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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1781 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I have also had meetings about it with various people. I have met with representatives of Artsvoice and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance in the ACT.

Ms Tucker: So, are they happy with it?

MR HUMPHRIES: No; I cannot say that they are happy with it. A number of parties are unhappy with it. Indeed, as Mr Wood would well know, two members of the Cultural Council subsequently resigned, and some connection has been drawn - not necessarily explicitly - between their resignation and the proposal to establish a Cultural Authority. I have to say, and it is a matter of great regret, that some people have misunderstood what the legislation is all about. It was put to me that at least one member of the Cultural Council had resigned because they believed that the Cultural Authority was about to snaffle the role of the Cultural Council. I do not believe that is true.

Ms Tucker: You have done a poor job of communicating, then.

MR HUMPHRIES: The Government did not go and talk to the Cultural Council before it announced its intention to establish a Cultural Authority, because it did not see there being any overlap between the roles of those two bodies. The Cultural Authority was seen simply as the successor in title, if you like, to the Arts Bureau and other agencies such as the Canberra Theatre Trust which had run those other assets in the Territory.

The Government bringing together the trust, the Cultural Centre, Mugga Mugga and so on into a single body did not appear to be a matter of direct concern to the Canberra Cultural Council. Talking at length about the subject may well have exacerbated fears that we were in some way looking at taking over the Cultural Council. However, I accept that there has been a misunderstanding about that; people have got upset about that. For that reason, the Government is quite willing to leave these matters on the table while further discussion about them takes place. That means resuming debate on this matter in August.

I do regret the loss of an opportunity to move in this important area. It will be difficult to pick up and achieve as much if we are effectively delaying by two or three months the implementation of this project. I do think there has been more than enough opportunity for people with concerns to be able to sort them out with the Government; and I have had some discussions with people about those things. I have to reaffirm that we have put the basic structure on the table. We continue to believe in it. From my perception at this point in time, I believe the only things we have to deal with are misconceptions on the part of some people; not matters of real substance, on the basis of what people have raised. They are misconceptions, not well-based concerns. I might be proven wrong about that; I am happy to listen to the people concerned and hear what they have to say. But so far I have not heard anything that I would not characterise in that way.

The only argument I have heard which has some vague gravity about it is that, by removing the right of bodies such as Lanyon, the Cultural Centre and so on to be completely autonomous - not that they ever were - the creativity of the people who are involved in those organisations is somehow stifled. That has some superficial attraction.

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