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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2962 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

It may be that the Minister will constitute some other form of arrangement. He is nodding his head on that. So, I will be very interested to know, Minister, what other form of arrangement you may have in mind. The Minister is indicating that he has not considered it; but I hope that he adheres substantially to three discrete committees, one on each of those areas of responsibility, because I believe that that is important. When it was explained to me, I noted the change, and I was hoping that the Minister would come into the chamber in this part of the debate and enlighten me as to what was his thinking on that.

The corporation, as it is to be called, rather than "authority", will have a very significant role in arts administration in the ACT. We are told that it is not to be a policy defining role and that it is not to advise on cultural policy generally. But, given that it operates museums, galleries and a theatre centre, it is difficult to see that it is not going to have some sort of very significant role. Only in time will we see how that role is carried out and what is its relationship to other cultural bodies.

During the debate at the in-principle stage, I pointed to the fact that we were establishing an authority - now a corporation - which has considerable staffing and which is receiving resources that are going to be redirected to other places. Compare that with the Cultural Council, which has a very important role in Canberra, as I think we all acknowledge, but which is not as firmly established as this body. Inevitably, because of its stronger foundation, the corporation will become the dominant body. If that is the case, it will be a serious problem for the ACT because, as it is presently constituted, it does not have the expertise to do that.

Mr Speaker, the Artsvoice group were very keen to bring in a number of amendments; but, in the round table discussions we had, they were - "satisfied" might be too strong a word - accepting of the Minister's assurances on some of the issues discussed. Nevertheless, the Minister has given an undertaking and has produced in his amendments a reference to the fact that the corporation should include some people with a knowledge of matters cultural. The particular subclause reads:

Before appointing a person under subclause (1), the Minister shall endeavour to ensure that the following areas of expertise are represented amongst the appointed members ...

I understand that there is to be further discussion on that. I certainly pointed out to Artsvoice this morning that "endeavour to" does not mean "will". I think there will be a further amendment to take that out in order to, in the minds of some, improve the provisions in that area. My view always has been that it does not make much difference. What is important is the calibre of the people who are appointed to the corporation. You can write all sorts of words into legislation; but you can always find a means of fitting the CV to what you want, and any appointment could be made.

I do not think that taking out "endeavour to" will make any particular difference to whom the Minister appoints. In the end, he can do pretty much as he wants. I have said to the Minister privately that the essence of this is the people he appoints. What is also important is what he says to that corporation and how he expects it, in the finer detail, to carry out its work. Nevertheless, I will support that further amendment.

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