I suspect that Garret will be the environment Minister. It's the Portfolio that he has been shadowing. I realise that he has made announcements on the Arts but I think Environment is where he wants to be. In answer to your questions
1/ No it wouldn't change things. Labour on the whole sees theatre as elitist and puts money into populist stuff like cabaret and car races and sports as entertainment. Which has it's place of course.
2/ No more funding. Don't evn bother dreaming about it. See above answer.
3/ Laws? Good question. I already know that Rudd will NOT reduce the draconian penalties attached to the anti sedition laws. He said so in words of one syllable.
4/ I doubt that there will be any increase in the prominence of Arts in Australia from a Governmental point of view. The arts has been sinking for some time. Politicians are only interested nowadays from a point of view of bread and circuses.
Who will be Arts Minister? God knows. Unless they make Arts and the Environment one Ministers job and give to Garrett.

All this and guess what? I'm a labour supporter. But I'm not a dewey eyed innocent.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

I am not totally certain that having an 'artist' in the role of arts minister is necessarily a good idea. Just as having a miner as minster of mines or export/trade, etc.
I know the obvious link to the portfolio seems OK, but I think it can breed a situation of 'familiarity breeding contempt' in the minister.
Basically, if you already think you are an expert, you can often miss the wood for the trees.
Also, having only one view of any portfolio is not good. You need to be able to get good advisors, and then make totally objective decisions with ALL parties' views taken into account. That said, it would be nice to have a minister with some pre-existing interest at least...

Regardless, unfortunately I don't think the arts will be a priority (at least at the Commonwealth level) for some time. Until we break the shackles of economic rationalisation, the arts will continue to be too expensive to justify. This labor govt is not, as our friend logos has pointed out, a particularly left-leaning one. Which is, I suspect, the only reason the Australian people elected them.
I know we Australians think of ourselves quite comfortably as egalitarian and 'fair go for all', but the reality is far different to this. Generally Australians tend to selfishness, bigotry and are very susceptible to fear-mongering. Easy to do when everyone is making money and has plasma tv's etc.
However, not conducive to happiness, community-mindedness, or generosity. And giving $100 to the salvos at xmas don't cut it people!

my two bobs...
Nev

It's the simple things stupid...

Getting back to Sean's point (but yes Nev, I agree, we are all selfish, easy to be generous with two TVs etc.) I can't help wondering who is making money out of all this carbon neutral stuff?

Something in me jibs at the idea of paying someone to plant trees to replace whatever I "use" to fly (one example). It doesn't add up to me. My nasty suspicious mind asks "how can I be sure the trees actually get planted" and similar thoughts. Must look up old biology books, I'm pretty sure that a tree takes in carbon dioxide during the day and puts out oxygen and at night it's the reverse...or the other way round. So a tree's cycle is actually probably totally self balancing. Bit rusty on this...

The whole thing smacks of a con. Somehow good people, we are being done like a dog's dinner.

Mind you, I still recycle, almost to the point of obsession. So that's my sop to my conscience and makes me feel better...I guess these carbon neutral schemes help others feel the same way (?)

"Papa, where is Mama? They tell me she has gone away, where is she?"

Actually I belive you have it almost right. I think that over it's lifetime the trees production of Oxygen actually overruns CO2 by about 5%. So a tree will have to live a long time. And the carbon more or less gets put in a bank as once the tree begins to rot after death most of it gets released back into the system.
Also what about the CO2 production of the vehiclkes used to plant the trees. Is that taken into consideration in calculating the balance.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

I don't know. As it is I understand there are figures somewhere that show more people attend live theatrical style entertainments each week than go to the Football. I have no evidence for that though.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

The issue is not so much as who will be Arts Minister but that the person is competent and committed to the arts.

The issue is the policy Labor brings to the portfolio. You will find "New Directions for the Arts" here: http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/new_directions_for_the_arts.pdf and Garrett's launch of ALP policy - "Creative Communities" - here: http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/071110_creative_communities_fact_sheet.pdf

Commentary in the media on arts policy during the election are linked on this page: http://jmcdonald.org/opinion/?p=55 and my own comments on both documents at http://jmcdonald.org/opinion/?p=52 and http://jmcdonald.org/opinion/?p=54

Well Mr garrett is Arts and heritage minister along with a truncated environment portfolio.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

From Rage and Enthusiasm, http://jmcdonald.org/opinion/?p=61

Peter Garrett retains Arts portfolio - Now address arts in the regions

Peter Garrett retains the Arts portfolio in the new Rudd ministry announced today. Garrett will also have responsibility for environment and heritage.

He told his audience at the launch of Labor’s Arts policy, “I want to make it very clear that Labor doesn’t view the arts as quarantined from the rest of the Australian community – because we believe the arts are, together with our rich cultural heritage … the spirit of our community.”

Garrett promised, “artists will be celebrated and respected for their role in shaping our identity, informing our sense of who we are and of course playing a valuable role in building social and economic pathways to the future.

“A fundamental step in recognising the place of artists in our community is in respecting the artistic voice, and recognising the principle of artistic freedom of expression,” he said.

Here! Here! But let’s hope the Labor’s Arts program delivers for regional Australia. In order to convert the rhetoric into reality, the Arts policy needs to do more than promise funding to metropolitan companies, orchestras and galleries enabling them to tour the regions. That’s great for providing access to first-class performances, but does little for sustaining artistic excellence in regional centres.

Theatre is the central focus of Rage and Enthusiasm in the arts. There are a number of first-class theatrical productions in regional cities, of course. But, Minister Garrett needs to get out into the regions, identify the needs of each centre, and explore ways and means to support centres of excellence for the the arts in regional centres. In theatre, for example, this might translate into providing support for the establishment of a professional company in each major centre. At present nearly all federal funding for theatre is quarantined in the CBDs and the inner suburbs of the State capitals.

Government cannot be expected to fund all of the centres without community generosity and support. But, Government needs also to encourage philanthropic support of professional regional theatres. And any program needs to ensure that there is both an artistic flow to, as well as funding advantages for, community theatre. This is not a proposal to bury communnity theatres, many of which already operate according to high professional standards.

Two other aspects of Labor’s policy deserve mention. The first is the establishment of a new Creative Industries Innovation Centre to boost arts entrepreneurs and researchers. The Minister should give serious consideration to locating this in a regional centre. The opportunities are already available in the cities. It should - as promised - involve all sectors of the arts industries equally and performers and other artists must be an integral part of the program. In other words, as I have stated elsewhere in Rage and Enthusiasm, it needs to be primarily culturally and artist driven and only secondarily - albeit necessarily - business driven.

The second is the promise to repeal the dangerous sedition laws. Peter Garrett told his audience at the Arts policy launch that in recognition and respect for artists and in valuing the principle of artistic freedom of expression, “Labor will remove the term ‘sedition’ from federal criminal law”. This will remove the repressive effects of the Howard legislation hanging over the head of all artists.

Two things
Given Mr Rudds comments in the media over the last few days of the campaign about not backpeddling on the "protections" introduced against terrorism one of which is the sedition laws, I will not hold my breath waiting for this legislation to be overturned.
Second, I wonder if this Arts Minister will address the issue of whether amateur or co-op theatre should qualify under certain circumstances for funding in some small way. Particularly to make new Australian work happen more.
Its a thorny subject and not one that has ever received a suitable answer.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au