Page 932 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not disagree that it is an issue. But once again, I think it is an issue that the committee might have pursued. I understand the point that Ms Le Couteur makes. There is an issue there that needs to be addressed. I think there is a need for those entrepreneurs or organisers that are responsible for large music events, particularly those that run them in a commercial way, to accept some responsibility. That essentially is where an investigation into transport options post-live music leads. It leads to a need for a greater partnership and a greater acceptance of responsibility by the entrepreneur, the commercial entity that facilitates a live music event. Where they are commercial offerings and not community events, there is an issue about the availability of buses, transport or transport options to assist those people to leave a particular venue.
I make the point that the successful precedents that we have are probably most particularly Raiders and Brumbies games or large sporting events where special transport arrangements are made. But I also make the point that they are special transport arrangements that come at a cost and where ACTION fares are not charged, where there is a cost for the provision of that service. So in relation to this particular item, I guess I highlight that particular point.
The government is more than interested in being part of a conversation around the development of transport options. It certainly is an area of need—a gap—but I am not suggesting that it is something that could be done by ACTION on a non-commercial basis. We can not just ask ACTION to provide a transport option for large numbers of people on non-commercial terms. It is not enough to simply have half a dozen or a dozen ACTION buses turn up at midnight after a concert and accept the standard fare, which would not cover the cost of the operation, and then expect that in that way ACTION will subsidise that particular event. I do not think that that is reasonable and I just foreshadow that.
In any consideration of transport options, it is not acceptable for ACTION, as the public transport provider, to be asked to provide a direct subsidy at that level for such events, particularly if they are commercial live music events. That is just one of the issues that we would need to work our way through in relation to the provision of late night transport options for large scale events.
The amendment which Ms Le Couteur just moved also seeks to remove from committee consideration the proposed role of the government in providing community venues for all-age music events in the city and town centres. There are a number of government-owned facilities. But there is more particularly a very strong role in relation to the provision of live music events. There is a strong role across the non-government sector—the private sector—for non-government-owned facilities or private venues to actually better contribute to all-ages live music events.
Once again, whilst it is an area that I have no issue in the government being involved in the consideration of, I do believe that there should not be an automatic expectation that the government can build venues just for live music. We just do not have that capacity and I am not prepared, just off the top of my head, to say that we will look at this and we will deliver a new range of additional facilities that are live music capable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .