Page 1248 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(3) That this meeting empower the organising group to set up a committee to promote the implementation of these resolutions.
(4) That this meeting request the ACT Minister for Planning to convey two messages to the Government:
a. this meeting’s disappointment that the Government did not send a representative competent to comment on the tender process; and
b. a request that the Government abort the current tender process and not re-open tenders until the planning future for the Albert Hall Precinct had been clarified.
(5) That the plan resulting from Resolution 1 honour the principles spelt out by Walter Burley Griffin for the planning of the National Capital.
(6) That this meeting considers any plan for the Precinct ensure that Albert Hall remains a public asset under public management.
(7) That the meeting express disappointment that the Minister for Territories is not present and has not been present at any of the Albert Hall precinct meetings.
There have been two problems with the processes to date. One is that the NCA and the ACT government appear to be acting independently of each other; the other is that there has been and is likely to be no real partnership with interested members of our community. It is quite wrong to underestimate the significance of this building and the importance of establishing an open process to decide its future. The public reaction first to the NCA’s proposed variation of the National Capital Plan and then to the ACT government’s management strategy makes that clear.
I note that the ACT government is writing to the Commonwealth asking that the Albert Hall be put on the national heritage list. If that is successful, it is reasonable to think that it would influence both the opportunities and the responsibilities of its managers. It would also, I imagine, be likely to attract federal funding at different times.
I understand that the ACT government might have thought that it was handling the problem effectively but, events having overtaken the process, I think we can see that it is not. To embark on a tender process in order to engage a business as manager of the hall before the NCA has finalised any variation to the National Capital Plan and before the matter of heritage listing is finalised can do nothing but create problems. This is further complicated by the proposal to make the winning tenderer pay for capital works. Members of the Assembly would be aware of the problems that emerge when private operators make capital investments in community assets. The Phillip pool is a recent example of this. Private investment in the site saw the establishment of an ice-skating rink and decisions on the future management of the facility by its owner—(Time expired.)
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .