Senator LUNDY (3:21 PM) —I rise to 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.