Page 1448 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SESELJA: Mr Hargreaves interjects but there are a lot of community groups that would like to use it and, if it were upgraded, I am sure there would be more. Fifty days a year seems very low for an important community asset when significant numbers of community groups are lining up to use it.
Mr Hargreaves: It is a minimum.
MR SESELJA: Mr Hargreaves is now interjecting across the chamber. It would have been helpful if a representative of his had been there on the night to answer some of these questions and allay some of these concerns. But unfortunately, because the government really did not care about the community’s concerns and misjudged the community sentiment, they have been caught short. They have been embarrassed into now paying some lip-service to it. I hope it is not just lip-service. I hope they will take these issues seriously. If they were serious they would support Mr Pratt’s motion, delay this process and get it right.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (11.31): I thank Mr Pratt for putting this motion on the notice paper. I note Dr Foskey’s comments and I would like to take her up on one point. I was at that community meeting, as were Mr Seselja, Mrs Dunne and Dr Foskey. I, for one, have been talking with concerned people for around 12 months about, firstly, the duck-shoving proposal by the government to move the Albert Hall into commercial hands and, secondly, about the incredibly appalling state of disrepair the building is in. So it is really disingenuous to somehow say we have just jumped onto an issue.
Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, for the information of members, I seek leave to table a document entitled A future for our Albert Hall: issues and ideas that was distributed at that meeting. Members may find it useful.
Leave granted.
MRS BURKE: Thank you. When I look at the government’s amendment I have to come to the conclusion that the government cannot help itself. It cannot just have a straight debate, can it? No, it has to move amendments to all motions other than those that it has placed on the notice paper. That, in itself, shows something, does it not?
The government’s amendment shows a lack of commitment to working with the Australian government to resolve the issue. This is quite clear. They are very keen to remove paragraph (2) (d) of Mr Pratt’s motion relating to the establishment of a joint body—I think this is quite sensible—including community representation, to report and advise on the planning and management of the Albert Hall heritage precinct. Of course, this would involve Mr Mulcahy.
It has been an incredibly difficult time for the people at the hall who have been in “caretaker” mode for 18 months. Let us face it: we all know what it is like to be in “caretaker” mode. There is no authority to do anything. There is no real direction or ability to invest in something that you have no legitimate long-term tenure over. Of course, this now carries a $2 million price tag.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .