Page 1434 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is only one direction the government can take on this; that is, to scrap the current process altogether and start again. As I said at the outset, the opposition very strongly encourages the government to abort the current tender process, allow the existing management plan to play itself out for at least the next six months and recommence the tendering process with a better set of specifications which ensure an adequate balance between community use and commercial use and which, more importantly, ensure that the responsibilities, be they shared or be they unilaterally exercised, are to maintain the hall at least to the minimum standard, which we have not seen for some years.
We have talked about the consultation process. It is simply flawed in this case. At the public meeting two weeks ago there was not one representative of the government available to answer questions from the public about the tendering process. Minister Hargreaves was unable to attend. We accept that. We believe that he was somewhere else on fundamentally important ministerial business. But he did not send somebody to represent him on the urban management issues that revolve around the Albert Hall. Andrew Barr simply had no damn idea. Andrew Barr, who was present for the government, had no idea about the tendering processes and could not answer the questions pelted at him by the community.
Mr Mulcahy: Simon should have been sent.
MR PRATT: Of course, the one minister who might have been able to answer questions was gagged and relegated to the bleachers. Perhaps the Chief Minister was frightened that Mr Corbell might come up with some alternative process for the use of the Albert Hall. In fairness, at least Mr Corbell had the corporate knowledge, had the background, to be able answer the questions. It is so important that government, with the appropriate authorities, confront communities in advance of decisions being taken and be able to consult properly. They have failed to do that in this case, as they failed to do with the Griffith library closure, and as they failed to do with the whole project for the reformation, restoration, refurbishment or rebuilding of the Tharwa bridge. This government have a poor record when it comes to consulting with the community on the very important assets that adorn our landscape.
As we have seen from the budget handed down overnight, the scar tissue of neglect by the government runs deep and hard. While that budget is now addressing some of those issues, the fact of the matter is that we have scar tissue. Why do we have scar tissue? In the case of the Albert Hall, it is because they have not maintained this lovely old building in its pre-eminent style.
Therefore, the opposition directs the ACT government, firstly, to abort the current tender process for the management of the Albert Hall and arrange a six-month extension of the current management arrangements to enable a period for proper community consultation. The opposition demands that the government allow proper consultation to occur before any decision is taken at departmental level, cabinet room level or anywhere else, unlike every other so-called consultation which has simply been a lame excuse for their actions after the event. In this case, minister and Chief Minister, we ask you to consult with the community, to discuss with them the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .