More money for the big companies: governments back Nugent

It would be prudent to be alert to state methods for funding the Nugent increases. They also should not be to the cost of other smaller arts organisations. Over four years, for three of the six states, the annual cost is piffling, and for none of them is it onerous.

Nevertheless, it is very pleasing that the commonwealth and states have responded so well to the Nugent recommendations.

A note on Nugent’s proposed mergers. Music Forum is informed that the merger between the Melbourne Symphony and the State Orchestra of Victoria will not proceed: neither organisation wanted it. The financial problems of the SOVA therefore have to be solved by other means. The Queensland Philharmonic will merge with the Queensland Symphony. The concept is that there will be a single management but that the orchestras will retain their separate identities. That will be a challenge. The proposed merger between the Australian Chamber Orchestra and Musica Viva is under discussion by the two organisations. Now that the funding is known, it becomes feasible financially. The question is whether it is desirable. It would be a pity if the very strong identity established by the ACO were undervalued or compromised.

The total allocation to the Australia Council increases 4.7%, from $74.9M to $78.4M. $2.0M of the increase comes from a specific allocation for Council administration of a part of the new Book Industry Assistance Program. If this is subtracted from the 78.4m, we have $76.4M supporting the artistic production for which the Australia Council already was responsible. If we allow for say 6% inflation in the year of the GST, the purchasing power of the $76.4M is $72.1M (76.4/1.06).

In other words, the value of the government funding to the arts for which the Australia Council was already responsible will diminish by something like $2.8M. (74.9 - 72.1). As is not uncommon, an apparent small increase of funding to the Australia Council conceals the critical issue that the budget for core funding to its clients is diminished in real terms. This indeed is the issue, state and federal, which was found by the Nugent Inquiry to be a major contributor to the imminent disasters in the major performing arts sector.

It should be noted that there have been multiple submissions to the Government informing it that the difficulties faced by the companies in the major performing arts sector are faced also, and probably more urgently, by the smaller organisations funded by the Australia Council. In addition, these organisations will face more stress due to the introduction of the GST, with increased administrative costs and probably lower box office due to price rises to cover the tax impost.

Given its positive response in this budget to the problems of the major performing companies, it perhaps was not to be expected that the Government would also move to bolster the rest of the arts sector. Let us hope therefore that this is its focus for the 2001 budget. Perhaps the funds from any discontinued programs at that time could be applied to core funding for the arts through the Australia Council.

Some other cultural funding

Funding to the major cultural agencies generally has not been reduced. The ABC and SBS for once have not been hacked about, receiving what might be a CPI increase and even some additional funding to set up digital transmission services and, for SBS, to purchase programs. The Film Finance Corporation was not cut this year, and its base funding will be increased a nominal 3% for the triennium beginning 2001-02. The Australian Film Commission receives a small increase.

Self-help groups in regional and remote Australia will be able to access a new $5m fund to provide and operate equipment to retransmit ABC, SBS and commercial television broadcasts to smaller communities.