Year Zero without a roadmap – arts funding chaos set to be repeated as Government sells regions short

The years of chaos produced by ad hoc changes to national arts funding, with no strategy or overall vision, seem set to be repeated. The Government's ham-fisted attempt to turn back the clock on the national capital by transferring Government departments to regional centres seems like our own (thankfully, milder) version of Year Zero. Though a response to a genuine problem, it is unlikely to produce any real benefits and could inflict major damage on one of Australia’s greatest national assets. It seems strange when, in many areas, particularly arts and culture, the Government has for years been steadily transferring roles back to Canberra.

In another desperate attempt to scrabble together enough votes to save its panicked ranks, the Government is plucking plans out of the air again. This time Australian Government departments are to be reviewed to identify which ones might be suitable for relocation to regional areas.

Main street, Ararat, Victoria. Regional development needs a more serious approach than pork-barrelling - understanding the crucial role arts, culture and creative industries can play in boosting regional economies and communities is a good start.

This is not just about Canberra because as John Wanna, Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University, has pointed out, approximately 70% of the Australian Public Service is based outside of Canberra. Of course, despite this, it has become a discussion about Canberra.

Lies, damned lies and lies about statistics

I’ve said that the traditional saying about ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’, should instead refer to ‘lies, damned lies and lies about statistics’. Cuts to national arts and cultural funding, while relatively small each year, have a cumulative effect far greater than at first appears and, in the long run, will undermine the effectiveness of national arts and culture support. Where the real disastrous impact of these cuts will hit home is when we also factor in the impact of population growth. If anything, there needs to be an expansion of arts and cultural funding to service the growth

I’ve said before when writing about negative gearing and public policy, that the traditional saying about 'lies, damned lies and statistics’, should instead refer to ‘lies, damned lies and lies about statistics’. The sad truth is that statistics don't lie, only the people who use them - often to dazzle someone who doesn’t understand what the statistics are measuring and how. This means the lies, damned lies and lies about statistics are usually coming from the mouth of some politician or lobby group or spin doctor for the well-off. This is particularly the case during elections. In contrast to lies, damned lies and lies about statistics, there's analysis based on research that is actually related to reality.

Australia's population is growing rapidly - it adds another person every one minute and thirty seconds. The implications for public services, including arts and culture, are profound. 

'The sad truth is that statistics don't lie, only the people who use them - often to dazzle someone who doesn’t understand what the statistics are measuring and how'

In my article about cuts in national arts and cultural funding, ‘Smoking gun – the invisible cuts to national arts and culture funding’, I noted that the cuts, while relatively small each year, have a cumulative effect far greater than at first appears and, in the long run, will undermine the effectiveness of national arts and culture support. In my earlier article, ‘Cut to the bone – the accelerating decline of our major cultural institutionsand its impact on Australia’s national heritage and economy’, I looked at how this had affected our national cultural institutions.

Collateral damage – the creeping cumulative impact of national arts cuts

Figures about national arts cuts quoted in the most recent Senate Estimates hearings seriously understate the cumulative long-term magnitude and effect of arts cuts and underestimate, just as with the national cultural institutions, the long-term damage. Yet this is the real and permanent impact – a compound effect of creeping cuts.

In the Senate Additional Estimates hearings on 9 February, the Department of Communications and the Arts was asked how much funding was cut from the Ministry for the Arts in the Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and which programs would have to be discontinued and reduced.

The Department replied that ‘there were administrative program cuts of $9.6 million for the arts programs over the forward estimates…This is money within the Ministry that has not been allocated to anybody. The Ministry's budget has been decreased by $9.6 million. The major part of that is the $6 million in savings from not continuing with the Book Council.’

The former home of the Ministry for the Arts - SAP House, or as I used to call it, ASAP House. One of the many stops the Ministry has made in its circumnavigation of the public service and of Canberra as it has weathered the storms of policy and program upheaval.

A compound effect of creeping cuts
This seems to be a lot less than the figures in the table I provided in my earlier article, ‘Smoking gun – the invisible cuts to national arts and culture funding’. It is accurate – but limited – and doesn't tell us a lot. It seriously understates the cumulative long-term magnitude and effect of these cuts and, just as with the national cultural institutions, the long-term damage is the worst – a compound effect of creeping cuts.

Smoking gun – the invisible cuts to national arts and culture funding

'A close look at the public budgets of the Australian Government Ministry for the Arts over the last few years is a clear case of a smoking gun. It reveals serious cuts to overall Ministry program funds almost every year since the 2014-15 budget, stretching long into the future, with levels down from around $198.5m in 2013-14 to just over $184m in 2015-16, with a projected drop even further to around $171.4m in 2018-19. This is a 13.7% drop from 2013-14 to 2018-19. There are odd blips but the overall trend is clearly down. Worst of all, it’s not as if these programs have ever been massive ones by any measure, so these cuts have been made to what are extremely modest and lean programs to start with.'

Towards the end of last year I published an article, ‘National arts and culture funding – follow the money’, looking at cuts to the program funding managed by the Ministry for the Arts in the Australian Government's Department of Communications and the Arts. The article analysed figures available in the public Portfolio Budget Statements which each Australian Government Department publishes annually.

At the time I was so shocked by what the figures showed about cuts in the last two budgets that I simply published the table of amounts and some explanatory notes about where the figures came from without further explanation. I assumed the picture would be clear enough from the figures.

Government actions, including cuts to crucial programs, have produced strong reactions but it has been surprisingly ineffective, beyond removing a Prime Minister.

Since then a number of people have asked me to draw out the implications of these figures more explicitly. I have attempted to do that in this article. I also republish an updated version of the table from the earlier article, reflecting new developments since Brandis was replaced by Fifield as Minister and showing the different components of funding involved.

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.

Notes from a steadily shrinking universe

‘Following the Big Bang the universe may have been steadily expanding but in the world of Australian Government arts and culture the universe has definitely been heading the other way. In the end does government of any shade really think at heart that Australian arts and culture is important? Why should it when it’s a vexed question for our society as a whole and we are ambivalent about its worth? Yet this part of the Australian Government’s public service is incredibly important. To have a real impact though, it needs to be refocused and reinvigorated to operate once again across the broader government landscape’

Following the Big Bang the universe may have been steadily expanding but in the world of Australian Government arts and culture the universe has definitely been heading the other way.

In fact over the last five years the unit with overall responsibility for the Australian Government’s arts and culture support, small by public service standards, has been shrinking faster than light vanishes into a black hole. It started with drastic reductions in the process of moving from the Department of the Environment to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from late 2010 onwards and seems to have just kept on, like a bad habit, through the Department of Regional and then Attorney-General’s.

The arts and culture unit circles the public service universe moving from department to department after each election or change in government. It’s like a comet wandering off into the cold distant reaches of space and then reappearing in the same location centuries later, once again unsettling the local inhabitants. When they run out of departments to host Arts the comet reappears. Now it has reappeared above the Department of Communications, which it was with for so long and which it left after the election of the Rudd Government in 2007.

The Commonwealth's arts and culture division - even as its numbers continued to shrink, its title kept on growing

Only a minor increase due to the transfer of a few positions from the Australia Council to the Ministry as part of the establishment of the new National Program(me) for Excellence in the Arts seems to have slowed the downwards trend. Hopefully the process will now have stabilised and we won’t see yet more reductions as part of the move back to Communications.

Oddly the initial contraction happened just as the unit was starting the long haul to finally produce the much awaited National Cultural Policy, back on track after a few false starts.

In the process, the unit has gone through various names, including the Office for the Arts and now, the Ministry for the Arts. Ironically, even as its numbers continued to shrink, its title kept on growing.