It is a facility which must be maintained, but rather than spend the money on a fence the committee felt that it would be more appropriate to spend that money on facilities for the stage which would reduce the ongoing cost of its operation. I commend the report to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .