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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3899 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

As I say, the meeting was a representative gathering of 100 or so arts people from across all areas of the arts and they passed that motion unanimously. The meeting last night gave an emphatic no to the implementation of the trial. It was an emphatic no to the proposal itself. The whole tenor of the meeting was, "We do not trust the Government".

Mr Humphries: That is your interpretation of it, Mr Wood.

MR WOOD: It was pretty clear. It is not an interpretation when it was said as loudly and as clearly as it was. At the outset the meeting got a briefing on the changes. The emphasis in those changes was on streamlining. As the debate proceeded, it was agreed that they would like streamlining; but, in fact, the bureaucrats could not carry that argument because it was quite apparent that "streamlining" was not an appropriate word. When you complicate the process, when you add a whole new layer or two layers to that process, when you add a very much greater workload, when you add more to the top of it, it cannot be said to be streamlined. So that argument was not pursued.

It became clear after questioning - it was not in the initial briefing - that what is proposed to happen is that arts grants and other grants will go to Cabinet. They will be circulated, as Cabinet papers are, around the whole bureaucracy. The fact is that the arts community recognised that there was a further bureaucratic and political intrusion into the granting of arts funds. That is what they resented and that is what they utterly resist. We all know the extensive work that goes into submissions to Cabinet and the great amount of extra involvement that brings, and there is no way that you can describe that as streamlining. It is complicated, Mr Humphries. The meeting simply did not trust the words that were being said, and they were very suspicious of the agenda behind the proposal.

So the defence moved, as Mr Humphries did today, to saying that this is an all-of-government response, whatever that means. Is it an expression of no confidence in the Minister that it now has to be done through the whole-of-government process - no confidence in not just this Minister but other Ministers who are involved in different branch areas? Is it an expression of no confidence in the ACT Cultural Council?

Mr Humphries: Were you actually at this meeting?

MR WOOD: Yes. You should have been there.

Mr Humphries: I was not invited, so I did not know it was on.

MR WOOD: You should have been there. I give it to Mr Humphries that he tends to front up to meetings. He does not usually avoid them. His presence would have been appreciated. (Quorum formed) The all-of-government approach may well also denote a lack of confidence in the Cultural Council. A briefing had been arranged for them on the Monday, I understand, as I heard last night. As I heard last night, from the floor, the Cultural Council had no knowledge of this dramatic change until that meeting which transpired, I think, only yesterday. So we need to hear from the Minister what his attitude is to the Cultural Council. Does he still retain confidence in that premier advisory body?

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