Page 3957 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Naturally enough, therefore, there were great expectations about the cultural statement made by the Keating Government last month. Creative Nation, it was called. What an interesting title - Creative Nation! There were high expectations that within that important statement there would be a clear honouring of the undertaking given by the Federal Labor Government that the Museum of Australia would go ahead. The frequent delays in the expected arrival of that statement gave people heart that the work would be done in that statement to deliver that important initiative. So, Madam Speaker, I have to record my party's and my own personal distress that, rather than the Creative Nation statement seeing the launch of the National Museum of Australia, we instead saw the museum's effective death. That, of course, is what this statement by the Federal Government means for the National Museum.
Those opposite would like to portray this announcement as the beginning of the development of the National Museum, when in their heart of hearts they must know the bitter disappointment that most people who have been interested in this concept have felt about this announcement. The realisation that this concept cannot be, and will not be, anything like the concept of a national museum which was put forward so vociferously by the Labor Government before the last Federal election must reach even them. Indeed, before the last Federal election that concept was an important factor in the Labor Party buying the votes of many people interested in cultural matters and the arts.
We know where Mr Berry, Mr Wood, Ms Follett and so on were on 18 March last year. They were out pushing for this party that was going to deliver the cultural initiatives that they wanted, including the Museum of Australia. They should be bitterly disappointed, if they had any spine. What was announced in the Creative Nation statement, in fact, bears little resemblance either to what was promised or to what is needed to fulfil this dream. It will be something interesting, and it will be something moderately expensive; but it will not be the National Museum of Australia. That, Madam Speaker, is a serious blow to people in the ACT particularly, because the ACT would have the home of a proper National Museum, and it is a serious blow to all Australians.
I, for one, am not happy with the crumbs that have been offered from the Commonwealth's table on this subject; nor, no doubt, are any of the commentators who have made comments on this particular proposal. I am not happy, for three particular reasons. First of all, the museum is not to be on the site promised - the site which everybody, including the Chief Minister, said only a few months ago was essential for the location of the National Museum.
Mr Wood: Your leader says that it can go on Acton.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, that is not what Mrs Carnell has said. I suggest that you listen, Mr Wood, and you will know what is going on. Secondly, it is not on the scale promised. We were promised a museum with three essential elements, including the relationship between Australians and their environment, and Australia's social history. We have been given one-third of the original concept - namely, the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. That is interesting. That is good in itself, but it is not what the National Museum was supposed to be about. Madam Speaker, I think people know that this has been a sell-out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .