Question to Senator Kemp regarding the Playing Australia debacle
Question Time, Senate, Thursday
30 October 2003.
Arts: Playing Australia
Senator LUNDY (2.22 p.m.)-My question is to Senator Kemp, Minister for the Arts and Sport. My question is about the latest round of funding for Playing Australia, the regional touring program for quality performing arts companies. Why has the Howard government funded only 13 productions this year, in contrast to the 26 touring productions last year? Why has the number of destinations for the remaining touring programs been cut back? Can the minister explain why Australians in centres such as Ballarat, Rockhampton, Albany, Geelong, Launceston, Mildura, Kalgoorlie, Traralgon, Mount Isa, Taree, Alice Springs, Bathurst, Mackay, Shepparton, Geraldton and Griffith are going to lose out?
Senator KEMP-Thank you to Senator Lundy for the question. Senator Lundy, I had a feeling you may be asking a question on this issue. It had been well signalled. I did a little bit of research to see what the genuine Labor Party interest was in Playing Australia. Playing Australia is a very important program. It is one that this government believes is important. So I went to the 1996 Labor policy-no mention of Playing Australia. I went to the 1998 Labor policy-no mention of Playing Australia. I went to the 2001 Labor policy-and, correct me if I am wrong, no mention of Playing Australia. This is a program that Labor forgot. Let me make it absolutely clear, Senator Lundy. Then I checked out some more figures for Senator Lundy. I said, ‘Gee, in the last budget what did Labor spend on Playing Australia?’ Correct me if I am wrong, Senator Lundy, but it was in the order of $3 million. Is that right? Then I said, ‘What are we spending on Playing Australia? What’s our budget?’ It is in the order of $4 million. I would have to say, Senator Lundy, I totally welcome your interest in Playing Australia, but it has been a long time in coming.
As I said, this program is an important program. I am provided with advice by a committee which carefully assesses the applications which come through. Senator Lundy, I have to tell you that we would always want more money for Playing Australia. Playing Australia is one which I would particularly like some more money for, but we are spending more money on Playing Australia than the Labor Party ever spent.
The PRESIDENT-Through the chair, Minister.
Senator KEMP-Mr President, as I said, you go back in history and back to Labor Party arts policies and you see that Playing Australia has always gone missing in action from the Labor Party priorities. I have to say, Senator Lundy, that you come to this issue with a lot of form. I can assure the people and the many companies that are interested in Playing Australia that this government believes in this program. This is an important program. Of course, we would always like to do more, Senator Lundy-of course we would-but I am pointing out that we are spending more than the Labor Party spent in office.
Senator Robert Ray-In constant dollars?
Senator KEMP-Settle down, Senator Ray.
The PRESIDENT-Order, Minister!
Senator KEMP-I am not talking, Senator Ray, about the billion dollar overrun of the Collins class submarines-
The PRESIDENT-Senator Kemp, ignore the interjections and address your remarks to the chair.
Senator KEMP-Thank you, Mr President. I was responding to Senator Ray and pointing out that we are not talking about the billion dollar overrun that Senator Ray managed to arrange on the Collins class submarines. We are talking about a different program. So, Senator Lundy, let me assure you and let me assure the many fans of Playing Australia that the government will continue to give a very high priority to this area.
Senator LUNDY-I note that the minister did not answer the question about all those cities and towns that are going to lose out, so can the minister confirm that losers in this year’s Playing Australia funding allocation included the Bell Shakespeare Company’s regional tour of A Midsummer Night’s Dream and La Boite Theatre’s production of Zig Zag Street, both of which would have been performed in around 20 regional centres? What will the minister do to fix this debacle?
Senator KEMP-The only debacle is the behaviour of Senator Lundy in this area. Senator Lundy, that is the only debacle.
Senator Lundy-If the answer’s nothing, say nothing.
Senator KEMP-Settle down, and I will respond to your question, Senator Lundy. I am having discussions with the Bell Shakespeare Company to see what else can be done to assist them in this area. I make the substantive point that this government continues to give a high priority to Playing Australia, and it is a program which I believe is a particularly important program-unlike you, Senator Lundy.
Taking Note ( of Senator Kemp’s response)
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory) (3.21 p.m.)-I move:
That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Kemp) in response to questions without notice asked by Senator Lundy today relating to arts funding.
I acknowledge that the minister did not answer my questions, as usual, but instead offered a half-hearted look into the very serious issue I raised about the latest round of funding allocations for Playing Australia. The minister spent a lot of his time trying to talk about Labor and raising the spurious issue of it not being contained in our policies over the last few years. Hello? It is Labor’s policy.
Labor created Playing Australia and it was an own goal for Senator Kemp. Of course the Liberal policies do not say anything about Playing Australia. In raising those issues, Senator Kemp highlighted the fact that it is the coalition-the Howard government-that is deconstructing the original purpose of Playing Australia. It is worth asking the question: isn’t Playing Australia supposed to be all about staging events and shows in regional Australia? The answer to the question is a resounding yes. The fact that the latest round of Playing Australia has left regional performing arts centres and many touring performance organisations out in the cold has sent nearly everyone involved in the art sector into shock. Regional tours are not being supported to the extent that they have been in the past. Whilst this contraction and withdrawal of events from regional Australia has not affected overall funding allocations, it simply means more money is going to fund larger but fewer performances primarily in metropolitan regions.
In a bizarre departure from custom of practice, the meticulously negotiated proposal for the next round of the national regional touring performance program was rejected by the Howard government. It seems that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage-because that is where the buck stops-has decided to do some rather startling adlibbing. Whilst I am still trying to get a better idea of realistic expectations of the funding that various centres would have received, based on the experience of previous rounds, the state by state effects of these changes are very telling. In Victoria, out of 89 applications, only 16 were funded, with devastating effects in Bendigo, Frankston, Mildura, Hamilton, Sale, Geelong, Moonee Ponds, Shepparton and Ballarat amongst others. In Western Australia, only 13 out of 83 applications were funded, impacting on Bunbury, Margaret River, the Goldfields, Albury, Mandurah and Esperance, amongst others. In Queensland, only 14 out of 69 applications were funded, with Toowoomba, Ayr, Cairns, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Mackay, the Gold Coast, Townsville and Nambour all affected. In New South Wales, 24 out of 89 applications were accepted, with Bathurst, Broken Hill, Frenchs Forest, Griffith, Lismore, Newcastle, Orange, Taree, Parramatta, Penrith and Wagga Wagga affected, amongst others. South Australia received funding for three out of six applications, the ACT received funding for one out of five applications, Tasmania received funding for only four out of 11 applications and the Northern Territory received funding for only six of their 18 proposals.
As I said, not all of the applications would have been funded, but the result has been far less funding than previously. It begs the question: why is this so? Why this change in policy? My understanding of the process is that the department collates the applications and advises the board of Playing Australia. The board then assesses applications before making final recommendations to the minister. The minister ticks them off and announces the allocations for the round. So it is reasonable to assume that either someone gave idiotic and irresponsible advice to the board and/or the minister that they did not check or there was an intervention of a political nature somewhere in the system which signals a very dramatic change in Howard government policy on Playing Australia in regional arts. One can only speculate that, as a result of that policy shift, regional Australia is no longer a priority for the Howard government when it comes to arts.
But when presented with a conspiracy theory or a stuff-up, the stuff-up always wins. Whatever the scenario-whether there are some political shenanigans going on or whether there has been a stuff-up-the Minister for the Environment and Heritage now has the responsibility to fix the problem. Perhaps most of all, the decision highlights the arrogance shown by the Howard government in ignoring the complex arrangements, interrelationships and interdependence between Playing Australia funding and venues, companies and local arts communities. I think, most devastatingly, it has inflicted a penalty upon the people of rural and regional Australia. The minister now has an opportunity to fix the problem, to help support the regional touring companies that have been doing it for donkey’s years and which deserve ongoing support, such as the Bell Shakespeare Company. He has the opportunity to act. I call upon him to do so now before any company- (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
