Page 2757 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
He did so and he advised me by letter that the 2011 funding handbook would carry a revised condition, such that—and I quote from Mr Stanhope’s letter:
Office bearers of boards should be independent of business management and/or artistic relationships with the organisation, and a majority of board members should also be independent.
His letter went on to say:
The onus of managing conflicts of interest should be placed onto Key Arts Organisations. However, board or staff members should limit actual or perceived conflicts of interest and ensure that any conflicts do not unfairly disadvantage members of the public.
I do not see any real departure from the current requirements that are in place this year. In other words, the ACT government will continue to govern the internal governance arrangements of our key arts organisations. It will continue to interfere with the internal management of those organisations. It will continue to impact on the human rights of members of the organisation to enjoy the benefits of that membership, one of which is the privilege of serving on their boards. It will continue to impact on the ability of those organisations to attract the kind of expertise their boards need. It will continue to divert the attention of boards away from the strategic development of their organisation, focusing instead on the autocracy of this ACT Labor government. Most important of all, it will continue to cast doubt on the ability of our key arts organisations to have policies and procedures in place to deal with any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise on their boards.
I am not sure of any other funding programs of this ACT Labor government that have similar governance demands as those made on key arts organisations. So in that sense, this governance requirement placed on our key arts organisations is discriminatory. I will continue to pursue this matter until this government sees reason and pragmatism.
I turn to the Belconnen Arts Centre. This budget gives no certainty to the arts community and the people of Belconnen about stage 2 of the Belconnen Arts Centre. In 2008, we were told that the estimated cost of stage 2 of the Belconnen Arts Centre was $15 million and it would provide—and I quote from Hansard—“an expansion of the workshop facilities, greater community access and workshop spaces for arts-related companies to set themselves up and also the building of a large theatre”. Two years on, and any mention of stage 2 has disappeared from the budget.
So we look to the infamous infrastructure plan and find that, over the next five years, the government only expects to complete the feasibility study for stage 2 of the Belconnen Arts Centre and, over the next 10 years, the government will do no more than explore construction of a new community theatre at the centre. In the infrastructure report, there is no mention of the other aspects of stage 2 which were outlined in 2008—no mention of the estimated cost, just vague words. I also note from the infrastructure plan that it comes with a caveat—and I note “infrastructure” is correctly spelt here:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video