Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)

I believe the Government is as committed as the Minister to the ongoing independence of these institutions. From conversations I have had, that is what I understand. Independence does not have to be the sacrificial lamb of reform, nor should it be. The public service reform plan is one of the planks of reform that will continue over a period of time. It is part of the jigsaw puzzle of reform. The public - that is, you and I, voters - wants to see a better, more efficient, more cost effective and more productive public service, as do public servants themselves. That is a win-win. The plan is unlikely to be perfect or get everything right first time around. It can, however, establish shared work practices, what the Minister calls the shared services model, for human resources, payroll, pensions and other services that are duplicated. That sounds easy to say. In fact, it has rolled off our tongues several times in several ways. It will, however, bring enormous difficulties and challenges for the people and the range of national cultural institutions involved. The acknowledgment by national cultural institutions that this is the direction in which we need to go is important. They recognise the need to get value for money. Bringing them together to work towards that end is a big achievement. It is something we should recognise and commend because it will be difficult. Making the changes happen will involve obstacles, problem solving and trust. We talk blithely about change, but it is incredibly difficult and a slow process. To have walked this far already is a great achievement.

The Minister is committed to improving customer service and working in new ways. These will be vital. The world in which the national cultural institutions are operating is changing and they must move and change in that changing world to compete, stay open and survive. The public, of which we are part, and the public service, of which we are also part, do not want to see any of our great institutions diminished. Reform always has a dangerous edge to it. We know the concept of giving an inch and having a mile taken. In this debate we are saying there need to be inches and inches, but we do not want to go the whole mile. I ask that the national cultural institutions keep their independent boards and their arm's length relationship with the Department. That is not maintaining the status quo. Instead, it could turn into the robust system of governance the institutions will need to ensure they become stronger, more in charge of their own destiny and responsible for keeping the doors open, finding new ways and adapting old ways to fund their existence and keeping and protecting the cultural legacy that we, the people, have entrusted to them, which responsibility I know they take seriously.One size does not fit all. I understand the Minister and his Department are looking at all available models and, perhaps, at ways to adapt them to make hybrids of what is in place. We know there are benefits to having a robust, thriving cultural economy. That is what we are trying to achieve. This is critical for tourism and inward investment. It is also critical for our own identity. The changes that will be driven by cost efficiencies must be made carefully and slowly because so much - so much that I know the Minister values - is at stake.

I am sure this conversation is ongoing. Perhaps some of the public consultation model about which the independent Senators spoke could be looked at and might help all of us because we have a shared interest.