Page 2447 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 7 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
associated with the stage could be recovered, really justify a fence being erected around the facility.
I must say, Mr Acting Speaker, as a member of the committee I was concerned with the Canberra Theatre Centre's estimate of revenue which could be generated from a fence, and I refer to 2.7 of the report. The Canberra Theatre estimated that between three and five commercial uses of the stage annually could be obtained if a fence was provided. According to the Canberra Theatre Centre, income from such sources was estimated to be between $12,000 and $20,000 per year. 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, especially in a marketplace increasingly crowded for commercial venues.
The likelihood of a temporary fence becoming a permanent feature was something the committee was also very concerned about. I have seen the Melbourne Myer Music Bowl and I have seen how easily the temporary structure became a firm permanent structure during the summer months. This was also given as evidence to the committee as a strong argument for not fencing the stage.
Mr Acting Speaker, I consider the recommendations to be the appropriate course of action. I hope the Government response will be forthcoming very quickly and this matter can be finalised. Given the circumstances, the only course of action I believe is open to the Government is not to proceed with the fence. The principal argument against a fence is as stated in the report. It has to be the aesthetic argument against alienating any part of Commonwealth Park. This was stated by the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, the ACT group. They also expressed the view that as the stage was a gift from the Commonwealth, it is not in the spirit of the gift, or in the interests of the residents of the ACT, for an area to be permanently fenced for the exclusive use of special interest groups. I agree with that argument and believe that Commonwealth Park is something that should be available for all ACT and Australian residents, not with part of it fenced off for particular events.
The only other point I want to mention is that I recognise that the Canberra Theatre would not be the most appropriate manager of the stage under the proposed circumstances. I believe the Department of Urban Services could take over the management, given that that agency already manages other similar facilities; the Nolan Gallery, Lanyon Homestead, Calthorpe's House, to mention but a few.
Of course, Mr Acting Speaker, I do not see the grant being returned to the Federal Government. I believe the reference in 3.11 takes care of that. That states that:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .