Page 3519 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
have now heard two fairly different accounts of the situation. I think it will prompt me to give ArtSound a call myself and have a chat to them about it. I have been out to their site previously, and I think they provide a great community service. We have heard the two versions of the story. I think there is one that probably requires some further investigation—the sense that they perhaps do not have the money now for admin funding versus the peer review process of actually moving them across into the program funding away from key arts organisations, and also where ArtSound are going in the future.
The motion also calls on the government to table a proposed review of the arts policy framework by the last sitting day in February. This is a review that the Minister for Arts has already committed to in the policy framework itself. I am advised that it is proceeding on schedule; I can only imagine that the minister will bring it to the Assembly.
Having considered this motion and listened to the debate, I do not support Mr Smyth’s motion unamended. I think any amendment that would be moved would probably be so far away from what Mr Smyth intended and require such extensive rewriting that it really would be an entirely different motion. So I will not be voting to support Mr Smyth’s motion today. I acknowledge the discussion that has taken place. I have found it interesting in places, and I have no doubt that we will re-prosecute these issues at some point in the future.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (6.29), in reply: You have some interesting conversations in this place, and you kind of take it from Mr Rattenbury some days because I think I see Mr Rattenbury at more arts events than I see the minister. That is an interesting contrast between the pair. I was writing furiously, and I was just thinking that Ms Burch said that I was challenging her to intellectual engagement on the arts, but it was she who threw intellectual engagement on the arts up in her speech this morning. I responded, thinking she would respond. I quote a couple of philosophers whose books I happened to have in my office; she resorts to Mel Brooks. That is the level of debate. I have got a lot of respect for Mel Brooks as a social satirist and a commentator on the human condition, but, when even your local leaders are saying that this is a puerile thing, you have to question the funding.
The minister then hides behind To Kill a Mockingbird. I do not think To Kill a Mockingbird was funded by a government grant. It was the expression of an individual who put their time and effort into writing a book. They did not seek government funding, but they did publish a great work of art. Mr Rattenbury mentions Shakespeare. I do not recall “Kill Richard III” as the title; it is just Richard III.
The point I made when we had this argument, and it is a very important argument, is that with rights comes responsibilities. Is it my right to say whatever I want and claim it is freedom of speech or art? That might be your view. But you have to put things in the context of the times. At a time when we have various groups around the world saying, “Kill Australians,” it is interesting that the government choose to sponsor this piece of work.
Key arts organisation status may be peer assessed and these artworks may be peer assessed, but the assessment is made against the government’s policies and criteria.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video