Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 13 Hansard (Wednesday, 16 November 2011) . . Page.. 5480 ..
(a) provide clear public information about the methodology for ranking applications;
(b) provide a simplified process for festival fund applications designed to result in lower rates of non-compliant applications;
(c) actively engage with the WCCC and other unsuccessful applicants and advise of any additional information required to support their funding request for the second round of funding;
(d) review the decision to not provide funding to the WCCC for the purpose of supporting the Weston Creek Community festival with a view to providing adequate funding that would allow the festival to occur; and
(e) report to the Assembly in the December sittings on the progress that has been made on subparagraphs (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d).”.
My amendment is pretty simple. Essentially what it does is remove the bit that you had concern with, minister, about providing additional funding for the ACT festival fund. Having noted some of the comments that you made I have removed that. I have added a couple of other elements: to review the decision not to provide funding to Weston Creek Community Council for the purpose of supporting the Weston Creek Community Festival, with a view, not directly, to providing adequate funding that would allow the festival to occur; and for the government to report to the Assembly with the progress on those elements. They are not substantial changes to Ms Le Couteur’s amendment but they certainly remove the element of additional funding, which goes beyond the scope of what I intended from my motion.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (9.10): With Mr Hanson’s amendment, as I have indicated in my speech, I am happy for us to support removal of 2(a) of Ms Le Couteur’s amendment. But it is not for the government to review the decision not to provide funding—it is a decision made at arm’s length from government—so I cannot support your 2(d) in that area, and it will not be possible to report on progress to the Assembly in a December sitting, because their application process will not have even closed by the time we come back in a couple of weeks, so I cannot support 2(e) either. I just do not think that is particularly practical. So I would prefer to support Ms Le Couteur’s original amendment than I would support Mr Hanson’s further amendment in that context.
Mr Hanson’s amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s proposed amendment agreed to.
Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Motion by Mr Barr proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.