Page 1942 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
While we are on the subject of Mr Corbell, I think we should look at his performance as an Attorney-General. I think in the game of scissor, paper, rock which passes for budget cabinet under ACT Labor, Mr Corbell was a big loser as an Attorney-General. There are almost no initiatives in relation to justice in this budget. It is not surprising, after the dismal failure of his initiatives last year, the virtual District Court fiasco, but it is interesting to note in passing that, after years of being led on by Minister Corbell, yet again this year the community legal centres and their modest request for improved and co-located premises have been cast aside by this government, a government that was prepared to spend $438 million on its edifice of ego but was not prepared to spend less than $10 million on community legal centres.
In the area of nature conservation, we have seen a little bit of money that I suspect is too little and too late. There is money for rabbit eradication and weed eradication. But during the years of neglect the Chief Minister said the weeds were a big problem and there was no magic wand for weeds. He has done nothing for years and years. And now the territory is inundated with Chilean needle grass, African lovegrass, St John’s wort, Paterson’s curse and is overrun with rabbits. I think that most of the money that will be in this budget will be too little too late.
Much has been said about public art and I would like to spend some time touching on the arts portfolio. The Chief Minister has said much about the value of public art. The Canberra Liberals have been accused of being anti public art, and members of the community generally have been described as philistines or rednecks. Let me put it on the record—and I have said it before—that the Canberra Liberals are not opposed to public art. I will repeat that: the Canberra Liberals are not opposed to public art. But we are opposed to the government’s lack of strategic direction when it comes to public art.
This government’s approach is one of public art for its own sake. Indeed, like Mr Corbell’s urban waterways memorial, Mr Stanhope’s public art strategy is one of his memorials, along with the arboretum and, of course, now his edifice of ego, the government office block.
The Canberra Liberals agree with the approach suggested by the Loxton review. The Loxton review recommended that there needed to be a clearer policy on selection and placement and that the scheme should extend beyond sculpture to incorporate other arts. Loxton also said that public art needed a clear policy framework to set direction and address concerns, including those relating to placement, consultation and the decision-making process. To that I would add: the extent to which local artists benefit from this scheme.
We agree with the kind of approach suggested by the Loxton review. It is a pity that Jon Stanhope’s approach so far has been anything but that.
When we look at arts in the ACT, we see that the Chief Minister is really only interested in the visual arts and that almost everything else is a poor cousin. Take, for example, the on again, off again review of the Fitters Workshop. The Fitters Workshop, which was originally built simply as a metalwork facility, has been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video