Page 4369 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the end she said, "No significant amounts of public money would need to be used". Why did she not put into drawing up a budget the same effort that she put into the rest of the speech? That is the problem. That is where it is irresponsible; that is where it completely falls down. A lot of work went into it, but it was only half the work that was needed.
As Ms Szuty's motion stands, if it is not amended, a very considerable amount of money would have to be spent. I resent that approach in the space of a couple of weeks after the same sort of irresponsibility was shown in respect of the education budget.
Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Not only is the Minister misleading the house in terms of the education budget by how he is presenting his argument, but what he is saying is a reflection upon a vote of the Assembly, and I ask you to draw him to order under standing order 52.
MR WOOD: You feel very sensitive about that, obviously.
Mr Moore: No; about your not telling the truth.
MADAM SPEAKER: Would you withdraw, please, Mr Wood.
MR WOOD: I was not asked to withdraw, Madam Speaker. He has just drawn attention to a previous vote. Madam Speaker, I think it is not good enough - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Excuse me, Mr Wood. I am entirely confused here. I believe that Mr Moore was asking me, on a point of order, to point out that you had reflected on a vote of the Assembly.
MR WOOD: Yes, I did.
MADAM SPEAKER: On that basis I ask you to withdraw.
MR WOOD: Certainly. Madam Speaker, it is not good enough for members in this Assembly, responsibly elected, to claim that we can spend money indefinitely - spend, spend, spend. We can cost this out. I could do some costing. I set out to do some back-of-the-envelope costing, which is more than Ms Szuty did, and it starts to add up. Now Mr Stevenson proposes an amendment which says that proposals have to be submitted. I guess Ms Szuty will object to that.
We will be having an appeals board next. What are we going to have? Where arbitrary power is given to bureaucrats we establish mechanisms to ensure the rights of people, so we will have an appeals board. That will go quite well, because if Ms Szuty's motion gets up, or even the amended motion gets up, I can see us establishing not PACU - which is the acronym for Ms Szuty's public assets coordination unit - but a council with responsibility for aerosol painting. I dare say that Ms Szuty might wish to be chair of CRAP. I think that says a lot.
Let me come back to the serious part, now that we understand that background. I could not let that one slip by. What Ms Szuty said was quite reasonable. I can see benefits in some of this work. She commented on the negative attitudes that arose when this matter was last raised. Without checking the record, I think that when I spoke on that occasion I drew a clear distinction between public art which is discernible art and graffiti. I do not believe that there is any particular connection between those two.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .