Jun 15, 2015

Billions at stake as Brandis smashes the arts sector

Crikey has obtained a list of the 145 arts organisations that will be affected by George Brandis' funding cuts. Whole sectors are in trouble, with possibly billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs at stake.

Ben Eltham — <em>Crikey</em> arts commentator

Ben Eltham

Crikey arts commentator

Now that the dust has settled on Arts Minister George Brandis’ shock $105 million raid on the Australia Council, attention is turning to what is at stake. The answer, according to smaller arts companies affected by the funding cuts, is more than a billion dollars in cultural activity and hundreds of jobs nationwide. The funding cuts to the Australia Council announced in the May budget equate to 28% of the federal arts funding body’s discretionary funding. In response, the Australia Council has already cancelled a number of funding rounds and programs. The sphere of cultural activity most affected is likely to be the so-called small-to-medium sector: a substructure of hundreds of smaller arts companies in the performing arts, visual arts and literature. Because of the way that Brandis has directed the austerity, the bulk of the funding cuts are likely to fall on these companies, as well as on grant programs for individual artists. Robust data on the size of the small-to-medium sector is hard to come by, but recent Australia Council data obtained by the author shows that the smaller companies are the most innovative and productive section of the entire cultural ecosystem. Small-to-medium performing arts organisations produce the bulk of the new Australian work, for instance. Collectively, these small and nimble ensembles produce twice as many productions as the major performing art companies, and nearly three times as much new work. Collectively, the small-to-medium sector accounts for thousands of cultural workers across the country. These companies typically depend on a mix of federal, state and self-sourced income for their precarious survival. Worse, many of these companies’ state funding is tied to Australia Council funding. Without federal funding, they may be at risk of losing their state-based funding too. Immediately under the gun are the 145 so-called “key organisations” currently funded by the Australia Council on an ongoing basis. Crikey has obtained a list of them. The list includes some of Australia’s best-known cultural exports, including storied Geelong theatre company Back to Back, Melbourne’s contemporary dance ensembles Lucy Guerin Inc and Chunky Move, and Queensland’s world-beating circus company Circa. Whole sections of the Australian cultural ecology appear under threat: most of our indigenous theatre and dance companies; the entire funded literature sector; and all the contemporary art galleries. In a submission to Labor’s long-dead national cultural policy, the 11 key producers of the Australia Council’s community partnerships program were able to show an eight-to-one return on federal investment. According to Norm Horton and Sarah Moynihan of Queensland-based Feral Arts, one of the key producer companies, “if the $30 million investment by the Australia Council in six-year funding for small-to-medium companies does not go ahead as planned, what is actually at risk is $240 million a year of leveraged funds.” The total impact, extrapolating from this data, could be as much as $1.44 billion over six years, with thousands of jobs at risk. The sector-by-sector impact is also very significant. Indigenous, visual arts and literature organisations will be hit particularly hard. There are more than 40 key organisations in the visual arts category affected by the funding cuts, including  key industry players such as the Australia Centre for Contemporary Art, the Centre for Contemporary Photography, Brisbane’s Institute of Modern Art and the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts. Smaller publishers will also be badly hit, such as the Australian Book Review, Meanjin, Artlink, Island, Eyeline and Art Monthly Australia. Indigenous companies include Ilbijerri, BlakDance, Kultour, Magabala Books, Tandanya and Yirra Yaakin. It’s symptomatic of the poor cousin status of these smaller organisations that there is relatively little firm evidence or statistics explaining the extent of the impact the cuts will have. There is also no proper peak body for the small-to-medium sector, although a grass-roots campaign is now emerging. A meeting between prominent smaller arts companies and the Arts Ministry is planned for Canberra on Thursday. The sector is attempting to corral support from across the cultural industries against George Brandis and his quixotic crusade against peer review. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Australia Council attack has been the silence by key industry figures and the Australia Council’s board in response to the funding raid. The Australia Council’s board, which Crikey understands was utterly shocked by Brandis’ sneak attack, has also refused to publicly defend the funding body. The board does have some heavy-hitters. It counts some of the cultural industry’s best-connected individuals, including philanthropist Rupert Myer, director and performer Robyn Archer and prominent columnist and television presenter Waleed Aly. However, despite the devastating attack on the Australia Council by the Arts Minister, the Australia Council’s board has been silent. Crikey understands the board’s reticence to speak against the minister’s attack relates to a reluctance to exceed its formal role. A narrow reading of the Australia Council Act 2013 suggests the role of the board does not extend to public advocacy, and relates only to “ensuring the proper and efficient performance of the Council’s functions”. Even so, at a time of unprecedented attack by the Arts Minister himself, artists and arts organisations have a right to ask: why is the Australia Council’s board refusing to speak out?

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

11 thoughts on “Billions at stake as Brandis smashes the arts sector

  1. Exactly!

    I like art best when it has a political edge. I am looking forward to an explosion of good art as a result of this. In time, with a bit of pluck from the arts community, this will come back to bite the Government.

    Let me buy my gallery tickets now!

  2. Jacqui Bonner

    Its not just the arts companies, its small businesses like my own and suppliers to these companies such as printers, designers, etc who are being affected. The far reaching affect on these cuts is drastic.

  3. Richard Letts

    The Australia Council must consider strategically whether it benefits the arts sector by becoming a public advocate, especially if it is to go directly against the Minister AND its own legislation. The sector should consider whether it wants the Ozco to take that great risk or should do its own advocacy. We should not be pushing the ozco into action that actually harms our interests.

  4. The Pav

    Continuation of this incompetent govts mismanagement.

    In the Budget Hockey said the best help for people was a job. Then brought down a budget that predicts a rise in unemployment

    Now Brandis is continuing the same stupidity. “Let’s grow the sector by making it smaller”

    Stupid stupid stupd

  5. graybul

    If each Sector under attack by an ideologically driven Federal Govt. . . reacts solely on a basis of self interest . . a committed Govt. wins. If all Sectors work collectively to ensure defeat of a Govt. . . all Sectors win.

  6. Barking

    What? There’s no proper financial stats for all these minor arts organisations? As in what they cost and what they contribute? And you wonder why a publicly-driven funding defence is absent? Seriously, I quote from the article –
    “Robust data on the size of the small-to-medium sector is hard to come by, …” and again in case you missed it…
    “It’s symptomatic of the poor cousin status of these smaller organisations that there is relatively little firm evidence or statistics explaining the extent of the impact the cuts will have.”
    FFS! There’s your answer, NO?
    If you arts people are so lazy and half-baked as to NOT have your financial support justification set out in detail, case-hardened and ready to serve up in triplicate on a dime – in this day and age of austerity – you unquestionably deserve to lose your public funding, any public sympathy, and every single one of your unjustified jobs. Yes, all of you: because the public buck is not meant to be charity for middle class spankers claiming to manufacture culture OFF THE BOOKS!

  7. Andrew Trump

    Brandis has said the funding is for arts organisations who can’t get funding through the Australia Council. He has also said that the OzCo funding of the major companies cannot be touched. Who is it, then, who doesn’t get funding through OzCo, but will be funded through Brandis? It seems to me it is only the small-to-medium sector that is left.

    It is going to be a very interesting first round of funding!!

  8. Helen Curtis

    I’m not as interested in the OzCo Board as I am in what the Min is going to do with that $105 million!

  9. AR

    I agree with [email protected] – what’s wrong with the traditional starving in a garret to produce real bleeding edge art? Nowt ever came of fat & complacent occupants of sinecures except praise of Great Leader. And they do enough of that themselves, without remora.

  10. Lisa_Donna

    There is a very good reason that there is no data in the sector. All the small to medium companies work on budgets that are stretched to their limit. Unlike the major companies, we don’t have the luxury of full time marketing staff to collate data. It is done by poor administrative staff (like myself) whose job list includes everything from that doesn’t fit anywhere else, or that the artists and producers don’t have time for.

    Even so, the data does exist within the individual companies, but as there is no advocacy body, there is no one to extrapolate this data for the industry as a whole. Nothing in the arts is done ‘off the books’ as you say. Every dollar spent is acquitted to the funding bodies.

    As to your other point about middle-class spankers, well, your bias is showing. Artists aren’t the latte-sipping middle class hipsters that people think they are (the ones who are, are usually the untalented pretenders). Artists and art-workers are a diverse range of people, just like in the rest of society, and they deserve as much funding as any other industry.

    The arts budget is a fraction of the budget for that of sport, and yet we have to justify it beyond what is required for any other industry. The art funded by OzCo is peer reviewed and relevant, unlike whatever will be funding by Brandis.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details