Richard Letts is director of the music advocacy organisation The Music Trust and a former director of the Music Board of the Australia Council. He attended the Arts Debate in Melbourne on Wednesday when Arts Minister, Senator Mitch Fifield arrived without an arts policy. He writes below some observations of the experience.
***
In this Federal election the arts community is focused upon the arts-friendly opposition parties and has lost interest in the Coalition, whose actions have been so hostile: derogatory statements from former arts minister Senator George Brandis and $300 million removed from the arts budget — way more that the total funding to the Australia Council.
But polling says that there is a 50/50 chance that the Coalition will be re-elected. So it would be a mistake to delete it from arts’ strategies. What is the Coalition thinking?
Senator Mitch Fifield picked up the Arts Ministry after George Brandis was sacked. A poisoned chalice.
But we want to be loved. Go into bat for us, Mitch, and we will be just so grateful. The opportunity is there for a clean slate. What will you do?
Early after his appointment as Arts Minister, Fifield made a gesture. He returned 40% of the funds hijacked from the Australia Council by Brandis. Modified rapture. Positive but not persuasive. Then there were allegations of pork-barrelling with the Ministry grant funds, and their use for inconsequential purposes while dead serious Australia Council clients were terminated.
The Brandis shadow lengthens and will remain unless Fifield does something decisive and positive.
ArtsPeak organised a public debate to be held on Wednesday, June 8 in Melbourne to which they invited Senator Fifield, shadow arts minister Mark Dreyfus and Greens spokesperson Adam Bandt to speak.
There was a quick acceptance by Dreyfus and Bandt and no word from Fifield. Why would he want to expose himself to an arts audience given the hostility the Coalition has built up?
During this period, Dreyfus and Bandt announced election platforms including specific funding promises, directed especially to returning the funds taken from the Australia Council and then adding to them to give more support to small organisations and individual artists. These promises are backed by actual policies. They are consistent with the sector’s agenda.
READ LIBERALS SLAMMED FOR LACK OF VISION AT ARTS DEBATE
Somewhat surprisingly, Fifield eventually accepted the invitation to the debate. Given the circumstances, he surely would not come to this debate empty handed? He must be ready to announce a policy or at least, an election platform with a few positive undertakings. (The Coalition has not made public an arts policy ever since George Brandis became arts minister in the Howard government.)
The day came. The three debaters sat on the platform and fielded the questions. It slowly became apparent that Fifield had nothing to announce. He made positive statements about his government’s arts activities. He made general statements about “it’s the economy stupid” and arts would benefit from “trickle-down”.
We’re sure that Mitch Fifield does think the arts are important and wants to support them. But being Arts Minister demands more than nice feelings and thought bubbles.
He remained non combative through Dreyfus’s lashing of his and the government’s performance. He is a calm and pleasant man but that was about as far as it went. It was not impressive.
Which brings us to the point of this little exposition. In the circumstances, what could the Arts Minister have been thinking in accepting the invitation?!
Some speculations
· We are doing good things for the arts and I have a good story to tell. They’ll see.
· They’ve seen the Catalyst grants and they will be feeling more positive.
· To not turn up would be worse than turning up. It would be seen as dismissive. It probably doesn’t matter because no-one really cares about the arts but perhaps it’s better not to stir them up again. I’ll just have to wear it.
· I don’t have any ideas for a policy or a platform and in any case, ScoMo wouldn’t fund it and Malcolm won’t back me. I’ll just skate through somehow. I’ve faced worse. Couple of hours and it will all be over.
· The sector should devise the arts policy, not the Minister. It’s too late for that now, but I can give them hope. Maybe we can have a go at it in the new term.
The sector gave a lot of support to the policy-making efforts of former Labor government arts ministers Peter Garrett and Simon Crean. How much effort it would make for this government is another matter. After all, it gave clear advice to Fifield when he became arts minister, mostly ignored.
We’re sure that Mitch Fifield does think the arts are important and wants to support them. But being Arts Minister demands more than nice feelings and thought bubbles.
In principle, Fifield’s proposition makes sense. But say the sector, on his invitation, did come up with a policy. What then?
The effort is only worthwhile if the policy is implemented in a coherent way. So far, incoherence is a mark of this government’s arts support. Would the policy be treated as more than a grab-bag of ideas?
We are sure that Mitch Fifield does think the arts are important and does want to support them. But being Arts Minister demands more than nice feelings and thought bubbles.
Fifield is smart. We are smart and we are serious. We want an arts policy to match. Until it takes decisive, intelligent, strategic action, this government has few credentials as a supporter of arts and culture.
The arts will survive a negative government. With a positive government, our artists can take on the world.
