Federal Arts Funding
29/07/2015
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:
That this council—
1. Notes the widespread concern in the Australian arts community about the new National Programme for Excellence in the Arts recently announced by the federal government, expressed through the “#FreeTheArts” social media campaign;
2. Recognises the importance of supporting creativity and expressing a diversity of views and experiences in the arts;
3. Recognises the vital role played by new and emerging artists and small to medium-sized arts enterprises in ensuring the future of the arts industry in South Australia; and
4. Recognises the economic and social contribution of the arts industry and festivals to the South Australian economy.
Recently, the federal arts minister, George Brandis, announced changes to arts funding in Australia which will see funding cut from the Australia Council for the Arts and redirected into a so-called program for excellence in the arts.
The cuts, including $104.7 million over the next four years, will support the establishment of a National Program for Excellence in the Arts to be administered by the Ministry for the Arts. The Australia Council will also need to find, I understand, $7.2 million in efficiency savings over the next four years. This represents a 13 per cent reduction in the Australia Council for the Arts’ annual funding from its current budget of $213 million.
These changes have been met with shock and anger by the arts community in Australia nationwide, as they have been interpreted by many as a move towards a ‘captain’s pick’ system which stifles smaller, but not less important, artists and organisations working in the arts industry. It has sparked the social media movement #FreeTheArts and is now the subject of a Senate committee inquiry.
As someone who is very passionate about the arts, with many friends and colleagues currently working in this industry, I feel compelled to take the opportunity to echo these concerns and this disappointment and put them on the public record, so that members are aware of the true implications of these changes and that freedom in the arts is something we should all fight for.
My speech is likely to be relatively brief and will largely consist not of my own words but of quotes from submissions that have been made to the Senate inquiry and of information that has been given to me personally from friends and colleagues in the industry when I asked them for feedback. The first quote I would like to use—because, I think, it outlines the majority of the problems with this changed arts funding quite well—comes from prolific and internationally-renowned children’s playwright, Finegan Kruckemeyer. He writes:
These days, the majority of my commissions come from overseas producers (primarily in the US) — and when Australian works are commissioned, these are generally for a cast of only one or two, financial constraints being translated into artistic constraints.
In truth, the notion of an American relocation makes sense financially given the comparative amount of work — and as the financial provider in my household, this would see my family make the move also. But the love of living in Tasmania—
which is where Finegan relocated after living in Adelaide—
keeps me here, and the ability to send words makes this a practical reality.
I am committed to Australia and its arts community (sitting on the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board and a number of others, teaching workshops to emerging writers, forming an integrated theatre ensemble for people with and without intellectual disabilities, voluntarily offering dramaturgical support to those embarking on first scripts, speaking and lobbying to promote Tasmania in various capacities, and paying taxes — often generated by revenue earned overseas, and so made up of funds brought into this country).
But if it really were to reach a point where arts funding cuts saw vulnerable companies in the small-to-medium sector (my primary Australian employers) fold, then I feel the choice would no longer be there, and the pragmatics of life and work would lead me to make the move.
I say this not because my personal story or presence in the country is of any particular importance, but rather because I feel my situation is representative of many:
When significant arts funding goes, then the making of artworks goes.
And finally the artists go.
And with them the stories of place, the celebration of Australian life and culture, the chronicling of these times, on this continent. It is an important commodity, and one which I fear would be noticed most tangibly in its retrospective absence.
Another quote that I would like to read comes from Chloe Munro, the chair on behalf of the board of Lucy Guerin Inc., and states:
We have been dismayed by recent commonwealth budget decisions that have already had a significant impact on the sector of the arts to which Lucy Guerin Inc belongs. The reduction in available funds in absolute terms and the sudden and apparently arbitrary change in funding model have thrown our planning into disarray. We cannot and will not make decisions that risk driving the organisation into insolvency . Y et our activities such as development of new work and international tours require us to commit resources long in advance. This can only happen with a reasonable degree of funding certainty.
Arts Access Australia, the peak body representing artists with disabilities, had this to say:
Arts Access Australia Co-CEO, Emma Bennison, is gravely concerned about the implications for artists with disability and arts and disability organisations:
‘Since 2013, when it released its new Disability Action Plan, the Australia Council has demonstrated real and tangible commitment to recognising the contribution artists with disability and arts and disability organisations have to make to Australia. Programs like the Artists with Disability Funding Program which awards project and career development grants to artists with disability are already leading to increased visibility of work made by artists with disability. A recent example is Emma J. Hawkins’ “I Am Not a Unicorn” featured at the Melbourne Comedy Festival.
I am concerned that while the Ministry for the Arts has previously demonstrated some commitment to artists with disability through its support for the implementation of the National Arts and Disability Strategy, funding has been limited, and we have no information about the priorities or funding processes of the proposed new program.
We are worried that the significant progress which has been made in recent years in the area of arts and disability might be jeopardised if the level of dedicated funding to individuals and organisations is impacted by these cuts.’
But it is not just the decrease in arts funding available under this new regime which is causing concern. I have a real fear that moving towards this program of so-called excellence will also help to create—or perhaps not so much to create, more to worsen—a sense of divide between those involved in the arts and those not and, perhaps even more worryingly, create an imaginary and unnecessary concept of what constitutes so-called ‘excellent’ or ‘real’ art. I feel that this point has been made very eloquently in this submission to the inquiry from The Theatre Network of Victoria:
The Australia Council’s funding programs operate beyond a notion of ‘excellence’ and instead provide a range of programs which support emerging and experimental art forms, community arts and cultural development.
We truly believe that the outstanding achievements by Australian artists and organisations—whether in film, writing, performing arts or visual arts—have only been possible because Australia has been so successful at recognising that development, experimentation, and nurturing of talent is fundamental to achieving excellence.
All industries rely on a sophisticated ecology: small, risk-hungry R&D groups; organisations with deep community engagement; stable large-scale enterprises; and avant-garde individuals operating solo. The arts is no exception. Without the finely balanced mix of supported individual artists and organisations at all levels, there is a real risk that the whole industry will fail.
Arts Access Australia, the peak body representing artists with disabilities, which I mentioned earlier, also had this to say:
The question is, why has the decision been made to transfer such a significant funding allocation from the Australia Council, Australia’s arm ‘ s-length, arts funding and advisory body, to a Government Department. This appears to represent a major departure from long-standing Government policy of artistic peer assessment outside of Government.
Moving toward a so-called program of excellence seems to me to suggest that the arts industry has to date been substandard in some way and not meeting the needs of its audience. While, of course, there is always room for improvement in every industry—and the arts industry, like any other, must modernise and change with the times—this is clearly not the case. The arts is a large economic contributor to the nation and, particularly, to South Australia as a state since we do market ourselves as the Festival State after all.
After another successful Fringe and Cabaret season, I read in The Advertiser just this morning that there are now plans to export some elements of our very own Fringe festival to China to encourage tourism and strengthen international ties. Research from the Parliamentary Research Library tells me that in 2014 Adelaide cemented its status as Australia’s leading arts festival delivering a massive $66.3 million injection into South Australia’s economy in the year 2014.
It is clear that this notion that the current funding model under the Australian Council for the Arts, and the Australian arts industry as a whole, has been somehow categorically underperforming is clearly a false notion. In fact, from my reading of the submission to the senate inquiry into these funding changes which I have been watching with some interest, it appears that the council has, in fact, been underfunded historically for the work that it does, and I quote from the Theatre Network of Victoria:
A 2012 review of the Australia Council (by Angus James and Gabrielle Trainor) found that the Council was underfunded by $22.25 million per annum. This has now been compounded by the recent Budget decisions which have both cut the overall Council funds and also transferred critical funding from the Council—a total of $150.6 million over four years—directly contradicting the recommendations of that very review.
TNV recommends that the $25 million funding per year be restored to the Australia Council, and additional $21.25 million be added to the Australia Council’s budget to reduce unfunded excellence.
Since I just spoke about the Fringe festival, now is probably a good time for me to reflect and put on the record some of the concerns which exist in the community, and in my own mind, that this change is being viewed as a captain’s pick system which will weed out small-to-medium arts organisations.
As you may have gathered from some of the points I have already made, small-to-medium arts organisations may not make the news regularly but I know from experience that they do change lives. They changed mine. Not only do they give lesser-known artists the chance to exhibit their talents and hone their skills, but in fact they give a platform to become those better-known artists of tomorrow.
My point is that without taking some risk or perceived risk on funding artists who may not be well known or who may produce non-traditional or controversial works, there can simply be no real future for the arts industry in Australia as no new interesting material is produced and no new voices are heard.
As members may know, I am the very proud ambassador of No Strings Attached Theatre of Disability, a small community-based theatre company making theatre by, for and about people with disabilities. In the scheme of things, I suppose you could argue that No Strings Attached is one of these small players. In fact, it was once put to me that the content that No Strings Attached produces is, in fact, not art but welfare because, of course, it involves people with disabilities, and everything involving people with disabilities is automatically welfare.
The Hon. S.G. Wade: Kelly, that is a terrible thing to say.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: It is a quote from someone else; I am allowed to say it because I am about to correct them, don’t worry. I think it is a difference between giving something to somebody that they do not have out of sympathy, and giving someone a platform to find that in themselves out of empathy. Let me tell you, Mr Acting President, it is the latter that companies like No Strings Attached provide.
Throughout my time with No Strings Attached, as well as my enormous personal development—without which I probably would not have the confidence to be sitting in this very chamber today—I have seen some of the people who can be most disenfranchised by society, people with disabilities and mental health issues, for example, become recognised writers, performers, musicians and, in turn, even become teachers of their art.
I have seen people who have, for their whole life, been held back by the low expectations and non-support of others start forging real careers. I have seen multiple awards won, I have seen troupes tour the country to perform sold-out shows to rapturous applause, cheers and even tears. Just this week I saw members of the No Strings Attached men’s ensemble dressed up to attend the prestigious Helpmann Awards, where they had been nominated for Best Regional Touring Production. If that is what welfare looks like, then I think we could use a bit more of it. No Strings Attached current artistic director P.J. Rose had this to say to me on the changes, when I asked for her feedback as a trusted colleague and friend:
Over the past two-plus years, the Australia Council has worked overtime and inclusively to involve disparate elements of the Australian arts community/communities in planning changes that would make the distribution of federal financial support to artists practical, fair and transparent. At the exact moment these plans were to be implemented, Senator Brandis suddenly withdrew money allocated to the Australia Council and redistributed it to his own funding agency. This was a unilateral, non-collaborative, non-consultative decision.
That a minister can make a decision that affects so many, without need for checks or balances or accountability, is anathema to the spirit and practice of democracy. It is inappropriate and dangerous for one human being to have this kind of power, power that has been known in the past as fascism…[and] totalitarianism. This is the same government that wants to put the power to rescind citizenship into the hands of a minister (not the judiciary).
I am not against ministers supporting causes dear to them—in the…1990s, Paul Keating established The Keatings, but he found the money to fund them elsewhere. He did not take money from other artists.
This quote from practising visual artist Kieran Stewart also talks about the importance of supporting small to medium arts industry organisations very eloquently:
Small organisations are where the arts come from. These spaces are run by peer review panels and an arts community exploring the merit and value of creative practitioners is how we mediate and moderate what content gets shown in the arts because things are so competitive. It’s how we challenge each other and push ourselves to create worthwhile content. Because we know that 10 per cent of emerging artists may only get the chance to get a space where they have to pay almost twice their own rent to get a space to share what they are passionate about. Most work extremely hard to undertake this and require small to medium organisations and their support to undertake these endeavours and become better artists. Without the support of these organisations to secure funding emerging artists would have to pay many thousands more to hire a space to exhibit or perform.
This quote, from the artistic director of Black Hole Theatre, Nancy Black, also makes the point very well:
I am especially committed to this small-medium sector because it is the whelping box of our culture. From it spring the new ideas and forms, the startling approaches, and the emerging talent. That sector takes risks that the major companies can’t afford to contemplate. In addition, the small – medium companies reach thousands, if not millions, of people nationally and internationally, spreading those wonderful ideas, engaging those audiences, opening new windows to people at all income levels, enhancing the view of Australia and enhancing our cultural capital. If our culture is a garden , then we, the small- medium sector, are its gardener and compost. We dig the ground, sow the seeds, water them tenderly , and provide the nutrients that enable those seeds to grow.
Juliette Zavarce, the producer of True North Youth Theatre Ensemble, sent me a copy of a letter that she sent to the Senate inquiry, and I would like to read it in its entirety because I think it makes a lot of valid points about the true ramifications of these changes. She states:
My name is Juliette Zavarce and I am the producer of AJZ Productions and also a local youth theatre company True North Youth Theatre Ensemble. We have classes in Hillcrest and Klemzig and also Elizabeth, South Australia.
We do both professional productions along with productions with our Youth Theatre Ensemble under the banner of True North. Our company is led by award winning theatre maker and Director Alirio Zavarce. Alirio is well known in the arts community and has had several award winning works throughout his career. To survive as an independent artist Alirio has had to be extremely resourceful using all of his talents as a teacher, actor, musician, writer and MC. His most recent touring show ‘Sons and Mothers’ explored the relationship between a son with a disability and his mother which toured nationally with a group of artists with a disability and has recently been nominated for a Helpman [sic] Award. This tour would not of been possible without the support of The Australia Council.
True North Youth Theatre Ensemble was developed in 2013 by a partnership with the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and has grown to four groups and 50 members. True North has an ethos to provide quality arts training to young people from a variety of economic and social backgrounds.
Many of the 50 members of our group are on a scholarship and pay no fees to be part of our ensemble. We work with some of the most marginalised families in our community and the impact we are having on young people’s lives is extremely important. At True North [what] we learn by making productions is crucial in terms of our teaching method. It also gives us as a community a reason to come together and the impact on the ensemble members self esteem, confidence and worth is evident.
We employed 12 artists this year who worked with the ensemble developing and delivering performance outcomes. These included set designers, projection artists, film makers, photographers, graphic artists, tutors, play writers and technicians. As a small to medium arts organisation we have limited options in terms of funding. We work hard to obtain sponsorship, fundraise and also obtaining local council support to continue as an organisation. However we rely on Arts grants in order to pay for the production costs that are so crucial to our ensemble. These production costs are the wages of our production team.
The recent changes made by Mr Brandis has essentially moved funding from The Australia Council to his cabinet control. This has given us grave concerns about the future of small to medium organisations such as ours.
Our major concern is that there was no consultation with the Australia Council prior to this funding change. There seems to be no peer assessment in terms of how this money is going to be handed out. And lastly and most importantly this essentially will be a second bureaucracy in terms of the administration of the very limited funds available to the arts community.
This will also be without question a duplicate of what already exists in the Australia Council. What this means is that more money is going to be spent on arts administrators rather than the artists and the project outcomes themselves. This seems extremely unfair and is a duplication that is not necessary.
We are making a real impact on people’s lives , and the work we are doing is as important as the major organisations. We are often the ones who put in incredible hours without pay to stay afloat. We are the innovators and we are at the coal-face, and we do not want state-sanctioned art. I am certainly frightened of a future where the only true option for an art experience is the so-called high art such as ballet, chamber music and the opera that seems to be what Mr Brandis is focusing on. These are largely unaffordable and inaccessible to the community.
So, as you can see, the small to medium organisations which fear they will miss out the most by these funding changes are arguably those who most need our support and those we most need in our community to give a voice and career and social opportunities to those who are most disenfranchised and isolated.
The last point I would like to make is perhaps the most concerning one, and that is the fact that, according to recent media coverage, Senator Brandis does not seem to fully understand or comprehend the extent of his own arts funding changes, and here I will make a brief quote from an article from the online news site Crikey:
Crikey today revealed that Arts Minister George Brandis was ‘completely flummoxed’ by aspects of his own controversial changes to arts funding and their effect on the Australia Council. Regional arts administrators told Crikey that at a meeting with leaders of small arts organisations in Queensland, Brandis misstated elements of his policy and blamed the Australia Council for chaos in the industry.
Brandis reportedly told the meeting that the Australia Council’s six-year funding round for small to medium arts organisations had been ‘p ostponed’ when it has in fact been cancelled. The six-year funding round is one of the Australia Council’s key programs for funding smaller organisations, and the Council was forced to cancel the program when Brandis cut $105 million from their budget over the next four years to establish his own National Program for Excellence in the Arts.
Brandis may be ‘flummoxed’ by these changes, but those who have given me these words to say today are most certainly not. These are the people who operate with the ramifications of these changes in their day-to-day life, and the issues are clear.
I would hope, of course, that all members support the arts, but the fact is that you do not have to be an arts goer or an arts lover to understand that it is wrong to make such a brash decision which will affect so many lives, careers, social opportunities and futures without the proper consultation of those affected. With those brief words, I strongly encourage all members to do what they can to look into these changes to understand the true ramifications and to make sure that we can truly free the arts.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola .
