Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3874 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, it was. Mr Speaker, I think that the important point to make here is that it is governments who are responsible for decisions and for policy, not public servants. If they are merely the messengers on those issues, they should not be attacked or blamed for that fact.

Mr Speaker, let me deal with the substance of what Ms Tucker had to ask. The reason why the Cultural Council was not consulted in advance about this new grant administration arrangement is that it was not a process specifically about arts grants; it was a process about government grant-making generally. There are many organisations and semi-government or purely government bodies which are involved in the process of administering grants. It so happens that in the arts sector we have what I would call elbow's length funding from the Government through the Cultural Council. Other bodies, purely internal to the Government, make decisions about funding allocations.

The concept which was developed by the Chief Minister's Department was that there should be a trial period during which we centralised grant administration - not grant decision-making - to see whether that could produce savings that would provide for a better allocation of resources and for the ending of duplication in grant-making processes. Some examples were found of organisations which had received funding from different arms of government, where it was not apparent that there was funding from the other arm of government when a decision was made on a particular grant, and where it could be argued that there was some considerable overlap in the way in which those grants ought to have worked.

So, Mr Speaker, I defend the process whereby we at least explore the means for better grant administration. But the Cultural Council's role has not been changed at all. The Cultural Council is still the premier advisory body on the arts and will consider who should receive arts grants. No administration process impinges on that at all; but the administration of those grants is a matter which is now, under this trial, to be centralised to see whether that produces savings. That is a process that I think we deserve to have the chance to explore, because I think it means that we have an opportunity to provide better value for money.

MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Once the Minister has received this motion that was passed last night at the meeting and has had a fuller opportunity to speak to the council - I understand that they are very concerned that their role will change because of his proposal that responsibility go from the Minister to Cabinet - will the Minister reassess whether or not the basic aspects of this proposal are appropriate and ask the community in a more consultative manner before a new proposal to deal with the inconsistencies in grants and acquittal procedures, which are what apparently this is mainly about, are implemented?

MR HUMPHRIES: No, I will not, Mr Speaker, because the precept on which that question was based is false. I do not believe that any responsibility shifts away from the Cultural Council in these matters. I met with the chair of the Cultural Council about 10 days ago, and he did not mention this issue. If he was desperately concerned, he obviously forgot to mention it.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .