Page 1435 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
pros and cons of the best way to manage the Albert Hall, the best way to make the Albert Hall available to the community, before you sign off on any decision.
Secondly, the opposition is saying that the government must expend the $1.8 million necessary to restore this building to an appropriate standard. We say that that expenditure ought to be guaranteed and put in place before any new tendering process commences. You have to accept your responsibility to bring that building back to standard before you think about transferring any such responsibility to any other party through either a commercial arrangement or any other arrangement.
Thirdly, the opposition says that the government must maintain community access balanced with periodic commercial use to ensure the upkeep of the facility. You have an important decision to make, minister. If you assess from the options available once you go out to tender that a reasonable player needs to exercise commercial opportunities in that building in order to get sufficient revenue back to maintain that property yet at least get a small but reasonable profit, it cannot be at the expense of reasonable access by the community for community use of that hall. Therefore, your annual program needs to ensure that there are adequate windows of opportunity for all of our community groups that need and have traditionally used that hall to be able to continue to use that hall at a cost that they can afford, at an entry fee that they can afford.
Finally, we seek of the government the establishment of a joint body with the Australian government, including community representation, to report and advise on the planning. The government has a responsibility to bring that hall up to standard and to ensure that the community gets access.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (10.47): I only wish that Mr Pratt would actually read the RFT, as he could then speak a little bit more meaningfully on it. He would know, for example, that it talks about no rent for 10 years. No rent for 10 years means that that is where the capital funds could actually come from. Notwithstanding that, Mr Speaker, I urge—
Mr Pratt: That is very encouraging, for a change.
MR HARGREAVES: Yes. Just read the document and you will see.
Mrs Burke: You might table it. That would be good.
MR HARGREAVES: I do not have to table it as it is on the website, Mrs Burke.
MR SPEAKER: Order, cease interjecting! Mr Hargreaves, direct your comments through the chair.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I note that Mr Pratt has gazumped Dr Foskey on this issue, which is a bit of shame. He did not have to do that. He could have just waited until Dr Foskey’s motion came on and we could have discussed it then. But he has to have his share of the sunshine and make himself look really silly. I would not deny him that. They both want the government to slow down its processes but neither
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .