Page 5129 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
for which I apologise. I was going to move an amendment, but Ms Le Couteur has amendments which will address that issue so there is no point in having two sets of amendments.
In proposing this motion today, I recall that on 21 September last I tabled a letter dated 22 August 2008 from Megalo print studio to former Chief Minister Jon Stanhope. I will not repeat everything that I said that day about this letter, but will just mention two things—first, that the letter appealed to Mr Stanhope’s vanity and, secondly, that his vanity had been stroked so sensuously that he was moved to write a note on the top of the letter. The note said: “This is a persuasive and very tempting proposition. Advice and response, please.”
As members would know, the letter was amongst many other documents I obtained through a freedom of information request. Sadly, the Chief Minister’s response to Megalo was not among those documents. I call upon the arts minister, who is not here for this motion at this stage, to table the Chief Minister’s response to Megalo on 22 August 2008 by close of business today.
I contend that Mr Stanhope’s note amounted to the government’s decision to re-house Megalo inside the Fitters Workshop at Kingston. I contend that because, through briefings, questions with and without notice, estimates and annual report hearings, motions and other means, and even through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, this government has been unable—or more likely unwilling—to demonstrate that this decision was made through any other process.
Let me summarise that contention. I say that this government made the decision to move Megalo to the Fitters Workshop by way of a ministerial annotation on a letter. I make the assertion because this government has been unable or unwilling to demonstrate otherwise. Here we see an impetuous decision, a decision that has been backed up by a commitment to spend $3.9 million of taxpayers’ money without any proper process. This was a decision made on a whim on the back of vanity.
Where has there been public consultation about this, Mr Speaker? Where was the expert advice? Where was the master plan for the arts precinct? Where was the analysis of how Megalo’s move to the Fitters Workshop would be in the best interests of the Canberra community at large or the Canberra arts community? Where was the analysis of how the synergies of the arts could be maximised in the Kingston arts precinct? Where was the range of options for the use of the Fitters Workshop?
In the mind of the minister at the time, and therefore his government, all of the answers to these questions were contained in a two-page letter and a handwritten ministerial annotation. There has been no public consultation. There has been no expert advice. There has been no master plan, no analysis of public interest, no analysis of the synergies and no range of options—just a two-page letter and a handwritten note on the top. A dozen words—a dozen words—comprise the government’s decision-making process on this.
This process is wrong. That is why I am proposing this motion today. Before Minister Burch, who has now arrived, decides once again to verbal me—and, I suspect,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video