Taking Responsibility for Arts Funding
There's an interesting difference between election policy statements and the fine print of the budget papers. Somewhere between establishing the general policy framework and dealing with the Realpolitik of the bottom line, things can change.
By measuring these differences it becomes possible to produce interesting little artefacts like the various post-budget "report cards" that turn up in the papers each August. In the arts portfolio the report card this year does have some ticks, but also manages to run up quite a few crosses—perhaps the biggest (from an arts perspective) being the overall reduction in portfolio spending, and cuts to the Australia Council.
However, to sort out the impact of reductions and shifts in funding priorities is not an easy task. It is not simply a matter of making a list of spending promises, and seeing if they match up with amounts listed in the budget papers. Nor should analysis be confined to the Communications and the Arts Portfolio, as reductions or shifts in areas such as education, social security or taxation can also have an impact on the viability and future direction of arts activity. The details of how funding cuts are managed also has an impact on eventual outcomes.
For example, how will the Australia Council manage a reduction in the size of its allocation—from almost $73 million in 1995/96 to just under $64 million in 1996/97? Of course, one way to manage such a large cut is to pass it on, so many of the Council's clients can expect reductions in funding, and perhaps a decline in other services. Naturally, cuts to other cultural organisations, like the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), will also have a flow-on impact... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline