Page 1157 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The report suggests a range of possible licences to allow live music in restaurants, niche venues, pubs and clubs. The licensing process should be simple and should not hamper live music. The report suggests that licensees should be given certainty in their licensing arrangements to allow them to make long-term plans. I would welcome examination by the government to ensure that live music in Canberra can remain a viable and exciting part of the Canberra community. Although Melbourne was cited, I think Brisbane and Adelaide have been pacesetters in prior rights arrangements that protect long-term live music venues from new developments that may be adjacent.
We have a strange situation where it has become fashionable to live in the inner city areas of our major Australian cities once again—repeating the experience of centuries ago. People want to be close to the cafes and all the activity. But as soon as they move in they suddenly do not want any noise after about 10 o’clock. We have to have some balance there.
I find the term “recognised cultural value” in the motion an intriguing one. Despite my great appreciation for the general nature of this motion in commending live music, there is one thing that troubles me. Perhaps it is a sign of the political correctness of our times that, in every comment about any community issue, politicians seem to be determined to wrap their remarks up in fuzzy rhetoric about cultural values or some other sociological jargon as if to demonstrate their great brilliance. Can’t we just say something is a fun activity? Can’t we just say that people enjoy live music, that it is a great night out? Do we have to wrap this simple observation up in pompous sociological cant, as appears to be the case with this motion? There is no reason to use this kind of fuzzy language to make something sound more important; we can just say that live music is important and that it is great fun to listen to and watch.
Cultural values are not legislated from on high. They evolve from the practices of people in the community. When a certain recreational activity is widely adopted, or adopted by a certain group of people, when we start to feel that it is part of the community we say that it is part of our culture. It is a cultural value. You cannot make something a cultural value by announcing it in the Assembly. Something is either a cultural value or it is not. This is a matter for sociology, not politics.
Live music should be, and is, accorded a value. It is accorded a value by the people who frequent the pubs, clubs and concert halls where it is played. These people do not need their political masters to pronounce live music as a recognised cultural value to know it is important. When my kids go out and listen to live bands, I am sure they are not poised waiting for the Assembly to deem those activities to be recognised cultural values. It is quite absurd and rather silly.
I turn to two issues from Mr Gentleman’s speech. He cited the Gypsy Bar. Having been in the hospitality industry, I would counsel Mr Gentleman to dig a little deeper into the circumstances surrounding the Gypsy Bar. The organisation I acted for dealt with a range of alleged industrial relations breaches at that establishment and fees for advocacy which were never paid—despite it being run, as I recall, by someone who was very close to the federal Labor government at a different time in their life. I do not think it is a simple case of protecting live music. I suggest that before Mr Gentleman cites those examples he should do his homework. If he had done that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .