Page 3747 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I certainly do not envy the council its task because, despite the Minister's claim that only 10 per cent of support to the cultural industry - the Minister's word, not mine - Australia-wide comes from the government, I suspect that the ACT percentage is much higher. If there is a lower income from other sources, it possibly indicates the real commitment to the arts in Canberra and the preparedness of its local practitioners to provide popular culture of the type the average citizen, rather than the aficionado, will enjoy.
In supporting this brave initiative of the Cultural Council to address the funding levels of established organisations and also to retain the capacity to respond to new initiatives, I question the flexibility for new initiatives if funds - $51,000 in the 1992-93 budget - are to be allocated to assist artists and administrative staff with compulsory superannuation. One would have thought that, as a self-employed person, an artist should be responsible for their own superannuation. It is also disappointing to see the $20,000 provided to enhance the ACT Literary Award. I have no objection to the award itself; I think it is a fine initiative. I think my colleague Mr Humphries might have initiated it originally. However, I think it is disappointing to see the Government enhancing the award by an extra $20,000, because again, if Canberra is the cultural centre some local arts patrons believe it to be, then surely a private benefactor could have provided this sum.
Madam Speaker, I support the grants with the qualification I stated earlier. I commend the worthy aspirations of the Cultural Council and I look forward with interest to the "new and quite significant policy document" that the Minister in his statement said is due from the Cultural Council in February 1993.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.50), in reply: Madam Speaker, Mr Cornwell got off very much on the wrong foot. He made a grave error at the beginning and continued in that vein. He claimed that it was not a ministerial statement we were debating but that he would treat it as such. I refer him to the green paper which directs how we attend to things in this Assembly today. It says, under executive business orders of the day:
No. 3 - Cultural Council - Arts Grants Program - Ministerial Statement and Paper ...
He said that I did not give a list of the unsuccessful applications for grants. I did not. I certainly perused that list and spoke to the Cultural Council about it as I closely discussed with them their recommendations. It has not been the practice in this Assembly and, I believe, in other places to indicate those who have not been successful. I will give the matter some consideration. It was not the practice of Mr Humphries when he was, for one year, the Arts Minister; but I will talk to the groups. I think that is the proper thing to do. If they are happy to see the unsuccessful list put up, I am quite happy to do it; I do not have any objection to that.
Mr Cornwell said also - and correct me if I am wrong - that maybe we are too ambitious.
Mr Cornwell: No.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .