Page 2949 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was an internationally acclaimed event that had placed the ACT firmly on the agenda of tourists from around the world and had become an iconic event that was intended to showcase Canberra. Indeed, there were plans to showcase Canberra in the centenary year when the endeavour was to get 100 balloons aloft. We will see whether or not that happens.
There are a significant number of events that already occur in autumn. As the industry has said, they were not consulted on it, but it is not the part of the year that is a dead spot for it. The two dead spots are winter and summer; yet we do not have an answer from the minister for both of those. Autumn in Canberra did not need yet another event.
I am particularly concerned about EPIC and the changes that are obviously going to occur to EPIC. The Assembly stopped the attempt by the Stanhope-Gallagher government, through Minister Barr, to drag this territory-owned corporation into the government. It is functioning perfectly well. Indeed, all we had from the minister was praise for the board about how well the board had done. If there are any failings in regard to EPIC, they have been, over time, the failings of the government. For some five years they have been after a block of land; for some five years they have been after the approval of their master plan; and for some five years they have been after some leadership from this government about the future of EPIC—all of which has been denied to them.
The minister had his plans thwarted by the Assembly. The minister also sought to save $50,000 by abolishing fees paid to board members. Unfortunately, despite Mr Barr receiving advice that these fees are paid from the revenue generated by EPIC, he had to come back, after questions on this issue, to the committee and correct some of the evidence given. We have seen further manoeuvring on EPIC by this minister in recent days. He is proposing to replace four members of the board; so we will have a board, some of whom will be paid, some of whom will not be paid.
Then we are going to impose a new body on EPIC, a community advisory committee. I do not think anybody is against the community having a say in the running of a publicly owned facility. But the question is—and I think Mr Rattenbury raised this issue—about community interest in how EPIC worked and whether or not some members from the community and from the users could go on the board. Here was the perfect opportunity: if four members are finishing their term on 30 June, why is it that we suddenly seem to need a new body, an EPIC community advisory committee, on the process of managing EPIC? I find it quite strange. According to the minister’s press release:
The Government will also seek to establish an EPIC Community Advisory Committee to work with the new Board to provide greater community input into the running of the site.
I asked a question on this. It is not just to the board; it will be to the minister and it will be to the department. I hope the volunteers who get on this committee have a lot of time, because they are going to be running from meeting to meeting, to meet the needs of a minister who fails to meet the needs of the existing facility by the process that this government has put in place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .