MEAA) Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Inquiry Into the Impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget Decisions on The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into the Impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts July 17 2015 1 Ms Sophie Dunstone Committee Secretary Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee The Senate Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 17 July 2015 Dear Committee Members, Inquiry into the impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) is the largest and most established union and industry advocate for Australia’s creative professionals. Its membership includes journalists, artists, photographers, performers, producers, ballet dancers, musicians and film, television and performing arts technicians. MEAA has a diverse and vibrant membership across all spheres of creative endeavour in Australia. MEAA welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to this timely inquiry. MEAA position MEAA is concerned at the wastage associated with having a duplicated national funding source for the arts by taking what was the work of the Australia Council and passing it on to the newly‐ created the National Program for Excellence in the Arts (NPEA). Notwithstanding the concerns we have heard from the arts community in general, and our members in particular, surrounding the issues with unilateral ministerial prerogative in terms of what projects are artistically worthy of funding, MEAA has concerns about the efficiency of maintaining two dual funding bodies. MEAA takes a dim view of establishing two competing funding bodies for the arts without the creation of additional resources overall. This is a recipe for division, duplication and waste within the arts sector. MEAA supports the work of the Australia Council as a decision‐making body that functions at arms’ length from the Government of the day. MEAA recommends that the $104.7 million in reduced funding for the Australia Council be reinstated and that any funds for additional projects or bodies (such as the NPEA) be sourced from elsewhere. If the Government wishes to direct funding to particular arts projects, this should be done in addition to the existing funding to the Australia Council. We know that, as mentioned later in this submission, the Australia Council and the arts generally are suffering already as a result of previous budget cuts. Since the Government announced its Arts budget measures for 2015, MEAA’s concerns for the future of individuals and entities in the small‐to‐medium arts sector have escalated. Over the past two months MEAA has consulted with its members, particularly those in small‐to‐medium artistic endeavours where the creative boundaries are pushed, to get their views of the 2 proposals. Our members fear that the guidelines that have been released give little confidence that NPEA funds will be directed towards challenging cultural works in communities where artistic offerings are already few. For many stakeholders MEAA has spoken with, the arts provide economic, social and community support for vulnerable people in our community. These funding changes risk disrupting a delicate and already stretched sector and will undoubtedly have negative effects on many thousands of Australians who value the arts. The NPEA The recently released guidelines for the National Program for Excellence in the Arts (NPEA) are vague. Where substance can be identified within the guidelines, it appears to conflict with guidelines that the Australia Council has developed over many years. The funding streams outlined in the draft guidelines also lack the breadth and sophistication of those they seek to replace. At the present date, the Minister for the Arts has not elaborated on the types of artists or organisations his office asserts who “presently are unable to secure funding through the Australia Council” and that a result of the NPEA will be that “more Australian arts practitioners and organisations will be able to pursue their creative endeavours”.1 The guidelines themselves are however not the root of the problem. The core problem is supplanting an arms‐length institution with a body that is directly answerable to the Minister for the Arts. It is the close proximity between minister and decision‐makers that is the foundation of MEAA’s concerns. The perception, if not reality of favouritism and bias, will likely infect the new program’s effectiveness and reputation. Worse still, a body seen to be captured by its minister will be less than fearless in the types of applications it supports, which will manifest itself in tame offerings to the Australian community. Governments of the day should enjoy the right to test the policies and practices of their predecessors; however decisions to radically depart from long‐standing practices should be evidence‐based and stem from a process of inquiry. Budget‐night surprises are not an orderly manner in which to withdraw funding. MEAA notes and supports the decision to maintain the longstanding funding framework for the major performing arts companies. Our principal concern is that the Council’s discretionary funding available to small organisations and individual artists has been dramatically curtailed. The future impact of this decision will likely negatively reduce the nation’s cultural enrichment. Australia Council Act 2013 MEAA is concerned that the establishment of a rival funding source is inconsistent with the principals the Australia Council is bound by in managing funding allocations. Section 9 of the Australia Council Act states: (1) The Council has the following functions: 1 ‘George Brandis turns arts into political football with $104.7m Australia Council cuts’, The Age, May 13 2015 3 (a) to support Australian arts practice that is recognised for excellence; (b) to foster excellence in Australian arts practice by supporting a diverse range of activities; (ba) to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice; (bb) to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia; (bc) to uphold and promote freedom of expression in the arts; (bd) to promote community participation in the arts; (c) to recognise and reward significant contributions made by artists and other persons to the arts in Australia; (d) to promote the appreciation, knowledge and understanding of the arts; (e) to support and promote the development of markets and audiences for the arts; (f) to provide information and advice to the Commonwealth Government on matters connected with the arts or the performance of the Council’s functions; (g) to conduct and commission research into, and publish information about, the arts; (h) to evaluate, and publish information about, the impact of the support the Council provides; (i) to undertake any other function conferred on it by this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth; (j) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the above functions. Inherent in the above functions is the notion of artistic freedom and diversity – matters that are not fully acknowledged in the NPEA guidelines. It follows that the ability of the Council to honour these functions will also be compromised through the stripping of government funds. MEAA is also wary of the manner in which applications and decisions are made. Although the Minister for the Arts may give directions to the Council’s Board under section 12 of the Act, this power is tempered by section 12(2), which states: (2) The Minister must not give a direction in relation to the making of a decision by the Council, in a particular case, relating to the provision of support (including by the provision of financial assistance or a guarantee). The draft NPEA guidelines bear no such protection. Community response At the time of writing, the MEAA has received 11,387 signatures to an online petition calling on the cuts to the Australia council to be reversed.2 These individuals have signalled their support for the following statement in response to the funding changes: “Australians for Artistic Freedom The arts play a crucial role in our society. Art speaks truth to power and it shapes how we think about ourselves and the world. We oppose the dramatic funding cuts to the arts announced in the recent federal budget, including shifting more than $100 million away from The Australia Council. 2 http://www.australianunions.org.au/australians_for_artistic_freedom 4 The reason the Australia Council exists is to ensure a peer‐reviewed, independent system of funding to the arts. This independence is vital to protecting democratic freedom of expression. Individual Arts Ministers should not be the exclusive arbiter of artistic expression. We call on the Federal Government and Minister for the Arts George Brandis to reverse all proposed cuts to the arts sector and to support a vibrant and independent arts sector in Australia.” In addition to this broad based community concern, a large number of well‐known artists, producers and eminent Australians have publically registered their concern by open letter, which also calls for funding cuts to be reversed. 3 Screen Australia Although Screen Australia again saw its budget allocation reduced by $3.6 million in the 2014‐15 Budget, the larger harm was done in the 2013‐14 Budget, where $38 million in funding was cut over four years. The short to medium term funding trend is bleak – with government funding falling from over $100 million in 2013‐14 to about $84 million in 2017‐18. Nonetheless, Screen Australia has announced 2015 funding for new online content, documentaries, plus $13.4 million devoted to a dozen film and television projects. The Government’s determination to cut creative expenditure plainly has the effect of reducing not only the direct funding available to projects/films, but the resources available to ensure that public funds are being properly dispersed. The economic contribution of Australian cultural and creative endeavours was estimated at $86 billion five years ago, based on ABS data.