Page 1770 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As well, this government needs to go back to the drawing board in relation to the master plan for the Kingston arts precinct. So far that plan has been little more than bubble thoughts made in isolation about what could be. There has not been a proper process for the development of a precinct that belongs to the community as a whole and the arts community in particular.
Ms Streak, in her article in the Canberra Times I referred to earlier, is right: the Kingston arts precinct does have the potential to be world-class. Achieving that outcome will require vision and courage and something more than we have seen from this government.
The committee has done the work. It provides a comprehensive set of recommendations that in my view are the key to unlocking the full potential of the Kingston arts precinct because what we have considered goes beyond just the Fitters Workshop. But the decision made about the Fitters Workshop will have enduring implications for what can possibly happen in the future for potentially generations to come when it comes to that arts precinct.
I came to this committee process with a very open view and I think all of the committee members at the start of the committee did so. We engaged in a process whereby we listened to the arguments. We tried to separate the politics, and I do not mean the Labor Party, Greens party and Liberal Party politics. I mean the internal politics within the arts community. We tried to separate that from what was going to be the best outcome.
Up until the 11th hour, we had the unanimous view of what the best result was. The best result was going to be freeing up the Fitters Workshop so that it could unlock its potential as a multi-use facility and recognise its unique acoustic qualities but still provide for what Megalo needs, which is a purpose-built facility in that Kingston precinct.
That decision, that recommendation, provides the best outcome for generations to come for the arts precinct and that was what we recognised. I think it is worth noting that until the 11th hour that was the unanimous view of the committee. We had drafted a unanimous committee report to that effect and gone through it. At the 11th hour, one of the committee members changed their mind—did a complete 180.
It is disappointing to me that someone would engage in a committee process, in this case Ms Porter, to the point where they have essentially agreed with the thrust of what the committee is saying, then at the 11th hour reverse their position. The question has to be asked: why? My understanding is that the day Ms Porter changed her mind, Mr Stanhope visited the building. Ms Porter might like to confirm whether there were any discussions between her and Mr Stanhope on that day that led to her changing her view or whether she had any conversations with government members.
It was an extraordinary situation that occurred, that after so many committee hearings, so many internal discussions, that is what eventuated within the committee. My view is that the committee report that has been presented by the majority of the committee
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video