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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1777 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

bricks and mortar. I might indicate that my view of the Bill has softened a little over the time that I have considered it and over the time that I have been talking to the arts groups and to other groups. I believe I can move some amendments that will improve it and ensure the primacy of the Cultural Council and the rights of local groups to state a view in Canberra.

Mr Speaker, behind my concern about this Bill is another matter, and that is that I believe there is a feeling on the part of the Government that they want to get more for their quid in respect of the arts; they want a better return, whether in visitor numbers or in some other clearly economic way. We have a problem with that. That is certainly important. Let us get the best out of it we can. But let us not forget that at the core of what we do in the arts is the need for the arts to reflect what is happening in Canberra, to reflect our own vibrant community and to work for our people, for our culture, for our entertainment in Canberra. I do not want it to get carried away with ideas of great entertainment, blockbusters and the like that might attract people - and that is good - but they might not do anything to expand the activity in the arts in our own city. That would be a very significant problem for us.

On these grounds, I am concerned about the implications of the Cultural Authority. I am concerned because the Minister's rhetoric at various times has not always matched what is in the Bill. I will say again the words that the Minister has used on some occasions: "This is about bricks and mortar". But the Bill is not about bricks and mortar; the Bill is about a lot more than that. That might be legitimately so, but they have not been the Minister's words. I wonder whether this is the Minister's agenda or whether there is another agenda coming through that he may be aware of or perhaps only dimly aware of. I start to wonder about some of the agendas behind this. I would be the first to acknowledge that we must constantly review what we are doing, whether with the Cultural Council or in other aspects of the arts; we must be constantly aware, constantly reviewing and changing. Let us do that.

Maybe this Bill has in it some good measures that we should take through, but I am not confident about the whole background to this. For those reasons, I think it is very appropriate that we defer legislation until we come back in August. The arts community have had the Bill in their hands now for only a week. They can have that discussion that the Minister says they ought to have and seems to think they have always had. I will be happy to support the adjournment of this debate and to carry on again in the detail stage in August.

MS TUCKER (4.35): I am also concerned about this Bill in its present form and about the nature of the consultation which has taken place. I am very glad that I have the support of other members in seeking an adjournment of the debate on this Bill today. I think in the Estimates Committee process we did address some of the issues. On the issue of consultation, I support what Mr Wood has said. Basically, the letter sent out in January was very far from what one would consider to be any kind of thoughtful process of consultation. In the Estimates Committee hearing a list of groups that were contacted was read out; but, in fact, those groups were all the groups who were actually going to be subsumed by this Cultural Authority. That was the limit of the consultation.

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