Page 5216 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
be proposing a number of those to minimise the harm that would be done by the opposition’s bill.
But in the end, we are determined to get this debate over and done with so that, whatever else happens, the government can get on with business. And that business is listening to Exhibition Park users through our new community advisory group, investing in Exhibition Park’s facilities, with new food service areas and visitor amenities, and delivering great events at Exhibition Park, including a new Summernats which will be bigger and better than ever this coming year.
When we look at the opposition’s bill today, it is hard not to be reminded of those old Cadbury ads, with the scientist Julius Sumner Miller asking himself, “Why is it so?” Why indeed? We are here. The bottom line of this bill really is that too much time has already been wasted on what is a silly debate.
It is very clear to everyone concerned that the government would prefer that Exhibition Park be brought into the Territory Venues and Events Group, like Manuka Oval, Canberra Stadium and Stromlo Forest Park. There are a number of synergies in these organisations—things like ticketing, event management, catering, crowd control. There are a whole range of skill sets that are common across all of those venues.
The government’s view is that there would be some tremendous opportunities for the staff in each of those organisations to work on events and activities at each of the organisations and that being isolated to one facility and one area within government is limiting for staff and does not enable them to bring to bear the diversity of skills and experience that could be brought across all of those venues that, as I say, have many things in common, not least of which is that often events at each of those facilities involve the need to transport mass numbers of people to and from the event when there is no public transport provision across all of those venues.
But given the Assembly has voted on this matter this year, we recognise that that will not be the case at this point in time; so failing that, we would like to see the board of Exhibition Park contain the best people that it possibly can, regardless of whether or not they are public servants. We do not have a bent against public servants. But it appears that the opposition is determined to live in the Carnell era of managerialism in this area of ACT public service and, if they can get support for this agenda in this place today, then we recognise that that is life. We know there is really nothing more to this than opposition for opposition’s sake and, again, that is life. But it is what we have come to expect.
I do not doubt that the Greens are beginning to draw their own conclusions about the opposition’s motivations in this case. All along, the government proposed a simple budget measure to streamline public administration and to save the public money. That is all. And after six months of dealing with the opposition on this issue, it is possible that this may become a little clearer to the Greens party today than it was back in May. Certainly, the very long delay by the opposition in debating this bill, the fact that Mr Smyth has had to bring in a number of amendments to his own bill and, frankly, the chaotic approach that has been adopted by the opposition in the last two days as the debate finally approaches are rather revealing. At the least, these delays in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video