Page 927 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I move:
That the Assembly take note of the paper.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.59): I thank the minister for the update. To give him his due, I see the minister at more arts events than probably any other member from that side, and I think his appointment was genuinely welcomed by the arts community.
This motion has been moved because of an amendment to a motion that I moved in which we stated that we do not have the same view as the government on the importance of the arts. It is important that we understand that the arts are a driver of creativity. The minister talked about creativity being fundamental, but before we get to creativity, all of the work seems to suggest that it is arts activity, then artistic creativity, that lead to creativity and to innovation and technology. So getting this right is very important.
In the minister’s statement he said that the arts policy outlines its vision, values and principles. I think they are still pretty vague, and most people in the arts community think they are pretty vague. He said that the impacts can be enhanced by working with other groups, and he lists the Education Directorate. The Childers Group appeared before estimates either last year or the year before and said there needed to be better coordination between Education and the arts. The education minister of the day said, “No. We’ve got arts officers inside Education; therefore we’re doing a good job.” I hope that attitude has changed now that we have a new arts minister. It is important that we get this right.
In his statement the minister talked about consultation being an essential part of the project. Yes, there was consultation, but the draft was being written before the consultation had finished. We know that from questions at estimates. The decisions had already been made. So you have to ask whether it was meaningful. Did they listen or was it just a matter of saying, “We’ve got to have an arts policy, so we’ll do another arts policy”? I suspect somehow it was the latter. The fact that you could write something while the consultation was ongoing shows the degree of sham.
In his statement he talked about the actions and measures to realise the policy being outlined in the 2015-16 artsACT strategic plan. It should be remembered that in the 2012-15 framework nothing happened. Again we can go back to the questioning in estimates and annual reports and see that all that changed was how we divvied up the money. If that was the only achievement the then minister and head of arts could point to, the arts agenda and arts management in the ACT are in a parlous state.
The minister went on to talk about the “future development and management of cultural infrastructure, and facilities in particular, in the light of urban renewal”. It is a very important issue. At the forum the other day at Gorman House run by the Childers Group, one of the questions focused on accommodation. The great fear is that artists are being priced out of places like Kingston foreshore. It will be like a zoo: “Look, here come the artists. We can watch them.” They will not be able to live there. They might be able to get an ACTION bus there; they certainly will not get a tram to take
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video