tip off

Cultural policy in limbo … which might give the space needed

Cultural policy is in limbo. Artists and industry types aren’t exactly rioting in the streets — they’re not even penning outraged opinion pieces yet — but there is a certain level of unease within the sector.

Arts Minister Simon Crean has delayed the announcement of the National Cultural Policy. The policy was slated for release the weekend before Tuesday night’s budget, but has been put on the back-burner. The Australia Council review is also awaiting release  — Crikey understands that it has been completed — because it was going to be incorporated into the National Cultural Policy too.

ArtsPeak — the sector’s latest effort to present a unified voice on the issue, convened by two of the industry’s savviest operators in AusDance’s Julie Dyson and NAVA’s Tamara Winikoff — put out a press release last week stating that “we are disappointed to hear of the delay”. They went on to “reaffirm our support for the development of a well-crafted and well-resourced National Cultural Policy” and urged the government to “minimise the delay”.

So where does that leave us? In a way, the delay of the cultural policy demonstrates the low stakes at play within the arts sector. For the average working artist, arts grants are something of a distant dream and the challenge of paying the bills is very much a week-to-week proposition of chasing that next gig, residency, exhibition or production. Arts and cultural policy spans a wide area of public policy and some of the most important bits are state and local issues, such as liquor licensing laws or local government red tape affecting music venues.

Where the feds are involved, policy often happens in ad hoc, unco-ordinated spurts. This is probably the kindest description for April’s $12 million funding announcement regarding The Wolverine, an out-of-channels production grant to a big Hollywood studio that Crean and Prime Minister Julia Gillard have been at pains to stress is a “one-off”.

The other big problem with cultural policy, and probably the National Cultural Policy itself, is that so much of the big-picture stuff happens outside the Arts portfolio. On budget night, for instance, hundreds of millions of dollars were showered on television broadcasters — big organisations whose services nearly everyone would describe as “cultural”. SBS received $158 million, including $63 million for a new national indigenous television channel, while the public and commercial free-to-air broadcasters received hundreds of millions in taxpayer’s dollars to transition from analogue broadcast spectrum that is being “restacked”.

As Bernard Keane and Margaret Simons have been pointing out at Crikey, the Boreham Convergence Review has big implications for the future of Australian media and communications policy, including in policy areas that plainly impinge on the ambit of cultural policy, like local content quotas, news media regulation and community broadcasting.

Of course, while it’s true there is a pressing need for more consistency and direction in federal cultural policy, it’s also true that the show must go on. It’s unlikely any productions have been cancelled or festivals put on hold while we wait for the announcement of the new policy.

Indeed, cultural policy is still happening — as we pointed out last week in the interesting example of the “excellence pool”.

Zoom out a little further and you could argue the single biggest item of new “cultural funding” during the current Labor government — now totalling more than $300 million — has been the rolling licence fee rebates dispensed by Stephen Conroy’s Communications Department to the free-to-air broadcasters. Exactly why multibillion dollar listed corporations need discounts on their oligopolistic use of public broadcasting spectrum has never really been explained by Conroy. But the cost to the taxpayer amounts to a public subsidy that arts organisations in the small-to-medium sector — currently campaigning for a 10% increase in their block funding — can only dream about.

Given that, it’s worth asking if a new policy actually needs to come with dollars attached anyway. Everyone in the arts sector generally welcomes more funding, obviously. But as the Convergence Review has shown, you can release broad-ranging policy papers about the future of a complex area without necessarily attaching a big novelty cheque. Paradoxically, the areas where there is greatest need for new funding in the arts — individual artists, small-to-medium organisations, and neglected policy areas such as community broadcasting and innovative contemporary cultural expressions — are precisely the areas where a little bit of extra funding goes a long way. It would be possible to find $10-20 million in extra funding for these areas relatively easily, simply by reshuffling existing priorities.

In any case, cultural policy can and should be about more than just taxpayer dollars. Government regulations make a huge impact on the arts and culture, as the February 2010 SLAM protests against Victorian liquor licensing crackdowns demonstrate. There’s been precious little effort go into micro-economic reform in the cultural industries, perhaps because they are still not seen as serious industries. To take one example: public liability tort reform could be just as important to the everyday livelihood of working artists and musicians as extra funding.

At the other end of the spectrum, working out what to do about Australian content served by internet behemoths such as Google (something the Convergence Review barely touches on) could have far-reaching benefits for Australian creators and audiences.

So maybe, just maybe, the delay in the delivery of the National Cultural Policy is a blessing: an opportunity to rethink the narrow terms of the current discussion and bring the findings of the Convergence Review into play. There’s plenty of landscape for vision available, if Simon Crean and Julia Gillard are willing to gaze a little further towards the horizon.

3
  • 1
    Richard Letts
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    The collecting institutions apparently will get some more money but more than what? They are so squeezed that there have been serious lay-offs. The position of Curator of Music at the National Library appears to have gone, along with at least one other specialist arts position. Seven senior positions at the National Film and Sound Archive are being abolished. The ‘efficiency dividend’ has now been in place for long enough that it is wreaking havoc. The Australia Council gets progressively squeezed with inflationary increases of half of predicted inflation, possibly with the shortfall mostly hitting the Boards serving the small to medium companies and individual artists. So when an increase in funds is announced, it is only real at the point where it overtakes the loss of funds from the shortfall in inflationary increases. Funds to the AMRAP project of the Community Broadcasting Association, which has done a tremendous amount to get more Australian music played on 300 community stations around the country, have been terminated. The three positive grants to music projects ANAM, WAM and Sounds Australia, appear to be fair dinkum, so that’s good.

  • 2
    Ben Eltham
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Dick - my understanding is that the new money for the collecting institutions will cover the expected budget reductions from the efficiency dividend. However as you rightly point out, the Australia Council (as well as Screen Australia and AFTRS) have not been given extra money and will experience efficiency dividends.

    The AMRAP cut has flown under the radar so far but I expect that it will come to more attention as word starts to spread.

  • 3
    Daryl...
    Posted Sunday, 13 May 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Will any other race get a television channel or just Aboriginals? Is there really a need to continue with the SBS in this day and age? Where is the vision that will enable us to create something like “Wicked” or “Phantom of the Opera” here in Australia?

    This post is just another demand for handouts, market restrictions and an opportunity to bash corporations that make the profits to pay for it all.

    Look to Europe, there you see the stark reminder of what happens to economies based on debt and entitlement.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...