Dr John Gardiner-Garden
The 2015 Budget has surprised and dismayed many people
involved with the arts and film in Australia.[1]
Redirection of funding from the
Australia Council
The Government announced that $110.0 million over four years
would be redirected from the Australia Council (which in 2014-15 received
$211.8 million and in 2015-16 will receive $184.5 million) to the Ministry for
the Arts in the Attorney-General’s Department ($27.7 million in each of the
next two financial years, $28.0 million in 2017–18 and $26.6 million in
2018–19).[2] The redirection provides
for:
-
the establishment of a National Programme for Excellence in the
Arts ($104.7 million over four years)
-
the transfer of the Visions of Australia and Festivals Australia
programs and the Major Festivals Initiative to the Ministry for the Arts (with
the latter having its annual budget doubled to $1.7 million) and
-
three more years of Creative Partnerships Australia’s matched
funding program ($5.3 million over three years).[3]
The Minister for the Arts, Senator George Brandis, stated
that ‘[t]here will be no reduction in the Australia Council’s
funding to the 28 major performing arts companies as a result of this initiative’.[4]
However, the quarantining of major performing arts (as
also happened when the Australia Council’s funding was reduced by
$28.2 million over four years in the 2014–15 Budget), together with increased
support for well-sponsored arts, will mean a smaller proportion of overall
funding will flow to independent artists and small arts enterprises.[5]
This would be consistent with the Minister’s declaration in June 2014 that ‘I’m
more interested in funding arts companies that cater to the
great audiences that want to see quality drama, music or dance, than I am in
subsidising individual artists responsible only to themselves.’[6]
National Programme for Excellence
in the Arts
The Minister stated that the new National Programme for
Excellence in the Arts (NPEA) will:
... support endowments, international touring and strategic
projects, with an emphasis on attracting private sector support ... allow for a
truly national approach to arts funding ... deliver on a number of Government
priorities including national access to high quality arts and cultural
experiences ... [and] make funding available to a wider range of arts companies
and arts practitioners, while at the same time respecting the preferences and
tastes of Australia’s audiences.[7]
These are objectives which could conceivably be supported by
the Australia Council, which only recently underwent a review which culminated
in the Australia
Council Act 2013.[8] This suggests the
potential for duplication of functions, raising questions about the respective
roles of and relationships between the two bodies, and of the direction of art
policy more generally.
Questions include whether applicants for and recipients of NPEA
funding will have the same freedom to reject corporate sponsorship as the
Australia Council has allowed its grant applicants and recipients—an issue that
arose in the context of the Sydney Biennale last year and which led Minister
Brandis to instruct the Australia Council ‘to develop a policy which deals with
cases where an applicant for Australia Council funding refuses funding offered
by corporate sponsors.’[9] A further question is
whether the NPEA process will involve the independent peer assessment that has
been central to the Australia Council’s ‘arms-length’ funding model over the
last four decades. In June 2013, Minister Brandis supported expanding the scope
for ministerial involvement in funding decisions.[10]
In May 2014 he included in the budget $1.0 million for the Australian Ballet School;
and in September 2014 he was reported as bypassing the Australia Council with a
large grant to Melba Recordings.[11]
The measure provides for a greater role for the minister and
another avenue for obtaining grant support, but if the aim was to clarify the
role of the federal minister and of the different levels of government in
supporting different sorts of arts practice, the measure does not do this as
simply and clearly as others have suggested in the past (e.g. in 1988 the
Liberal shadow arts minister Chris Puplick released a Coalition arts policy
which included abolishing the Australia Council and transferring its functions
to the relevant department, and in 1986 the McLeay Report recommended special
program and funding arrangement for the largest arts companies and devolving
grant decision making in some other areas to the States and Territories).[12]
No relevant policy statement or Parliamentary report has foreshadowed this
measure. The measure does not require legislation.
Screen Australia
The Budget also provides for a reduction in funding of $3.6
million over the next four years ($0.91 million each year) to Screen
Australia, the Commonwealth’s main film support body. In the Portfolio Budget
Statements, a portion of this reduction is explained as ‘related to the
cessation in 2016–17 of the four-year $10.0 million ($2.5 million per year) Creative
Australia—supporting Australian digital productions measure’. However, in Budget
Paper no.2 the measure is grouped under ‘Arts and Cultural Programmes—efficiencies’
to achieve savings that ‘will be redirected ... to repair the Budget and fund
policy priorities’.[13] As this reduction comes
on top of a substantial ($25.1 million) reduction provided
for in the 2014 Budget, Screen Australia, the Screen Producers Australia and the
Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance have all been reported as saying the
measure will seriously affect the screen industry.[14]
Efficiency savings
The Budget also provides
for further savings from the Australia Council of $7.3m over four years, to be met
through reduced funding to the ArtStart, Capacity Building and Artists in
Residence programmes.[15]
It also provides for collecting agencies (such as the National Gallery of
Australia, National Film and Sound Archive of Australia, the National Museum
and the National Portrait Gallery) to continue to be subject to the efficiency
dividend and the ‘consolidation of back office functions’ measures announced in
2014.[16]
[1].
B Eltham, ‘Budget
2015: George Brandis’ extraordinary raid of the Australia Council‘, The
Drum (online) 13 May 2015; S Cannane and G Deavin, ‘Fears
ministry could become more powerful than Council‘ and ‘Budget
2015: Changes to arts funding disastrous, says former chair of Australia
Council‘, ABC News (online) 14 and 15 May 2015; and see footnote 15 for
reaction to film measures.
[2]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, p. 62;
Portfolio
budget statements 2015–16: budget related paper no. 12: Attorney-General’s
Portfolio, op. cit., p. 18.
[3]. Australian Government, Portfolio budget statements 2015–16: budget related
paper no. 12: Attorney-General’s Portfolio, p. 78; G Brandis (Attorney-General), Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget measures
2015–16, media release, 12 May 2015.
[4].
G Brandis, media release, op. cit.
[5]. Australian Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, p. 55.
[6].
M Boland, ‘A voice for the audience, not just artists‘, The Australian (online edition), 21 June 2014.
[7].
G Brandis, media release, op. cit.
[8].
M Coombs, Australia
Council Bill 2013, Bills digest, 145, 2012–13, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 2013.
[9].
B Jabour, ‘George Brandis threatens Sydney Biennale over Transfield “blackballing”‘, The
Guardian, (online Australian edition), 13 March 2014.
[10].
See the amendments moved by G Brandis to Clause 31 in debate on Australia
Council Bill 2013. Parliament of Australia, ‘Australia
Council Bill 2013 homepage‘, Australian Parliament website.
[11].
Australian Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, op.
cit.; and R Gill, ‘George
Brandis’ astonishing arts adventure‘, Crikey, 19 September 2014; B
Eltham, ‘Exclusive:
Brandis’ $275,000 grant to Melba bypasses scrutiny‘, ArtsHub, 18 September
2014. See also B Benjamin, ‘Melba
returns for another performance‘, ArtsHub, 22 September 2014.
[12].
J Gardiner-Garden, Commonwealth
arts policy and administration, Background note, Parliamentary Library,
Canberra, 7 May 2009, pp.23-24; House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Expenditure. Patronage, Power and the Muse: Report of the Inquiry into
Commonwealth Assistance to the Arts, Canberra, September, 1986.
[13].
Portfolio
budget statements 2015–16: budget related paper no. 12: Attorney-General’s
Portfolio, op. cit., p. 526; Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, op.
cit., p. 59.
[14]. Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, op.
cit., p. 55; D Groves, ‘Producers
decry Screen Australia budget cut‘, if.com.au
website, 12 May 2015; D White, ‘Producers
baulk at 2015 federal budget Screen Australia cuts‘, Australian Financial
Review (online edition), 13 May 2015; and K Quinn, ‘Screen
Australia budget cut brings agency’s funding down 16 per cent in 12 months‘,
The Sydney Morning Herald, (online edition), 13 May 2015.
[15].
Portfolio
budget statements 2015–16: budget related paper no. 12: Attorney-General’s
Portfolio, op. cit., p. 78.
[16]. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, p. 63, Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2014-15, December 2014, p.132, Portfolio budget statements 2015–16: budget related
paper no. 12: Attorney-General’s Portfolio, op. cit., p. 18.
All online articles accessed May 2015.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.