Given that the National Congress is coming up, I would like to start a couple of conversations about our policies and some suggested changes that might be made to them.
I have been quizzed quite closely by a good friend (and now PPau member) about this policy. This was the first question I couldn’t answer:
“Another question about the PP’s arts policy: the document says “To
directly support artistic creation, we will also establish a new fund to
sponsor artists and invest in the creation of films, literature and
visual art.” What’s the reasoning behind setting up a new fund? What’s
wrong with increasing funds to the Australia Council, Film Australia and
the other arts funds that already exist? Surely it’s better to build on
the thorough knowledge of the sector that these organisations already
have? Especially because existing organisations and artists etc. already
get how these work. What’s the advantage in starting from scratch?”
Is there a reason why we don’t just support the Aust Council etc explicitly?
The grant we’re talking about is like a Clean Energy Finance Corporation for the arts - a permanent endowment fund which undertakes long-term investment in creative projects, getting a return sometimes but not necessarily. It would be a perpetual, large funding pool over which representatives of the creative would have full autonomy. This is different from the current system of small, recurrent year-to-year grants which are so vulnerable to random cuts and mood swings of the political class.
It’s a different conception of how arts should be funded. One which is less susceptible to constant political meddling like what we’ve seen recently. It may also be a laboratory for trialing different forms of IP (creative commons, for eg), which current bodies might not be structured for, or open to.
Provide $1 billion from the Asset Recycling Fund to sponsor Creative Commons licensed artistic endeavour.
Funds will be separated into streams to invest in independent films, games, visual art, and literature.
PPAU thinking has been that public funding of arts should result in works that are dedicated directly into the public domain (i.e. “Creative Commons”).
“If the public pays for it, then the public should own it.” is our stance.