Short-changing the arts?

Short-changing the arts?


The recent release of a discussion paper by Arts Victoria on funding for organisations should be a major step in the development of the arts in Victoria.
Yet, if we are looking to take a leap forward with better funding policies, we will be disappointed.

The very idea of Arts Victoria undertaking a review of the arts-funding policies for which it has been the architect and administrator for many years is clearly inappropriate. It cannot be its principal investigator, prosecutor and defender all in one.

Not only is it in a position of irretrievable conflict of interest, its own performance should be under scrutiny in any review.


This in-principle concern was reinforced by the release of a discussion paper in May that is likely to prelude the introduction of new funding arrangements in September.

In place of an informative critique of the outcomes of the existing funding program, the discussion paper has a pervasive promotional tone with no obvious purpose other than to justify Arts Victoria's stewardship.

Sweeping assertions about Victoria having "a reputation as Australia's art and cultural capital" and that "it is widely acknowledged that Victoria has an advantage as a cultural leader" have no place in an investigative report. Neither are they supported by critical analysis. How is it, for instance, that Sydney is the crucible of so many of our truly national arts companies and Victoria so few, if Victoria is so favoured?

Funding for organisations chews up the overwhelming majority of government spending on the arts and a review of that funding goes to the very core of arts strategy in Victoria.

In 2012, Arts Victoria provided $31.5 million for arts organisations: $7 million for the seven major performing arts companies (such as the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and the Australian Ballet) which are funded under agreements with the Australia Council; and $24.5 million to the 73 small and medium companies funded annually or over several years.

(The National Gallery of Victoria and Melbourne Recital Centre are government agencies that collectively account for $180 million a year but are not covered by this review.)

The key question of public accountability — are Victorians getting value for our money? — is not even raised in the paper.

How is value for money measured in the arts? Comparative analysis is a key tool, comparing how our companies perform on cost, box office and artistic criteria against their peers in Australia and overseas. But we are left none the wiser about the effectiveness of our arts funding from this paper.

This lack of analysis raises serious questions about Arts Victoria's own performance in making funding decisions — questions that need to be addressed as part of the review.

The funding of opera offers one pertinent example.

About half of the real increase in funding to organisations in the past five years has gone to the Victorian Opera, which seems to have a limited prospect of carving out a national niche and is many times more expensive per audience member than the output of Opera Australia. Paradoxically, while Arts Victoria has been increasing funding to Victorian Opera, overall attendances at opera have stagnated. It appears the local company has increased its mainstage audience at the expense of the national company, which has seen its Melbourne audiences decline.

So roughly the same number of Victorians go to mainstage opera now as in 2006, but it costs us $5 million each year rather than $1.3 million as it did then.

Alternative, less expensive and more sustainable arrangements for opera in Melbourne could achieve a similar artistic outcome involving local performers and enhanced repertoire than the option pursued by Arts Victoria.

Moreover, Arts Victoria's dominant focus on funding for Victorian Opera appeared to be a causal factor in the faltering opening of Melbourne Recital Centre, the major new project supervised by Arts Victoria in the past decade. Increased funding was channelled to opera even though the new venue was not built for it while the need for a complementary funding strategy to enable other groups to use the venue was ignored.

Arts Victoria is effectively the state's major arts entrepreneur, picking which companies will be "winners". But despite performing that role with public money, on the evidence of the discussion paper and important instances where its funding has resulted in less than optimal outcomes, its capabilities and performance require examination by an independent party.

It is instructive to note that while the government has chosen to conduct a "review-lite" here, a contemporaneous review of the Australia Council's performance has been undertaken by independent consultants.

And at the heart of the successful reorganisation of the AFL was an expert management consultants' report on restructuring and delivering a better product so as to reap the rewards.

It's time for the government to introduce some serious, in-depth analysis prepared by a qualified, independent party, as a basis for new funding policy.