Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. I acknowledge that comment from the senator. As a result of that budget announcement in 2006 a major review was conducted—led by a senior officer of the then department, DCITA, James Cameron—to review the sector and consult widely along the terms that the government had specified, which James Cameron and I did. The review produced a report that resulted in a very substantial package for the film industry totalling some $300 million over four years, which was widely welcomed. Part of this package was the merger of three film agencies, and that is what this bill gives effect to.

I would also like to acknowledge the great work done by a number of other people in the department: Peter Young, who is with us in the chamber, for the advice that he gave, and Rhonda Thorpe. It is remarkable that you can carry out a merger like this with so little public discontent—I hope I am not speaking out of school here. But these mergers are always difficult—they always involve personalities—and I think the leadership that Brian Rosen, Chris Fitchett and Daryl Karp have given in this area has been extremely important. I have no doubt that the bringing together of these bodies will be done in a very successful and cooperative fashion. That of course will mean that the new body, Screen Australia, will start off on a very sound footing indeed. I praise the new minister for the arts, Mr Garrett, for making sure that this comes before the parliament early. It will enjoy the support of the Liberal Party and the National Party.

Having said that, I have to say that, as a former minister for the arts, I have been concerned about the announcements the government has made. If you had told the arts community before November that within two or three months close to $50 million was going to be chopped off the arts budget, this would have been a matter of great controversy. I am worried that, as a result of some actions by the government, good programs have been cut. I refer particularly to the program Australia on the World Stage—which many will know I had a strong interest in for a number of years—which was to provide funding for Australian performing arts companies, the visual arts and Australian artists to tour overseas. The announcement was made in the 2007 budget that this program would commence. The program had just commenced and was very widely welcomed in the arts community. Unfortunately, the $20 million that was in the forward estimates for this program was brutally chopped by the government in one of its first announcements of savings.

I suspect Mr Garrett was not properly informed about the importance of this program. I suspect that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation was flexing his muscles, and I suspect that DFAT, probably not surprisingly, were concerned about protecting some of their own positions and were prepared to sacrifice this program. I must confess to the Senate that I thought it was a mistake to locate this program solely in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and to not have the administration of it shared with the arts portfolio. Anyway, it has been sacrificed as a result of the government’s announcements, much to the annoyance of many in the arts community. I have no doubt that ultimately the program will be restored under some other name at some future time.

For colleagues like Senator Stephens, it would be well worth your looking closely at what the government has done in this particular area. It is a mistake. It saves about $5 million a year. It puts our cultural diplomacy back a great deal. It is a program which I think should be restored, and I have no doubt will be in the future because the demand is there for it.

Like many other senators I have also been concerned about the significant cuts that have been made to the major collecting institutions as a result of the efficiency dividend. I think that that again is a mistake. It is one of those things that the Department of Finance and Deregulation brought forward. It means, I think, that bodies like the National Library of Australia, the museum and the art gallery are going to be forced in the end to cut some programs in order to meet those savings targets.

It does stick in one’s throat to read that not all arts programs have been cut and that there are some new arts programs. One that the Labor Party has announced is $2.5 million to protect a dead tree in Queensland, which is apparently writ large in Australian Labor Party history. Governments do these things from time to time, though I think that the Labor Party would expect that, in the context where you are cutting our major collecting institutions and our cultural training institutions, people will recall that not everything has been cut and there is new money available—but it is available for those things which are particularly close and dear to Labor mates. I think that that is unfortunate, particularly in the context of what the government has done to date.

There is another issue that is in the sights of the Department of Finance and Deregulation. It was mentioned at Senate estimates that there are discussions about changing the depreciation provisions, particularly as they relate to the major collecting institutions. This matter had not been resolved at the time of Senate estimates. But, if it is resolved in the way the Department of Finance and Deregulation want it to be, it will result in major reductions in funding to bodies like the National Library of Australia. This is what will happen. When I was the arts minister, the department of finance tried this stunt on me and on my department. I have to say that the portfolio was very ably defended, if I may give myself some flowers! It was because money could be taken off it. Of course they will say, ‘Well, this money is being used to add to the collection.’ That is true. But if you remove one source of funding for adding to the collection you will probably have to find another. This is really a bit of a test of the new arts minister to see whether he is able to defend his portfolio against the Department of Finance and Deregulation. The Department of Finance and Deregulation has made a complete goose of itself in the last fortnight over the carers allowance.

People like Senator Stephens, sensitive people, will wonder how on earth the Labor Party got itself into this mess. It got itself into this mess because the department of finance and the finance minister picked up this brief and ran hard with it. Of course, it did not result in any savings in the end; it added to significant costs to the budget. I would urge those who believe that our collecting institutions should receive more money, not less money, to look very closely at this area. I hope that Mr Garrett is looking closely to ensure that in this area the department of finance’s efforts to cut funding are effectively rejected.

Having said that, I commend the bills. I think they are good. They are bills that were brought forward by Senator Brandis. He can take some pride in the work that he was able to do to continue to advance the review package, and I take some pleasure because, as a former minister for the arts, I was there at the start of the process which has resulted in such an important package for the film industry.