Page 1866 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
portfolio and I think to some large extent was probably lost in that portfolio. I think that is part of the problem. EPIC has struggled to get the attention and get the focus from government that was probably warranted as a territory facility, and I welcome the fact that the new minister is looking at putting more time and focus into this. I think that will be an improvement for EPIC, and I congratulate him on that already new energy. Hopefully it will continue to be the situation.
I also acknowledge the government’s efforts to save money. I think that is something we should always be striving to achieve, particularly today in the context of the budget and the difficult economic times that are facing the territory and getting our budget balanced. I think that is a good initiative.
Recognising all of those things, the Greens came forward with a number of suggestions to the government. Rather than abolishing the board at this point, we thought there were potentially different ways to proceed: to postpone the abolition of the board for 12 months and assess how it performs in the new portfolio; and to ensure that, with this new portfolio, it gets the licence to move forward and do some of the things that the board has been striving to do and have the space to do that.
We suggested reducing the fees of the board if the money is the true issue here. My sense is that most of the board members are not in this for the money; they are in this to make a contribution and that, even in the event that there is a board member who really is offended by the loss of fees, I am aware that there are other people that would be very keen to play a role in the running of EPIC and that would step up to the board if invited. So I think that potentially there is an option there to save money. If in 12 months time, at the end of that period, we find that there is still a case that the board seems to be the issue, not the being in a backwater of the Treasury portfolio, then we can reconsider this issue.
These are the creative and constructive options that the Greens have put forward to the government. Unfortunately, it is unclear at this point whether the government is going to take up some of those options. We feel at this stage that, if there are not some further alternatives in lieu of the black and white, we will not be able to support this bill in its current form. We do not believe that there is a sufficiently strong case at this point to simply abolish the board and suck EPIC into the department. For the reasons I have outlined, we feel that there will be a loss of energy and expertise there; it is not a step forward; therefore, the Greens will not be supporting the bill in its current form.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (10.38): I rise to support the bill before us. The ACT is renowned for our fantastic sporting events and facilities, and the ACT government successfully runs three of Canberra’s premier sport venues—Canberra Stadium, Manuka Oval and Stromlo Forest Park—through Territory Venues and Events, within the Department of Territory and Municipal Services. These efficiently run facilities accommodate world-class performers to the ACT and with them a significant injection of tourism, which is very important to the local economy.
Following changes to administrative arrangements, Exhibition Park in Canberra, more commonly referred to as EPIC, now sits with other territory venues operated by TAMS. There is an opportunity to achieve greater efficiency in the administration and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .