Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While there are some who choose to regard Gough Whitlam as the founding father of the Australia Council, it was in fact the creation of Liberal prime ministers John Gorton and Harold Holt.

Mr Garrett interjecting—

I am glad that the minister is listening closely to what I have to say. In his address to the 40th anniversary celebration of the Australia Council, its Chair, Rupert Myer, put the council's history in its proper context. This is a direct quote from his speech:

"In November 1967, then Prime Minister, Harold Holt, informed the House of Representatives that a new Commonwealth agency would be formed to fund the arts in Australia.

That new body, arms-length and administered by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, with support from officials from other relevant government departments, and people from the arts, the law, the financial sector, and other areas of professional life, met for the first time under Prime Minister Gorton in July, 1968.

It assumed responsibility for theatre, arts and filmmaking and existed alongside the other agencies responsible for the arts—the ABC (symphony orchestras), the Commonwealth Arts Advisory Board (Visual Arts), the Commonwealth Literary Fund and the Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers.

Some of these had been in existence for most of the last century."

So let there be no doubt that the Australia Council has always enjoyed, as it continues to today, the support of both Labor and Liberal Governments over the past half century.

Senator George Brandis, the coalition's most recent arts minister, in 2007 addressed the National Press Club and detailed some aspects of the coalition's support during the Howard government years. He said:

... funding for the Australia Council, which makes direct, arms' length grants to individual artists and performing arts companies, has risen from $73 million 12 years ago to $161 million in this year's budget—an increase of more than 110%.

So when the coalition talks about our concern for the future of the Australia Council, these are concerns borne of a longstanding and committed history of support for the organisation.

And it is in keeping with that longstanding commitment to the Australia Council that today we remain concerned that these bills propose what can only be considered the most radical changes in over 40 years to the body that administers the bulk of Commonwealth grants and funding to Australian artists and arts organisations. According to their most recent report, the Australia Council administers around $164.5 million in Commonwealth grants and direct funding to artists and arts organisations across the nation. The Australia Council provides Commonwealth funding to everything from Australia's major performing arts companies, like the Australian Ballet, the Melbourne Theatre Company, and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, to the wide range of community and regional arts organisations across Australia—around 170 of them in total. This bill and its associated bill seeks to introduce a radically different management structure, one which may not need actual artists and, for reasons that still remain unclear, makes changes to the list of legislated functions that the Australia Council performs. The coalition notes today that the minister, having publicly noted he did not favour amending these bills, has now capitulated and allowed for some amendments that acknowledge the government's more embarrassing oversights, like forgetting about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice.

The coalition does not oppose these amendments and it will not oppose these bills in this chamber. But that said, even with these amendments, the coalition remains concerned about what is contained within these radical changes. We also note that the government has not explained why it has waited until there were only 12 sitting days left in the Senate before introducing these bills. Nor has it explained why the review of the Australia Council was released in May 2012 and it has waited for nearly a year before introducing this legislation. Despite these failures on behalf of the government, we do not oppose these bills and these measures but we do remain concerned about the impact of these radical changes.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a keen fan of the arts, particularly dance and visual arts, and as a former director of the Cultural Facilities Corporation here in Canberra, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this important legislation, which is particularly close to my heart. I have experienced first-hand both in Australia and overseas the important work of the Australia Council. While working for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I was privileged to hold the position of cultural attaché to India. In this position, and also while working in Indonesia, I grew to understand the important role the Australia Council plays in showcasing the breadth of Australian talent to the world. While in India in 1996, Australia managed a huge intercountry promotion where we showcased everything about modern Australia and technologically advanced Australia. Through showcasing Australian in five cities over the course of a year, we had the opportunity to highlight some of our achievements in the arts—in dance and in visual arts. We had a major Indigenous exhibition, probably the largest that has ever been to India, hosted in New Delhi and the Australia Council played a very, very important role in making much of that happen.

What was particularly important about that year in India was the fact that the Australia Council hosted a week's conference where they met with their Indian counterparts to explore ways of engaging in further dialogue on the arts in every element of the arts and in further collaboration and mentoring as well as residences and a range of other activities. So I know from my own experience of being in foreign affairs, that the Australia Council plays a very active role in Australia but also internationally.

In Indonesia we also hosted an intercountry promotion in 1994, I think, and again, it provided us with the opportunity to highlight the range of artistic genius that is available in this country through dance, through visual arts, through musical works and a range of other activities as well as residences. It provided the opportunity for artists to engage with other artists in a range of collaborative efforts.

Labor has a long and proud history of supporting arts and culture. In 1908 the Commonwealth Literary Fund was established in order to provide pensions for needy writers or their families. This was the first of many boards and funds that would proudly support Australian artists over the years. It was under the Whitlam government in 1973 that the decision was taken to establish a single statutory body whose role would be to provide a coherent framework for the arts in Australia, encompassing the roles of many of the previously existing boards and funds.

In 1973, a new but interim body, the Australia Council for the Arts, was established and it sat within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Then in 1975, the Australia Council Act was passed and the Australia Council was established as an 'arm's-length' statutory authority.

The enabling legislation for the Australia Council is now 40 years old, and it is time that our proud tradition of supporting the arts is brought into the 21st century. The legislation we are debating today will ensure that the Australia Council has the capacity to adequately reflect the diversity, innovation and excellence of Australia's contemporary arts and cultural sectors. It will also ensure that the Australia Council is well placed to support the goals of Australia's national cultural policy, Creative Australia.

One of the key features of this legislation is the reform of the Australia Council's artform board structure to allow for greater funding flexibility. Currently, every member of the Australia Council's artform boards is appointed by the responsible minister. This bill devolves that power and gives the council new flexibility to engage expert responses to the demands of the sector. Under this legislation, the council's governing boards will have the power to appoint sector-specific advisory committees. This reform will empower the council to appoint a greater diversity of artists as peers to help support the strategic planning and funding assessment processes of the council. It is a particularly important role. This reform will mean that artists will be more easily and directly involved in deciding how the Australia Council funds projects.

One of the premier arts organisations in my electorate of Canberra and its surrounding region is the Canberra Symphony Orchestra. Founded in 1950, the Canberra Symphony Orchestra, or CSO, has grown from amateur beginnings to its current position as the largest professional performing arts organisation and the largest employer of professional musicians in the region. It is also one of the only professional pathways for talented young musicians in the Canberra region. As the only professional Australian symphony orchestra with an Australian chief conductor and artistic director, Nicholas Milton—who is brilliant—the CSO is also a leader in the performance of Australian repertoire. Since 2007 the annual program of seven concerts has included at least two Australian works each season and in 2013 it will feature two world premieres and one Australian premiere of works by Australian composers.

The vision of the Canberra Symphony Orchestra is to create and foster symphonic music of the highest quality, to serve as a regional hub for music and to secure the future of fine music performance in the Canberra region. The CSO also engages in a fabulous program called Noteworthy for little kids. I have been to a number of these sessions, where members of the orchestra, dressed up in the Wiggles type outfits, introduce young children, aged from about three to nine or 10, to the wonders of live music performances and the wonders of classical music. The sessions only go for half an hour, because the attention span of children at that age is relatively limited, but what is wonderful about them is that the members of the orchestra gets these little children crawling around the floor like little tigers and flying like birds throughout Llewellyn Hall to wonderful pieces of music. This wonderful program is supported by the ACT government and it is a great way of introducing small children, our future generations, to the wonders of classical music in particular. Classical music is so important to provide soul food. From a young age I studied ballet, so at that stage I was introduced to classical music. It is particularly important that you get an understanding and appreciation of classical music at a young age and it can mature as you mature.

To achieve its big vision, the Canberra Symphony Orchestra requires a commitment of recurrent additional funding. The CSO first received Commonwealth funding in 2007 as a result of the Strong review into Australian orchestras: $100,000 a year was approved and has been received annually since then. In 2013 the CSO will receive funding through the Australia Council of a total of $101,606, plus GST. This funding is significantly less than comparable state orchestras receive. In fact, this constitutes just 0.2 per cent of the total of $48 million in funding distributed to Australian state orchestras annually.

Despite receiving significantly less funding than the other state symphony orchestras, the CSO, on a proportional basis, delivers outstanding results. It has the highest percentage of corporate sector and philanthropic support; it has the highest percentage of income earned outside of government funding; and it has the lowest government subsidy per seat, at $14—three times lower than the next orchestra, with some orchestras receiving a subsidy of over $150 per seat. Proportionately, it has the second highest ticket sales after the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. Most importantly, it has extremely high subscriber loyalty, with an annual retention rate of over 90 per cent, which I am sure most arts organisations would kill for.

I believe that the reforms that will be implemented under the legislation we are debating today will, hopefully, allow for the more appropriate funding of the Canberra Symphony Orchestra. I implore the future governing board of the Australia Council, and the future music advisory committee it appoints, to favourably consider the case of the CSO.

However, it is not just the CSO or my electorate that will benefit from this legislation. Across the country, countless worthy arts and cultural organisations, big and small, will benefit from these reforms. Artists will have new access to the Australia Council and new opportunities to influence its strategic planning and funding assessment processes, which is particularly important. This legislation will enable the Australia Council to become increasingly responsive to the changing needs and demands of the arts sector, including supporting emerging areas of artistic practice. These bills provide for the much-needed modernisation of the Australia Council and I commend them to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today on the Australia Council Bill 2013. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge some of the country's amazing people committed to the administration of the arts and to its promotion in Australia. I have met a number of them and they are truly extraordinary people. They work not just for money but because they are truly committed to artistic endeavour in this country. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding talents of artists in Australia and the contribution they make to the quality of life, providing a great deal of enjoyment to all of us.

But mostly I would like to raise some concerns in relation to the bill which were brought to my attention during a recent meeting with Andy Farrant, who is the former chief executive officer of Country Arts Western Australia and Regional Arts Australia. Andy held those positions during the Howard government and did an outstanding job in that field, taking arts to the broader community. Indeed, I think the community was well served under the Howard government policy and by the then minister, Rod Kemp, who served with distinction and gave great support to the arts community.

Mr Farrant has explained that many in the arts community, not just himself, are concerned about the wording of functions of the Australia Council in this bill which fails to enshrine the four fundamental principles of community participation, arts that reflect the diversity of Australia, upholding and promoting freedom of expression, and the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture.

The bill changes the intent of the Australia Council and it does seem to abandon some of the core principles on which successive Australian governments have built their vision for an Australian culture. In fact, there seem to be a number of inconsistencies in this bill with other important policy and legislative instruments that have come before this parliament. For example, there is an inconsistency between the principles contained in the national cultural policy, Creative Australia, and the Australia Council Bill. There is also an inconsistency between the stated functions of the Australia Council in this bill and the Australian Sports Commission Act, and between this bill and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I want to revisit a little of the history, because I think it is instructive. The Australia Council is Australia's primary funding body for the arts, focusing on the highest levels of artistic endeavour. After its creation in 1968 as a division of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, it was established in 1973 as a separate agency operating at arm's length from government. It was Dr HC Coombs who described the conditions in the sector that led to the Council's conception and ultimate creation. He said that at that time:

In the performing arts professional companies, with one or two exceptions, were small, precariously financed and inexperienced. Even among the handful of large companies, none was more than two decades old.

…while in literature, visual arts and the crafts many creative individuals were forced to compromise their standards in order to survive. The Aboriginal arts, except where they struggle to survive underground, were largely depreciated or ignored.

The separation from political influence was seen as critical, particularly as controversy engulfed the arts after the 1973 purchase—who can forget it?—by the National Gallery of Australia of Jackson Pollock's abstract Blue Poles for $1.3 million. I frequently go down to the gallery here when I have an opportunity and I often sit and ponder that particular work. I think most Australians today have great affection for the work, and of course it is probably one of the most valuable assets of the National Gallery today. That is what really set the cat amongst the pigeons. Despite the criticism of the artwork purchase at the time, in the public and the political sphere, that work has become one of the most prized possessions in the gallery's collection.

To ensure that the vision of Nugget Coombs was preserved, and that there was no political interference into what the arts should be, the Australia Council Act was passed in 1975 with legislation explicitly setting out what the council's role, responsibilities and areas of concern were to be. This effectively quarantined arts funding in Australia from arbitrary executive influence. It allowed Australian culture to develop as explored through the arts and provided a means through which Australian artists could remain in Australia. In bringing the legislation to parliament, then Prime Minister Whitlam noted that the council would foster and support excellence in Australian artistic practice to 'ensure that our greatest artists remain in Australia, and that the whole Australian community is the richer for their presence.'

After 40 years it has broadened its focus from traditional art forms to a broad agenda supporting artists and organisations from the singular artist to major performing arts companies. In 2010-11 the council delivered grants and project-funding of nearly $164 million in the form of almost 1,900 separate grants, enabled the creation of over 7,500 new artistic works and provided direct funding to over 900 artists and 1,000 organisations. It now offers funding across 50 separate grant categories and 40 initiatives.

In August 2011 the then Minister for the Arts, the Hon. Simon Crean, launched the 'National cultural policy' discussion paper, and a review of the Australia Council was conducted as a review had not occurred for more than 20 years and the artistic landscape has changed dramatically. Despite the concern over the change in the artistic landscape, the first key conclusion of the review of the Australia Council, released in May 2012, found that Nugget Coombs' original vision of the Australia Council, namely:

to ensure the best is encouraged, and those who produce it are given the greatest opportunity to achieve the highest quality of which they are capable—

remains relevant today. The review also supported continuing to keep the Australia Council at arm's length from government, but did note that the multifaceted purposes of the current act required clarification.

As a result of that review, the government decided to repeal the original act and substitute it with this bill we are debating the House today, but a number of previous functions of the Australia Council have been removed from the list contained within the current bill with no apparent rationale. For instance, the bill removes the function specified in the current act that the Australia Council promote the general application of the arts in the community. I think this is incredibly important. The removal is inconsistent, as I said before, with the national cultural policy with which the Council's functions are interwoven and which states the need to ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to be involved with the arts as creators and as audiences. Unfortunately, all too often people in our rural and more remote areas do tend to miss out.

Instead, the bill outlines that the role of the council should be to support and promote the development of markets and audiences for the arts. This is a clear shift from community engagement and citizens as creators to a monetised approach, inconsistent with the vision of ensuring the best is encouraged, not just that which sells the most for now.

The bill also removes the current function that the Australia Council foster the expression of national identity by means of the arts meaning that the Australia Council will not have a legislative basis for supporting Australian arts and culture. The bill only outlines a fostering of excellence in Australian arts practice and the support of a diverse range of activities. Whilst excellence has always been the foundation for Australia Council, it exists also to promote an Australian identity and culture.

The review of the Australia Council explicitly notes that before the creation of the council Australia still looked heavily toward the UK in terms of our identity generally and artistically. That was the specific reason for including supporting Australian arts and culture in the current act. Now contemporary culture has moved away from the UK and is more heavily influenced perhaps by the United States, so, even though the dominant cultural influences change, the same rationale still applies. Support is still necessary for Australian arts and culture, and the Australia Council's efforts should be focused in that direction, continuing to uphold the foundation principles of the Australia Council.

A related issue is that nowhere in this bill is there reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture; unfortunately, there is also no reference under the current bill as well. That is despite the fact that Nugget Coombs specifically mentions Aboriginal art as a founding reason for the council, as I outlined earlier.

Creative Australia, the national cultural policy, has as its first goal the recognition, respect and celebration of the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. Therefore, it is only logical that a similar statement should be found within the Australia Council Act, as it will be the body that breathes life into the projects that will see the cultural policy become a reality. The fact that these critical issues are missing or have been deleted in this current bill was the subject of much debate during the inquiry held into this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I would commend a read of that by anyone interested in the future of the arts in Australia.

Rodney Hall, the former Chairman of the Australia Council, said: 'What is it about the existing Australia Council functions that warrants deletion? It seems to me that all of them are very worthy aims.' Emeritus Professor David Williams said, 'It does seem that some of the very best of the 1975 Act has gone by the book', and a similar view was put by Ms Tamara Winikoff, representing the National Association for the Visual Arts, who also preferred the existing functions with some modest updating. Mr Rowan Ross, representing the Australia Major Performing Arts Group, told the committee that he was unaware of the reasons why the existing functions had been changed; and Ms Gabrielle Trainor, who co-chaired the review which gave rise to the legislation, told the committee that the review had not specifically recommended the removal or re-drafting of any particular functions. Why then is it that provisions that have served Australia for well over 40 years have been changed? If we are to update them, such changes should be modest, Ms Tamara Winikoff notes, and include a focus on Indigenous arts and culture rather than a dramatic re-drafting.

It would seem that too much focus has been placed on the review's comments that the cultural sector has become a true economic force, contributing over $30 billion towards GDP per annum, exceeding the contribution of the agriculture, forestry& fishing industries. Instead, the aims of this bill should conform to the second half accompanying that statement, that:

…there are wider benefits that are not as easily quantified or identified. These benefits are seen in non-arts areas of our economy such as education, social cohesion, national imagination and health.

The original principles of the Australia Council should be upheld, and in my view these must be enshrined in legislation. To suggest that these issues could be dealt with in regulation is to put them under the control of the executive government of the day. The whole purpose of establishing the council under its own act was to ensure that it acted at arm's length from government—a view that was upheld by the review. Retaining the original aims of the Australia Council is critical to ensuring that Australian arts and culture have a strong foundation into the future and that we give the best support possible to Australian arts and culture in this country.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assure everybody that has got concerns about this that I will be very quick. I want to do three things.

First of all, I want to congratulate the outgoing minister for arts for the enthusiasm which he brought to his portfolio. I think that needs to be acknowledged, and I wish to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his elevation to this important task. I know that he shares the enthusiasm of the previous minister.

The second aspect is that I want to take this opportunity to ask, even though we have stressed the independence of the Australia Council, that the council take on board the need to make sure that all parts of Australia have access to the arts. Some people would be bemused that I am making comment because people know that I spell arts 'yartz' and I think that a great artistic performance is Jonathan Brown running with the flight of the ball, taking the mark and then drilling a goal from outside the fifty metre arc. As I prepare for retirement and my wife and I are looking for artistic pursuits to attend, I have to often indicate to the member for Melbourne Ports that I have not sought a visa to come into his electorate because, of course, Melbourne is the epicentre of the arts. I apologise to him for encroaching upon his territory, I know that he knows that I am no threat. I thank him for the recommendation to attend the NGV Monet exhibition, which I will be doing.

The third thing is that—and I hope that ministers that have had previous interest in local government will understand this—I wish to congratulate the City of Whittlesea, who won the National Local Government Award for a community art project. This was a project called, importantly, 'Into the Light 2012—the unfolding story'. It was a community project that the city of Whittlesea organised in King Lake. The project aimed to use art to address the ongoing recovery issues in the region, break down isolation and build connections between the fire affected communities. I think that it was a most worthwhile project, well worthy of its recognition. I thank the House for allowing me to be so self-indulgent.

I support the bill.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to sum up on the Australia Council Bill 2013 and the accompanying Australia Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 in the second reading debate. This legislation is a key element of Creative Australia, the national cultural policy that has been discussed by so many speakers in this debate, including by the member for Scullin in his very kind remarks.

In introducing this legislation the Australian government is delivering a key recommendation of the 2012 review of the Australia Council and bringing about the most significant legislative reform of the Australia Council in nearly 40 years since the great days of Nugget Coombs. At the core of the reform agenda is the introduction of a new legislative mandate for the council. In fact, 10 of the 18 recommendations of the 2012 review of the council are relevant to the council's enabling legislation to the extent that a whole new act was called for.

I want to stress that these reforms are taking place in dialogue and in conjunction with the arts sector. The Australia Council is the nation's principal arts funding body so it is vital that the tens of thousands of people who work in our creative arts help shape and embrace the council's future directions. A sector as diverse as the arts has a range of strong and passionate views. The government—through the former Minister for the Arts, who was mentioned correctly by the member for Scullin as the honourable member for Hotham; the current Minister for the Arts, the member for Watson; and me, the parliamentary secretary—have heard the views of the creative community and we have acted. In prompting this discussion the member for Hotham set out a vision for the future of the Australian arts sector through Creative Australia, the national cultural policy. Through its $235 million package of new initiatives and reforms it has already been enthusiastically embraced by the sector, as the member for Canberra outlined in her remarks.

The Australia Council is fundamental to our Australian artistic identity for the reasons outlined by Nugget Coombs as quoted by the member for Pearce. The government is committed to growing the council's success and to its significant legacy. This is why the government accepted the recommendations of the review of the council, including investing an additional $75.3 million in the council over the next four years. This brings the investment in the Australia Council to over $200 million a year. This spending was confirmed in the budget. This funding will support unfunded excellence. It will support a new program of research and data collection so that the Australia Council can advocate effectively for the arts in all of its diversity. It will support innovation in our major performing arts companies, the flagships of Australian art practice. It will invest in supporting Australia's cultural leaders.

Now, with these bills amended to take into account issues raised by stakeholders in the Senate committee, we are introducing reform of the Australia Council—reform that is necessary and overdue, reform that the sector has called for and reform that sets the council up for the next 40 years and beyond. The bills have been the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. At that time my colleague the Minister for the Arts, the honourable member for Watson, welcomed the inquiry as a further opportunity to hear the sector's views. He also noted a commitment to progress the legislation at the same time he was open to the committee's recommendations.

The House amendments developed in consultation with the Greens and the Senate committee are the result of the art sector's endeavours to ensure certain protections for artists in the day-to-day operation of the Australia Council. The member for Pearce suggested in her remarks just now that a number of principles by which the Australia Council was originally established were somehow at stake, but she did not seem to fully address the fact that these issues were addressed by the amendments and taken on as a result of the Senate committee's wishes.

These changes, importantly, recognise and celebrate the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to our nation's artistic identity. The member for Stirling and his distinguished colleague in the other place will be pleased that I am mentioning the function 'to uphold and promote freedom of expression in the arts'. There have been some suggestions that it was the government's intention to remove these provisions from the bill. This is simply not the case. The original bill stated that the council must take into account the rights of persons to freedom in the practice of the arts. Nevertheless, to remove any doubt about this, the amendment inserts 'freedom of expression in the arts' in the new functions of the council. It is very clear. I point that out to the members for Stirling and Pearce in particular.

The funding must also be delivered in a way that reflects the diversity of the arts and promotes the engagement of the community. Both those issues raised by the member for Pearce are addressed in these amendments. The arts are no longer simply passive experiences for audiences; community members are often actively involved in the process of a project and even the performance, and art is enriched as a result. The amendment recognises this important shift. An amendment also ensures that the committees have representatives immersed in established and emerging art forms to ensure quality peer assessment.

I thank everyone involved in the Senate committee for these valuable improvements to the bill. The government have listened to the views of stakeholders and to the arts community and we have heeded the committee's recommendations. The legislation put to the House in March has been updated accordingly. I can now confidently say that these bills with amendments respond to the issues raised by representatives of the tens of thousands who toil creatively in the arts sector. The framework for most of the proposed amendments is provided by the goals of Creative Australia.

While the framework for drafting of the bills in the first instance was the Australian government's response to the 2012 review of the council, the release and positive reception of Creative Australia has raised expectations in the arts sector that the goals of the policy should be reflected in the new enabling legislation for the Australia Council. Now the council's role in supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice is explicit in the functions of the council. This reflects the first goal of Creative Australia to 'recognise, respect and celebrate the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to the uniqueness of Australian identity'. New functions are included that recognise the importance of diversity and the role of communities in shaping Australia's cultural identity. The very issues that the member for Pearce raised are addressed by these amendments.

The Australia Council is specifically empowered to support Australian arts practice that both reflects the diversity of Australia and promotes community participation in the arts. This is consistent with the second goal of Creative Australia—that government support the arts must reflect the diversity of Australia and that all citizens, regardless of their background or circumstances, have a right to shape our cultural identity and its expression.

The intent of a function from the original Australia Council Act 1975 has been retained to ensure that the upholding and promoting of freedom of expression in the arts remains core business for the Australia Council. That was included in the initial bill as a matter that must be taken into account by the council in the performance of its functions. But in response to stakeholder feedback and the Senate inquiry, we are including it in a function of the amended bill.

On the bill's introduction the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the Minister for the Arts noted that, since its inception the Australia Council supported Australian artists and organisations with two guiding principles: the pursuit of artistic excellence based on peer assessment—the very issue that comes from the vision of Nugget Coombs addressed by the member for Pearce in her queries about this bill, so there are consistencies there; and that funding decisions be made at arms-length from government. The government's commitment to these principles has not changed and will not change. Indeed, this legislation strengthens these principles.

The final amendment to be moved by the government is the firming up of peer assessment principles. Under this amendment, should a committee be established by the governing board of the council to advise or make recommendations about policy or the provision of financial assistance in relation to any of the arts, the membership of the committee must include at least one person with relevant experience in the arts. This is being included to provide assurances to the sector that the longstanding principle of peer assessment of funding decisions is enshrined in legislation.

The amendments further strengthen provisions contained in the first draft of the bill and make explicit other provisions. The bill delivers on the Australian government's response to the review of the Australia Council and is consistent with the goals of the Australian government's 10-year plan for the arts set out in the vision framed by the previous Minister for the Arts, Creative Australia.

The Australia Council (Consequential Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 is a companion bill and contains consequential amendments and transitional arrangements related to the proposed reform of the Australia Council. In the main, the bill repeals the Australia Council Act 1975 and provides for the business continuity for the Australia Council, including its staff. It will ensure that the transition to the new operational arrangements are seamless—indeed, serendipitous.

Ensuring that the continuity of key governance roles during the organisation's transition to new operating environment will be important for the broader reform agenda of Creative Australia to be implemented. Accordingly, provisions are included which allow for the appointments of the current chair and deputy chair to be carried over into the new operating environment. For similar reasons, transitional provisions will also apply to the office of the CEO.

Together these bills will bring the Australia Council into line with other modern statutory authorities and into the 21st century. I thank the member for Watson for his support in steering this, my first bill, through the House. I thank members for their contributions to this debate and support for this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.