Page 5214 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
legislation about the government’s proposal to abolish the EPIC board, the Greens did oppose that legislation. The reason we did that at the time was that we felt that there was a real value in retaining a level of community expertise and community involvement in the board of EPIC because it is a unique facility. It is a facility that is very diverse, with more than 300 events a year, and it is a facility that I think having a range of perspectives on the board is very valuable to help it have new ideas and innovation. Possibly we are doing something a little bit different to the rest of the government venues and I think it is of value in Canberra to have that kind of diversity.
That was the basis on which we opposed the legislation at that time. However, we did also suggest some ways forward and we suggested to the government that they postpone the abolition of the board for at least 12 months to assess how it performs in the new portfolio because, as we discussed at that time, EPIC had been brought under the minister for tourism, Mr Barr, that he had a particular interest in it and that there was an opportunity for greater engagement from the minister as part of a new portfolio and it was linked more closely to some of the other work that was going on around town. There was an opportunity actually for improved performance, improved integration with government, without the need to absorb the facility into the government department. We put those suggestions forward in good faith at the time of rejecting the government’s proposal.
Unfortunately Mr Barr at the time said, “We will give it 12 months and I can assure you we’ll bring the legislation back.” Unfortunately he could not wait and moved in the middle of the year to then stack the board with public servants from the Department of Territory and Municipal Services, which was quite contrary to the debate that had been had in the Assembly. I think at the time I did describe that as a hostile takeover.
This bill today seeks to unpick that decision and provide a clear path forward, which is more consistent with the nature of the debate that we had here in May. I think it is an important facility; it is one that, I would hazard a guess, almost every Canberran uses at some point during the year, and it is one which we are keen to see be very successful. We believe that having that community engagement will help with that success.
What the bill that Mr Smyth has put forward seeks to do is limit the number of public servants on the board. The Greens do accept there is a role to have members of government departments on the board—potentially one or two, depending on the size of the board—because there is value in having those linkages in exploring synchronicities with other things that are going on, without the government needing to necessarily completely control that organisation. We still, as I have stressed, do want that level of community input.
What Mr Smyth’s bill also does is acknowledge that, where there is a special need or particular circumstances, the Assembly can agree to appoint greater numbers of public servants to the board. I think the proposal to have the Assembly grant that possibility is a good one because it keeps the flexibility open for the government, whilst putting a level of transparency and, I guess, a level of scrutiny into it in by saying, “We are quite open to accepting that, where you make a good case and where there are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video