Page 2738 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Currently there is a focus on large, permanent, static displays and, as the Greens have been saying for years, we would like to see more focus on ephemeral art, impermanent things, light displays—the sorts of things that can be seen occasionally in Sydney’s CBD. These are cheaper, they are interesting, they are local and they can be changed after a period of time so that if you do not like one you will like the next one. This is one way that the government could react to the difficulties placed on public art by the economic downturn. I was very pleased to find, through the estimates process, that the Belconnen Arts Centre is actually on budget and on time, and I look forward to it opening—I believe in late August.
I would also like to mention the estimates committee recommendation that the government rethink its funding policy regarding the structure of boards in arts bodies. Currently, the criterion that needs to be met in relation to conflict of interest is very strict, and I am aware of one Canberra arts organisation which lost its entire board in a couple of months, mainly because most of the board members had also done a small amount of paid work for the organisation.
I come from a listed company background. Some listed companies do not have any directors who are also employees, but many do, and I was one for my time as a director. They are called executive directors. Listed companies have strict governance and conflict of interest provisions, and I cannot see any reasons why our arts NGOs should not be able to solve the problems as well as listed companies. I am not sure how the current approach by artsACT will solve the issue in the long run, but I do hope that they will make some efforts in this direction. I am very pleased that this is one of the recommendations which the government has agreed to look at. I believe it will report by the end of the year.
Moving along to Indigenous affairs, one of the interesting and, I think, positive things about the estimates committee process was that we looked at the initial decision to discontinue funding for Gugan Gulwan’s numeracy and literacy program. We spoke to three different ministers about this. They all said: “Yes, well, obviously, it is not us. It is a good program, but it is not us.” This shows one of the advantages of being able to go through and find someone who eventually says; “Yes, well.” I understand now that the government has, in fact, agreed to continue funding, at least for this financial year. I would be more pleased if it made a commitment to ongoing funding because all the departments that were asked about it agreed that it is a very valuable program.
I am concerned that the $50,000 allocated to the Women’s Legal Service is not a sufficient amount of funding, and the same goes for the Aboriginal Legal Service. Considering the lip-service which is paid to Indigenous education by all levels of government, I would like to see the government look to closing the gap. I think we need to look seriously at the amount of funding for this. Also along those lines I would like to see the government consider a more transparent method of reporting Indigenous funding by issuing an aggregate statement for all Indigenous funding. They did that previously with a women’s statement. That is probably something the Chief Minister should be responsible for, and I understand that the government may support this in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .