Page 4375 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT: That is right. My view is that they are in direct contradiction. Therefore, in giving any consideration to Ms Szuty's motion, we would have to automatically reject Mr Stevenson's amendment. Madam Speaker, it would be appropriate for Ms Szuty to indicate that she would be prepared to withdraw this motion and to hold further discussions with the Minister for Urban Services in the terms that he has already outlined, and I believe - - -
Mr Kaine: She should have discussions with the Minister for the Arts.
MR LAMONT: No. Ministerial responsibility for public assets resides with Mr Connolly, who of course, because of the incredible expertise of the Minister for the Arts, would obviously discuss the matter with the Minister for the Arts. I suggest, Ms Szuty, that, rather than continue with this matter in the way that it has been debated this morning, the most appropriate way to attain something would be to withdraw the motion and to seek discussions with the Minister.
MS SZUTY (12.02): I would like to address the amendments which have been proposed to my motion before I speak on the motion itself and on the remarks that other members have made. Mr Lamont, in his closing remarks, suggested that I withdraw the motion and seek further discussion on it and support for it. That is a curious response to a motion that has been developed over a very long period of time, and in discussion with quite a number of people to date. Given the comments about the motion which have been made in the Assembly this morning, I would be happy to debate it to its conclusion and for the Assembly to take a vote on the matter. That will determine the issue one way or the other. If the motion fails, perhaps I can seek further discussions at a later time and come up with something that the Assembly would be happy with. I support the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party. I see them as not significantly weakening the motion as it stands.
Mr Lamont: That is wimping out, Ms Szuty. It is a backward step.
MS SZUTY: I do not believe that it is wimping out at all. I note the comments which were made by Mr Humphries in support of the motion, the very generous comments that he made about the idea which lies behind the moving of the motion today.
I confess to being somewhat ambivalent about Mr Stevenson's amendment. On first reading the amendment I considered, as other members of this Assembly have considered, that the amendment was really about power, control and influence over what it is ultimately decided becomes a work of public art; but, unlike Mr Wood, I do not necessarily agree that the submission of works for approval would have to be made to a bureaucratic panel. I think it could be a community panel which is formed due to the interest of people in the community who could perhaps have some input into the process. It is a question of who decides what is political and what is not political. Given the comments that have been made in the Assembly, in particular Mr Moore's comments that he would not support Mr Stevenson's amendment, I would be inclined not to support it also.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .