Page 2232 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Much has been said about the per cent for arts scheme. I am more than pleased to talk about this in the context of this debate. In committee hearings on 27 June 2007, the Chief Minister explained his view that Canberra is lacking in public art compared to other cities and that the per cent for arts scheme is required to catch up. He lamented the lack of public art in the city centres and explained that he is determined to make up that ground. His determination is, of course, funded by the public, many of whom may lack Mr Stanhope’s determination on the issue.
The Chief Minister also explained his view that the spending on the per cent for arts scheme was reasonable, given that it was lower than the spending on other capital works such as the Belconnen arts centre. However, high spending on other arts projects does nothing to justify excessive spending on the per cent for arts scheme. If anything, high spending on other projects only aggravates the problem. Moreover, spending on the Belconnen arts centre is not comparable to spending on the per cent for arts scheme. At the end of the day, the arts centre is a building which potentially could have other uses at other times and is of substantial value for non-artistic purposes as well as for the arts. On the other hand, the per cent for arts scheme will fund a single iconic gateway work on Northbourne Avenue for $1 million—a work which has no use other than, hopefully, to look nice.
I welcome the recommendation of the dissenting report of the estimates committee that the per cent for arts scheme be abolished. At this point, it is probably appropriate that I cite Senator Humphries. Today I took the trouble to contact Senator Humphries, because he seems to be getting a range of honourable mentions from the Chief Minister. I asked him why he would be such an enthusiastic supporter of the Chief Minister’s wish to retain the budget. Senator Humphries said to me that it was something of an extrapolation from his media comment, and he sent me the press release. The press release is headed “Federal Labor government dangerous for the ACT: Stanhope”. He quotes Mr Stanhope, who was speaking on the need for Canberra to maintain a budget surplus, along the following lines:
We are susceptible as a small jurisdiction in that we don’t have our destiny entirely in our hands. Decisions that the Federal Government might make, particularly if there’s a change of Government—
which is effectively saying if Kevin Rudd manages to get elected—
could have significant impacts on employment levels or construction activity and our budget would suffer immediately. That’s why we need a buffer.
I know that deep down the Chief Minister probably shares my level of apprehension of what would happen if the Labor Party comes to power. At the end of the day, the government has saved this government’s bacon time and time again. He is wise to be apprehensive about a Rudd Labor government, because Canberra, no doubt, will take a hammering. Whilst I still believe that the surplus ought to be reduced in the form of tax reductions, I do understand the level of fear and apprehension he has about the prospect of Kevin Rudd getting his hands on the reins and all of the left-wing brigade behind him saying, “This is our big moment. We are back in control. We will tell the government what to do.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .