Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir

The good news is that the Federal Government has an extra $10.3 Billion left over from their Budget announcements to spend between now and the election.

The bad news is that this is one of the worst budgets for the Australian arts.

The Federal Government won't spend all of their surplus for fear of inflation but if I was a lobbyist for the film industry, the performing arts industries, the arts in general, I would be getting pretty busy and knuckling down over the next six months to try and get a decent cut of the pie.

There is still a lot of information and a lot detail to go through, but the 2007/8 Federal Budget represent absolutely no real increase in funding for the arts. At all.

The biggest news in the mainstream media concerning arts funding centred on the creation of the Australian Screen Authority. This new body will combine the Australia Film Commission, the Film Finance Corporation and Film Australia.

In essence, this combination of three very different funding bodies represents nothing more than a merger. It leaves very important questions wanting. Who will run this new Authority? Who will select the individuals in charge of the Authority? Will they be a government appointment? Who will represent the voice of independent film makers when they are merged? Where will this body be based - in Melbourne, in Sydney, in Perth... or Canberra? Will the Authority end up with the handicapped funding model similar to the Australia Council for the Arts? If not, on what model will it be based?

The biggest question, however, is what have these three bodies not been doing to invite such an aggressive move by the Federal Government? Let's not mince words here. This is big.

Most conservative governments have big problems with multi-layered funding models in any industry and centralisation is seen as the only fix. This centralisation of funding into one Authority (Why does the Senator love that word so much?) appears to be more of a frustration for the government in funding three bodies that all have the word 'film' in their title.

Most newspapers viewed the move as a positive. The Sydney Morning Herald ran the heading "Filmmakers win almost all that they asked for". The Australian Financial Review called it a "long-awaited package". I am not so sure. But as I seek to investigate this further I am waiting on the viewpoint of the three soon-to-be-defunct bodies for comment.

The elimination of the 10BA paper within the funding model is the most concerning. The Australian blog Art of Distraction summarises it beautifully:

"But it is the Business of Film Investment (everyone knows there is no such thing as a Film "Industry" in Australia) that received a nasty jolt last night. Perhaps it's a good thing ... but it's impossible at this early stage of analysis to be even remotely optimistic about how the Federal Government have changed the rules of engagement for film investment in this country. So what is, sorry, was the '10BA'? The 10BA was a piece of paper ... a form. With '10BA' in the top right hand corner. I've filled a couple out ... I know what they look like. What it represented was a 100% tax concession in investment in film for the financial year after the one in which the investment took place. For example, in the financial year 2005-06, someone invests $100,000 in a film. At the end of the following financial year, in this case 2006-07, they would be able to claim a concession of the $100,000 they had invested in the film. Let's be clear about this ... 100% - whether you got a return on your investment or not. Which would never eventuate in most cases - and not be expected to. Hence, the tax concession."

It goes on:

"There have been rumours for years that the Howard-led Federal Government have wanted to bury the 10BA. There may, in fact, be wise and beneficial reasons for doing so. But I seriously doubt it. Why? Because of this statement in the Budget Papers, clearly stating that the "phasing out" of the "current investor tax incentives available through Division 10BA and Division 10B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ... will increase estimated taxation revenue by $55.0 million over three years from 2008-09."
So there you have it in black and white: investments in Australian films under the 10BA and 10B are estimated to have a nett worth of $55.0 million dollars over three years."

There is obviously a lot more than meets the eye on this.

And there is a lot more than meets the eye with the so-called 'boost in the small to medium performing arts sector. Admittedly $19.5million is long overdue. But, unfortunately, it is not even small-medium in size. It's tiny. This is $19.5 million in extra funding for every single performing arts company in the country. Dance, theatre, physical theatre, circus - you name it, if it's small to medium and they perform, it is getting a tiny addition to its funding. It isn't even a real funding increase and will leave the sector, as Alison Croggon pointed out, well behind the CPI index.

There are Artistic Directors in charge of youth theatre companies and regional theatre companies that have all been on a wage of $40,000 and that hasn't changed in years and years. Don't believe the rhetoric of this year's budget. This is a funding decrease for the industry across the board.

The Australian Labor Party are yet to outline their response in detail, but in a press release from Shadow Arts Minister, Peter Garrett today, it says:

"After years of intense engagement from the Australian film industry, major performing arts groups and the small-to-medium sized sector, the Government has finally moved to provide them with urgently required support and financial reform. Federal Labor welcomes these long overdue measures."

I don't think that I welcome them that much but I am still piling through information and will update this with further posts.

Bear with me.



Image: from montana state university.