State of the Arts

Public Funding and Why it Matters

If we start with the basic idea that the arts, in their many forms, from theatre, music, and film to visual practice, enrich, challenge, and comfort us, then it seems clear why liberal democracies such as Australia support public funding of the arts.

The art world is a marketplace. This description is naturally a controversial one. Art should not and does not function solely as a market commodity, but it is also undeniable that art, and the work of artists, deserves financial remuneration. We must act within the parameters of our societal structures to provide such support. In Australia, public funding across all levels of government — local, state and federal — exists in order to sustain and propel creative work in what is a small national marketplace. Ideally, such arts funding should encourage risk taking, reward diversity of thought and of voices, and support a cultural life in this country that is both rich and accessible, regardless of where we come from.

The challenge in allocating funding is that art is often hard to measure. Awarding funding even based on specific criteria, remains a complex and sometimes contentious task. Statistics and outcomes are all useful measures but over reliance on such information clouds the fact that much art exists outsides the norms of the capitalist structures of our society. That is, its benefit cannot always be tangibly collated. In fact this very idea of collating it in many ways undermines its creative nature. There is a very real danger that individuals and arts companies can spend more time measuring their achievements and applying for funding than actually creating art, and, it is the inherent challenge of arts funding to find a balance between such creative making and measuring. This is not a new challenge.

The closest we have perhaps come to resolving this challenge is through the Australia Council for the Arts, founded in 1967 and later given independent statutory authority by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975. Although the council is funded by the Commonwealth Ministry for the Arts and its board is directly appointed by the Minister of the day, its decisions are independent and based on a thorough and long established system of peer assessment. Money is allocated to individual artists, small to medium companies and 28 larger companies through various programs of recurrent funding and regular grant rounds. Artists themselves sit on convened boards and assess applications.

If the Australia Council is indicative of our society’s decision to prioritise independent and non-partisan funding of the arts, then how should we respond to the diversion of $104.7 million from its budget? In the recent Federal budget, Arts Minister Senator George Brandis announced just this, with the creation of a new National Program for Excellence in the Arts to be administered directly though his Ministry using this money.

This is not to say that funding of the arts through the Arts Ministry is inherently wrong (despite the complexities of maintaining a healthy independence from politics it presents). In theory, the shift means that highly qualified public servants, along with peer assessors, will still make the funding decisions. It is also important to acknowledge the historical significance of plurality of funding sources. The Playing Australia program was run directly by the Ministry for years, funding regional and remote touring that would not have otherwise been financially viable. For some companies, a greater plurality of funding is an opportunity to form a new and better relationship with the Ministry when at times they might find the Australia Council or other established state funding bodies to be stagnant or even patronising.

Nonetheless, it shows particularly haunting disregard for due process to champion a program of excellence based on the stripping of a significant amount of money, without advance warning, from the Australia Council. Especially so, given that this money was already intended to support excellence.

It is small to medium companies in particular that will feel the effects of this decision. The Australia Council had only relatively recently undergone important restructuring. A key component of this was the move towards a six year funding cycle for small to medium companies. What this meant is that instead of companies having to reapply every three years for basic operational funding, they could have the increased stability of funding that lasted for six years. However, as a result of the minister’s decision, the Australia Council has been forced to abandon this model. Companies that have spent years vying for such financial continuity, will now be left as before to rely on a shorter and more unpredictable funding cycle, unnecessarily consuming time and effort and thus undermining their ability to plan for the future and focus on what they do best: creating. 

For the over 400 organisations who applied for six year funding, and expended significant effort in doing so, the minister’s decisions speak loudly. The creation of the National Program for Excellence on such grounds shows that political will is more important than fairness of protocol and long term policy commitments.

Equally worryingly, this new funding seems set up to almost entirely exclude individual artists. The minimum criteria for eligibility includes having an active Australian Business Number, as well as GST registration, which presents basic obstacles for individual artists such as writers and visual artists. Throwing everyone who is eligible in the same mixed bag will, ultimately, have a hugely unfair effect. Bigger companies that have more resources or are fortunate enough to have highly strategic staff at their core will likely be able to compile more competitive funding applications. The draft guidelines released for the National Program for Excellence in the Arts support this, with their four assessment criteria of quality, access, support and partnerships, and value for money. Such criteria — as opposed to innovation or diversity— are likely to favour established organisations with demonstrated “expertise and reputation”, or safe choices.

The same guidelines do read, promisingly: ‘While valuing the many secondary benefits which flow from arts activities, the Program seeks to celebrate the intrinsic capacity of the arts to engage, inspire and make meaning for all Australians.’ Whilst this may show an understanding of the integral benefits of the arts to our community, the principle of a push for power on which this program stands, remains concerning. The fact is that Senator Brandis could, theoretically, withhold funding to anyone at a whim. A troubling precedent is established: a trend toward the erosion of the Australia Council model of independent ‘arms-length’ funding, potentially leading to more politically motivated decision making. In the short term, some companies may be winners but in the long term everyone loses.

A Senate Standing Committee Enquiry has been set up to investigate such questions focusing on ‘the suitability and appropriateness of the establishment of a National Program for Excellence in the Arts, to be administered by the Ministry for the Arts.’ It will concentrate on the effect of funding arrangements on smaller or less-established organisations and artists, as well as the ‘protection of freedom of artistic expression and prevention of political influence.’ Over 2000 submissions from artists, organisations and other individuals have been received, and the committee will table its findings on the 26th of November. This date has already been extended by more than a month, due to the overwhelming amount of submissions received.

As for now, artists, arts administrators and policy makers look to outcomes for the future. There is an argument to be had that in arts funding the ground is always shifting, and that to achieve the best financial outcome at this stage individuals and companies must adapt to the new funding model, and throw their efforts towards applying for this funding and the new opportunities it will certainly provide.

And yet this argument sits uneasily with the role artists play in fostering critical debate in our society. If artists are expected to be publicly silent on such changes, in order to improve their chances of new funding, then the very nature of their practise, their most basic right to freedom of speech is compromised — illustrating the deeply rooted problems of such a model.

However, if we want to maintain and encourage a society that values the arts, debate must happen on all sides. Critique of the Coalition’s funding decisions through public protest and submissions to the Senate enquiry is vitally important, but so too is lobbying the Labor Party to reestablish funding to the Australia Council if elected next year. Ultimately this argument is about the importance of the arts within our community, and if our community does not believe in that importance, then we will never see restored funding.