Australia Yearbook - 2001

556 Year Book Australia 2001
Rationalising public funding of the
arts: 1900–2000
Let us look back over the period covered by this
article, and consider the development of the
public sector’s role in arts funding in Australia
over the century. What have been the motivations
and intentions of government involvement in the
arts over this period?
In the early years after Federation it seems clear
that the recognition of a government responsibility
in matters relating to art was closely allied with the
acknowledgement of its role in matters of public
education. Indeed, in the first Year Book (for
1901–07, published in 1908) the expenditure on
art from consolidated revenue is lumped in with
that on education and science under the general
heading ‘State Expenditure on all Forms of
Educational Effort’ (p. 754). This view of the arts as
being similar to education in their claim on the
attention of the state persisted well into the
century, and indeed is still relevant in some
respects today. Nevertheless, the translation of a
perceived obligation into any sort of broader
government action did not emerge until after the
Second World War, when notions of state support
for the arts more widely began to crystallise.
Although the focus of postwar reconstruction was
on the re-establishment of a peace-time economy,
social and cultural developments also figured in
the public agenda at that time, in education,
health, welfare, and so on. Even so, as we have
seen, it was not until more than twenty years after
the end of World War II that ideas for a more
active participation by the government in support
of culture began to take significant tangible form.
The rhetoric surrounding the establishment of
formal mechanisms for arts funding in the late
1960s and early 1970s pointed to the importance
of the arts as a cornerstone of a civilised society.
Since governments were charged with a duty to
foster such a society, it followed that
encouragement of both the creation and the
enjoyment of the arts could be seen as a public
obligation, appropriately financed out of general
government revenue. Statements by politicians of
all persuasions then and now suggest that,
notwithstanding perceptions about the political
leanings of the ‘arts community’ which surface
from time to time, there is overall bipartisan
support for such a view. 17
The decision to inaugurate a broad program of
arts funding in the late 1960s required also a
decision as to the best mechanism for delivery of
such support. Based on the experience of
other countries, it could be suggested that
three alternatives were available. First, a
program of tax concessions could be initiated
to encourage private philanthropy towards
the arts, along the lines of current practice in
the United States. The cost to the public
sector of such an approach would be the
revenue forgone. Second, a Ministry of
Culture could be established, as in some
European countries, dispensing money
directly to arts organisations and individual
artists. Third, the arts council model could be
adopted, as in the United Kingdom, where a
public body independent of government
could distribute grants free of direct political
control.
In the event the British model was chosen,
and the resulting Australia Council has
remained an independent statutory authority
to the present day. Its structure reflects the
twin principles of ‘arm’s-length funding’,
where decisions are made without political
interference, and ‘peer review’, where grants
are determined on the basis of independent
expert advice. Nevertheless, it has to be
remembered that the importance of these
two principles as a feature of arts funding in
Australia has declined over the years as the
proportion of total arts funding accounted
for by the Australia Council has itself
declined; these principles apply imperfectly,
if at all, to funding through other
Commonwealth avenues and via the States
and local government.
The establishment of formal arts funding
mechanisms at the Commonwealth level also
required a decision as to criteria for the
allocation of grants. The Australia Council
Act 1975, which has remained more or less
intact in the intervening years, directs the
Council to pursue certain goals which can be
summarised as having three principal
elements: the pursuit of excellence, the
widening of access, and the fostering of
‘Australian-ness’, i.e. the responsibility to
reflect Australia’s evolving national identity to
its citizens and to the world. Translating
these lofty ideals into operational decisions
has always presented difficulties, such as
when objectives of excellence and access, for
example, appear to point in different
directions. Nevertheless, they have remained
a driving force in the Council’s work, and
have provided some contextualisation for