Page 1433 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is also a requirement for conservation work to bring the hall up to scratch from a heritage point of view—my colleague the shadow Treasurer will speak more to that shortly—in view of the conservative management and landscape plan. This amount of work has been conservatively estimated at about $1.5 million, but the relevant paragraph in the tender document itself—paragraph 3.9.4—refers to the CMLP, the conservative management and landscape plan, as only a guideline for maintenance and repair. We think that is probably a little bit loose and we want to see that aspect of maintenance tightened up.
Why did this government let the Albert Hall go to rack and ruin? Why do the government continue to allow our heritage landmarks to decay in such a public manner? Why do they do that? Why, for example, have we seen the heritage-listed Tharwa bridge decay to such a point over a number of years that at the last moment the government had to respond impulsively to—
Mr Hargreaves: Your lot let the contract.
MR PRATT: You are in the seat, minister. I am not in the seat, minister. You are in the seat, minister, and we are talking about 5½ years of neglect of Tharwa bridge, the Albert Hall and other icons. The Tharwa bridge is another example, and I think it is relevant for me to talk about the Tharwa bridge in this debate. The government was well aware of the state of disrepair months and years prior to the closing of the bridge, all the time doing nothing to prevent the inevitable. In fact, I am fully aware that Roads ACT has oodles of files that date back to pre self-government times on the state of the Tharwa bridge. The tender process in that instance is also flawed. Again, we had no public consultation in terms of the Tharwa bridge’s future.
Mr Hargreaves: What absolute rot.
MR PRATT: You have been down to talk to the Tharwa community. As you have just raised the issue, let me be sidetracked.
MR SPEAKER: Order! This is not a conversation across the chamber. This is a debate, and the Tharwa bridge really does not have much to do with what we are debating.
MR PRATT: All right, Mr Speaker. Like the Albert Hall, there has been no consultation on a range of issues incorporating icons such as the Tharwa bridge and other assets that we have in the territory. Like the failure to consult on the closure of Griffith library, this government has failed to consult with the community about the future of the Albert Hall.
Let us look at the tendering process. On the face of it, the tender is clearly at odds with what the community wants. The tender clearly does not specify that community, cultural and civic uses should be the primary uses of the building, nor that this should be the central objective of the successful manager. The most likely outcome would be that commercial interests would overwhelmingly outbid community groups for usage of the hall. It is clearly the intention in the tender document that the Albert Hall become a fully commercial operation. That is something that we are concerned about.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .