Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

Arts face growing uncertainty despite momentous year



2017 is set to be a momentous year for the arts in Australia. On 1 November we commemorate 50 years since Harold Holt announced the creation of an independent body to champion 'the free play of our cultural interests and enthusiasms at all levels'. Yet today's Australia Council faces an uncertain future, and the free play of our cultural interests is jeopardised by that uncertainty.

Face peers through rain-wet windowBy 1967, the Australian arts landscape was ready for a strategic national approach. The Commonwealth Literary Fund had since 1903 provided financial support to writers as Australia's very first form of public investment in the arts. The Commonwealth Art Advisory Board had guided the government's purchase of paintings and commissioning of portraits since 1912.

The non-government Arts Council of Australia — founded in 1943 as the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts, now Regional Arts Australia — had toured hundreds of performances to cities and towns across the nation. Other developments were more opportunistic in their origins: the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet, for example, owe their emergence to the Queen's 1954 visit.

Holt's announcement meant bringing together disparate focuses and isolated funds with a national vision. The benefits would be immense: harnessing artistic expertise to foster the creative industries strategically, with impacts beyond the current imagination.

However, with this new strategic approach would inevitably come a power shift away from political decision-makers and towards the artists whose ideas would inform the new body, as well as the expert staff who would steward its arm's-length processes.

Although announced by Holt and established by John Gorton, the Australia Council came most strongly to be identified with Gough Whitlam and his Program, and so when Malcolm Fraser initiated an administrative review across government, the Australia Council was targeted. This was the first of many attacks on a body designed to operate with artistic expertise and statutory independence.

In 1985, arts minister Barry Cohen suggested that arm's-length funding 'protects partial patronage and hides prejudice beneath a cloak of artistic integrity'. That same year, shadow arts minister David Connolly told Parliament that the arm's-length approach was 'merely a political subterfuge to protect ministers from having to make hard decisions' and proposed disestablishing the Australia Council altogether.

In 1988, shadow arts minister Chris Puplick proposed abolishing the Australia Council on the basis that 'the so-called arm's-length principle has become an excuse for ministers to ignore and avoid their responsibilities for defining and promoting a proper national arts policy'.


"The history of Australia's public investment in the arts is the story of an emergent, evolving cultural confidence. Like any sense of identity, such confidence evolves through periods of insecurity."


Two attempts were made to introduce such a policy, with neither attempt surviving a change in government. By 2013, however, the Australia Council had evolved to a sophisticated form with its own board — a governance robust enough to maintain a responsible focus despite political change — and a strategic plan taking a long-term view of the full spectrum of the arts. This was, at last, the 'all-embracing Council' that Holt had imagined.

And so, the following year, the only option available to a minister intending to overcome the political subterfuge of artistic integrity was to act unilaterally, removing more than $300m with neither warning nor policy rationale, thus creating today's instability. With only $182 million left in its budget — of which $110 million is quarantined for 28 companies, and $28 million committed to a further 128 organisations — the Australia Council's capacity to work expertly for the arts across the nation has been perilously undermined.

The history of Australia's public investment in the arts is the story of an emergent, evolving cultural confidence. Like any sense of identity, such confidence evolves through periods of insecurity. 'Advancing our own distinctive cultural activities,' Holt had argued, and 'the growing public recognition of what our actors, our artists, our writers, our musicians and others in a varied field of cultural interest are seeking to do, will add much to what the government is doing.'

One day, Holt envisaged, the Australian Government would have the confidence to invest significantly in the nation's cultural future by nurturing artistic integrity — seeing that independent work as enhancing the government's own.

As the uncertainty of further funding cuts hangs over the Australia Council, and with the first sitting week and Senate Estimates just weeks away, we must ask: Will 2017 see that day?


Esther AnatolitisWriter and curator Esther Anatolitis is director of Regional Arts Victoria and an advocate for the arts. She tweets @_esther

Topic tags: Esther Anatolitis, arts funding, Harold Holt, John Gorton, Malcolm Fraser, Gough Whitlam



submit a comment

Existing comments

Investment in the arts is not an expense, it is an investment. Look at how popular a destination Berlin now is. The arts employ and invite. Hey expand our imaginations if we want to be innovative. They provide the 'objective correlatives' around which we can unite, discuss, observe our reflections and grow. Unfortunately, being a philistine is not a barrier to being a conservative politician.

Michael D. Breen | 18 January 2017  

Thanks for this succinct and sobering summary.

Sue Murray | 18 January 2017  

What a shame the Australia Council should bring this "uncertainty" upon those it claims to represent. Past Senate Estimates heard the reallocation of funding was due to the Councils' failure to be accountable to taxpayers of Australia, in its operation of 'closed shop' regime. Until the sector addresses this 'shadow' uncertainty and potential closure of the Council will remain. Wake up kiddies, EU, UK and USA all allow the private sector to cherish and participate in cultural democracy, but not our elite comrades.

Anne Stone | 06 February 2017  

Similar Articles

Don't pick the scab of meaning from our national holidays

  • Andrew Hamilton
  • 24 January 2017

The enjoyment of the holidays did not soften the mayhem and malice of the public world and the people whose lives and happiness are so destroyed by them. It held in mind the images of death and diminishment, but set them on a canvas of thanksgiving for the ways in which kindness and humanity are embodied in people's lives, for the strength and delicacy of relationships that we take for granted, and for the gift of a beach holiday that is an impossible dream for so many Australians.


The problem of privilege in Australia Day billboard furore

  • Tseen Khoo
  • 24 January 2017

The removal of an Australia Day billboard featuring two girls in hijabs prompted a swell of support against Islamophobia. Alongside this was a backlash from those who read the action as forcing Muslim Australians to be complicit in the oppression of Indigenous peoples. My unease came from seeing intra-community tension manifest as dismissal and denigration of those who were considered not 'woke' enough to the politics and embedded racism surrounding invocations of Australian identity.