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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (28 October) . . Page.. 2402 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

was best demonstrated by our determination to ensure that moneys flowing from the casino premium were actually spent on facilities more than five years after they were first allocated.

Mr Humphries, when he was Minister in September 1995, speaking about the casino premium, said:

Money provided for that centre from the casino premium remains available to meet that need when it is required.

I think his aspersions in the last week's sittings were quite unfounded. In that same week, as part of this campaign, it seems, Mrs Carnell quoted some figures claiming that the Liberal Government spent much more on the arts than we did. I want to question those figures. She used figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for cultural funding per head of population. The figures are right. In 1994-95 funding was $85 a head, in 1995-96 it was $86 a head and in 1996-97 - as a demonstration, she says, of their commitment - it shot to $103 a head. What she did say in a media release, but glossed over in her speech, was that the last figure included capital funding. It included the capital works going on across the way here.

Mr Quinlan: Not a misuse of statistics and figures?

MR WOOD: I am not about to propose a censure motion, Mr Quinlan. I point out that the 1996-97 figure incorporated capital expenditure for various works that were going on, and other works too, I expect, but certainly not with money from the casino premium. I expect that in a couple of years the figure will drop back to about the $85 mark. The Chief Minister's statement actually points out that capital expenditure is included. To press home the point - not too accurately, I think - she said, "There is also capital expenditure". She wants to add that money in twice.

Mr Quinlan: But it did not happen here.

MR WOOD: It did not happen here. I heard that remarkable admission today, Mr Quinlan. In the interest of the accuracy of records, I want to say what happened. I do not want to engage in tit for tat, or the sort of argument that says, "I did", "You did". Over the years we have generally all supported the arts to the extent they have been supported. In fact, the achievement of Mrs Carnell, apart from cutting funds to the Institute of the Arts at the ANU, was to reduce the extra $3m - I concede that - that Mr Humphries had won in the previous Government. I sometimes think those figures were a bit fudged and there were capital works in there that may not have been applied properly. Mrs Carnell, as arts Minister, has reduced that amount. The new Government did not carry on that slightly higher level of expenditure. That is the achievement Mrs Carnell should be talking about.

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