Page 3287 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Burch: More useful than Campbell Newman.
MS LE COUTEUR: Well, this is not a debate in that fashion and I must speak via the Speaker. Speaking through the Speaker, I have in front of me a table of moneys given to the various state symphony orchestras. They come from a question on notice asked by the federal Greens leader, Christine Milne. The highest contribution is to the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, which gets $10.3 million. But it is interesting that while the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra gets a measly $9.8 million, there is also an Orchestra of Victoria, which gets $4.8 million. So if you add it up together, Victoria is the clear winner.
Among the states, Adelaide gets $6.3 million, Queensland gets $7 million, Tasmania gets the lowest at $5.9 million, and Western Australia gets $6.5 million. Possibly the even more interesting figure is that the Darwin Symphony Orchestra gets $203,900.Why I say that is possibly more interesting is because, to my knowledge, all the state symphony orchestras were originally ABC orchestras. When funding arrangements for the ABC changed, part of that involved the commonwealth government taking on funding of the symphony orchestras. My understanding is that Darwin and Canberra were in the same boat—that is, they did not have an ABC orchestra. So it is interesting that Darwin, despite having a considerably smaller population than Canberra, gets twice as much money for its symphony orchestra.
I think the ACT can well say that even if we are not able to aim for the dizzy heights of $10 million or even $6 million for our symphony orchestra, we should at least do as well as Darwin. That should not even be an aspirational goal; that should be something the federal government could well agree to. I will be very interested to hear from the minister Simon Crean’s response to her letter.
I think the Canberra Symphony Orchestra plays an important part in Canberra’s musical environment, musical scene, particularly given the current problems, to put it mildly, with the School of Music, as we debated in May. There is a relationship between the two. A number of the performers with the symphony orchestra are also teachers or students or are connected with the School of Music. The two, while being distinct organisations, are interrelated, and part of their interrelationship is that they both receive federal funding and both of them, of course, think they should be better funded.
I am happy to support Mrs Dunne’s motion. I am intrigued to hear what the Hon Simon Crean may have said, and I am just a little frustrated that we are having to move this as a separate motion when this was, after all, what was put forward in May.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.20), in reply: To close the debate, I thank members for their support, although from Minister Burch it was obviously through gritted teeth. I should have touched in my opening comments on the amendment that Ms Le Couteur referred to that she moved in May in relation to my motion on the School of Music. I recall at the time saying that I was fully in support of the sentiments that Ms Le Couteur included in her amendment and that I thought the work of the CSO needed to be supported. I in fact invited Ms Le Couteur to consider moving a separate motion in support of the CSO at a different time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video