Arts funding changes on the run – doing less with less

‘The announcement by new Arts Minister, Mitch Fifield that he will step back to a degree from the decision of his predecessor about national arts funding is a good call – but not good enough. This is what happens when there is no policy framework or set of strategic principles guiding changes to programs or development of new programs. Flexibility is an excellent thing and so are attempts to develop new programs to support areas that might not have been able to gain support before. The problem is ad hoc policy on the run is no substitute for carefully thought through changes. In a context where there have been significant long term cuts to arts and culture funding in the last two budgets, particularly the 2014-15 one, these changes only worsen the situation’.

The announcement by new Arts Minister, Mitch Fifield that he will step back to a degree from the decision of his predecessor about national arts funding is a good call – but not good enough. The original decision by previous Arts Minister George Brandis transferred $110 million over four years from the Australia Council to the Ministry for the Arts to create a new program, the so-called National Program for Excellence in the Arts.

Instead Fifield will only retain $78 million dollars over four years for the Ministry and return $32 million to the Australia Council over the same period. The problem is that the amount being retained  is almost 71% of the original amount, so the amount going back is not that significant.

When redrawing the arts funding map it's crucial to have both a sense of history and a strategic framework

This is what happens when there is no policy framework or set of strategic principles guiding changes to programs or development of new programs. We see chopping and changing, shifts of position for no apparent reason. Flexibility is an excellent thing and so are attempts to develop new programs to support areas that might not have been able to gain support before. The problem is ad hoc policy on the run is no substitute for carefully thought through changes. What happens is that, without an overall framework that provides a rationale and a guide, even well-intentioned attempts to fix a problem don't really ever succeed.

National arts and culture funding – follow the money

‘In the continuing furore over the transfer of funds from the Australia Council to the Ministry for the Arts in the 2015-16 budget, most of the focus to date has been on the Australia Council. What has been happening to the funding of the Ministry for the Arts itself? Based on the publically available budget figures since 2012, it is possible to compare the level of program funding managed by the Ministry for the Arts and see the reduction in funding following the election of the current Government’.

In the continuing furore over the transfer of funds from the Australia Council to the Ministry for the Arts in the 2015-16 budget, most of the focus to date has been on the Australia Council. I thought it would be interesting to look at what has been happening to the funding of the Ministry for the Arts itself.

I looked back through the publically available Portfolio Budget Statements for each year since 2012-13. These statements for Australian Government departments break down the budget of each department and the various areas within them against the outcomes they are funded to achieve.

In each of the Departments that the Ministry for the Arts has travelled through since 2012 it is possible to see the overall level of program funding. It's always hard to compare different years as this can be complicated by different smaller components, such as special appropriations, but it is still a good indication of trends.

Big Australian cities – can’t live there, can’t give there

In a strange turn of events, the very success of big Australian cities is likely to become a drag on the innovation they are noted for, as they become more and more expensive to live in and the cost of housing acts to limit the cultural diversity which underpins innovation.

In a recent article on the urbanisation of Australia and the problems this poses for the cost of urban housing costs, Matt Wade, writing in ‘The Sun Herald’ gets straight to the point, ‘Sydney and Melbourne are among the world's most successful cities. Together they generate more than 40 per cent of Australia's economic output and both consistently rate among the most liveable cities on the planet. But their sheer magnetism has contributed to a pressing national challenge: the high cost of housing.’

Sydney skyline near base of Centrepoint Tower

Latest population figures from the Bureau of Statistics show 9.3 million people live in Sydney and Melbourne – four in every 10 Australians. It is extremely rare for two cities alone to account for such a large proportion of a national population.