Page 1444 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with members of the public—and by “either party” I mean the NCA and the ACT government, not the Liberals and the Labor Party.
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—and there is a good chance it will be—it will affect both the opportunities and the responsibilities of its managers. It would also be likely to attract federal funding at different times. I hope that is the case. There is no doubt it is going to be expensive to do up this hall and this may require the support of the commonwealth. At the very least, heritage listing would provide a reason to slow the process down.
I understand that the ACT government thinks it is it handling the problem effectively. Events having overtaken the process, I think we can see that it is not doing so. To pursue the 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, will create more problems than it will solve. This is further complicated by the proposal to make the winning tenderer pay for capital works. Members of the Assembly would be aware of problems that have emerged when private operators have made capital investments in community assets. Ten years free rent does not solve the problem of who ends up owning a facility in which significant private investment has been made.
The Phillip pool is a recent example. 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, the government, were strongly affected by the need to take into account that private interest in the facility. Some of the complications around the Phillip oval also reflect the shared investment in its development. That is one reason why it is the view of the Greens and those who attended last month’s public meeting that Albert Hall should remain entirely in public hands and that the responsibility for capital works should remain with its owner.
At the heart of the frustration is the lack of trust many people in our community have in this government’s plans for the hall. The motion asks for the public to be able to participate in determining those objectives, and I notice that is totally absent from the government’s amendment. Why should this government be afraid of making such a commitment? Handing that decision over through an open tender process to a private operator, or perhaps on the quiet to a preferred tenderer, would make people in this town very angry.
There are divergent views on how best to ensure public access to this facility for social and cultural events. For the past 11 years there has been little or no guarantee as to the number of days assured for community use. I understand that the existing tender documents would guarantee a number of days for that use, but people outside of government have very little confidence in that process. The meeting reflected a general view that community access and enjoyment of Albert Hall is its primary use, and I hope that all members of the Assembly could support that.
The key questions yet to be addressed are about maintenance and improvement to the hall and the level of support needed for community and cultural use. We need a project which draws the NCA and the relevant part of the ACT government together
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .