Australianness in Our Art – A Snailbox Discussion Paper.
By
Frank McKoneFor the Centre for Creative & Cultural Research, University of Canberra Faculty of Arts and Design –
Producer: Kiri Morecombe
“The University of Canberra welcomes artists to our platform for creative community engagement projects.” I have been engaged in the Snailbox Project, and have also participated in the Keeping it Real – Seat at the Table Forum which was conducted in conjunction with the ACT Government, artsACT, Saturday June 4, 2022.
For the Canberra Critics’ Circle I have briefly reviewed
Nobody Talks About Australianness on our Screens by Sandy George: New Platform Papers No 3, June 2022: Currency House, Sydney.
https://frankmckone2.blogspot.com/2022/06/2022-new-platform-paper-no-3-by-sandy.html In this discussion paper, as a contribution for members of the Snailbox Project
https://creativeact.org.au/, I offer more detailed information from Sandy George’s Paper (at
www.currencyhouse.org.au ) and consideration of the meaning of her term “Australianness”, as well as follow-up suggestions for political action supporting the positive approach in the recent Commonwealth Government election, as demonstrated in the speech by the incoming Arts Minister, Tony Burke, at the ALP Arts Policy Launch.
https://www.tonyburke.com.au/speechestranscripts/2022/5/17/speech-labors-arts-policy-launch-the-espy-melbourne-16-may-2022 The first main thread of George’s Paper “is about how only Australian film and television delivers local cultural value to local audiences, about why less drama is available, why it is harder to find, why there is uncertainty about its future”. The key, she suggests, is “there is evidence everywhere of economic value taking priority over cultural value”.
Crucial information is in Chapter 3 -
Let’s talk about drama financing, change and consequence which begins:
“To raise enough money to make a major drama requires entrepreneurialism, and involves drawing on every scrap of experience at one’s disposal, exploiting every contact and deploying considerable
chutzpah. Traditionally and still, money comes from a variety of sources. In television, these are likely to include the local screening platform and a sales agent/distributor who will handle worldwide sales, and perhaps secure some before production commences. Federal and state governments are likely to be involved, and private investors as well. In a similar way, partners and finance must be cobbled together for feature films. Some partners will only pay upon delivery, which means turning to bankers and lenders. Interest charges can be very ugly. All projects will dream of great success. Few will achieve it, or earn big profits.”
A leading example is what happened to
Neighbours:
“Australia’s longest-running drama,
Neighbours, was cancelled after 37 years on air and almost 9,000 episodes because the UK broadcast partner Channel 5 wanted to divert its funding to original UK dramas. It is a crushing example of how a financing partner on the other side of the world can make a decision with monumental consequences for Australia. Thousands of practitioners have learned their craft on
Neighbours. The cancellation of the series has been likened to closing a film school.”
The irony is, of course, that without that external funding, Australia lost an iconic Australian drama.
After describing the changes happening in people’s viewing habits – about free-to-air television, cinema attendances for feature films, and the developments online of subscription video-on-demand, Chapter 4 -
Government offers financial incentives for both local and foreign drama takes up the key issue:
Taxpayer funding and rebates sit alongside regulation to assist Australian drama to get made.
First, there are regulations about the broadcasting of Australian content – “to ensure local drama is available in homes, although not as actively now as in the past, and it is not applied at all to SVODs or to cinemas.”
Then there are two kinds of financial incentives for the making of shows having Australian content: indirect tax rebates; and direct taxpayer funding.
The main rebate is called Producer’s Offset. The producer has to demonstrate the show is eligible first. Then they “send a box of receipts to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) once the project is finished, to get back 30% if it’s for the home screen, and 40% if it’s for cinemas. For features, at least $500,000 has to be spent to make any claim. For television it's either $500,000 or $1 million, depending on the format.”
It’s important to know that there is no upper limit set for the Producer’s Offset, so there is an incentive for foreign producers to make “Australian” shows, and are encouraged by the state governments to make them here – but with a focus on profit-making overseas, since the Australian market is relatively small. This is becoming a big issue with the development of the SVOD platforms, like Netflix, Stan etc, for home screen consumption, even more than with traditional feature films for cinemas.
The question is, what does Australian content mean? How do producers here and overseas interpret it – a story written by an Australian; a story set in Australia; a story filmed by Australians – or just teched by Australian technicians; a story acted by Australians (or maybe including just one who is famous); a story which ‘rings true’ to Australians – but may not be appreciated by people in other countries; a story with universal appeal with some connection to Australia?
The main source of direct taxpayer funding is Screen Australia and state governments’ departments like artsACT. This money is limited, but can be provided to a producer who also claims the Producer’s Offset. Of course the same questions of eligibility arise.
George explains funds are “given out at the discretion of Screen Australia staff and board members to a range of funding programs and initiatives, although applications are only eligible if they have the support of the market. ‘The agency provided more than $42 million in production funding for drama
titles in 2020/21,’ one media release reads:
That included $15.9 million for general television drama, $9 million
for features, $10.7 million for children’s television, $4.5 million for
online drama productions (SVODs and platforms such as TikTok
and YouTube) and $2.7 million for First Nations productions. A
further $22.6 million of additional funding was injected into the
industry in 2020/21 for drama development, documentary, talent
development, distribution, international marketing, festivals and
guild assistance.
For the record, Screen Australia received nearly $92 million from government that
year.”
In other words, the business of being an arts producer – a creative – even in a small local-scale business as for many I met in Snailbox and Keeping it Real, takes place within a huge world-wide conglomerate of arts activity; remembering as Sandy George points out that most other countries offer variations of financial inducements and regulations. In some cases, cultural stipulations are placed on what may or not be made or presented in that country; some may be seen as political propaganda or essentially national advertisement.
And some may wish to see their arts, as Minister Tony Burke puts it:
“And that’s why I want to talk today about cultural policy.
Because creativity that comes from this land isn’t important simply based on whether the rest of the world takes notice.
It isn’t important simply because of its commercial value, although the economic contribution of our creatives is immense.
To Australians, our creativity should matter simply because it’s ours. It happens here. Its roots drive deep into our home. Our stories matter because they are ours. And I am determined to shine a spotlight on our artwork, have our poetry spoken, our literature read, to fill the stalls and dress circles of our theatres, see the names of Australian creatives as the credits roll on screen, and crank up the volume to 11 for our music.”
It’s at this point that Sandy George’s distinction between art which has “Australianness”, and art which may merely have Australian content, must raise its head for discussion. The image I have in mind is that moment when the kangaroo’s ears flick-twist in my direction though she appears not to be aware of my presence. Does she recognise my humanness?
“Governments around the world support local film and television. Disbursement
methods vary enormously so comparing levels of support is difficult and there are no
global formulas for per capita contributions. There’s never discussion on how much Australia should put into drama with Australianness compared to drama without it, or the extent to which cultural value is trumped by economic value. A lot has changed in the production landscape in the 15 years since the rebates were introduced and they now need thorough examination from every angle.” George seems to define the distinction as between drama without Australianness being merely of economic value; while drama with Australianness has cultural value.
She provides an example of the recent
Fires six-part drama by Tony Ayres on ABC TV as a clear case with Australianness. I have no hesitation in agreeing with her response to the program:
“I had to see
Fires for work and otherwise would not have done so because in horror and shock I had watched the Australian countryside burn over and over on the nightly news in 2019. Others felt the same way. Sure enough, it reawakened my feelings of despair. But the experience also left behind the sensation that I’d sat holding hands with the people who lived through the trauma, listening intently to them while they told their confronting stories.”
The show was not funded by Screen Australia, but by the ABC and Tony Ayres Productions, which is backed by NBCUniversal/Matchbox Pictures.
Fires was supported by Film Victoria through the Victorian Screen Incentive and Regional Location Assistance Fund. From George’s report, I’m not sure who took the Producer’s Offset – Tony Ayres Productions perhaps, but I’m guessing more likely the US backer, NBC. It was clearly first embraced by Sally Riley at ABC TV.
The point of importance is that this is the kind of work which Screen Australia should be funding directly, rather than a foreign backer being needed. This means, I suggest, $92 million a year is not enough for searching out and investing in Australian original material – with Australianness – to outweigh the foreign investment money, so that Sandy George’s fear that our young generation will not see enough of our culture on their screens can be allayed.
But there is also the question of Australian material which should not be invested in because it fails to make the grade of sincerity of the Australian experience, which we so fortunately saw in
Fires. A feature of government regulation, for investment by Screen Australia or state governments, has to insist on presenting in the name of Australia – with it’s Producer’s Offset attraction – only work of that level of artistic quality. It’s not just a matter of saying to Netflix, or to a local entrepreneur pitching on Tik Tok, no more bland cop-shows or horror for the sake of horror – however popular they might be. Somebody – like lots of Sally Rileys – will be needed to keep our culture supported.
We do this sort of judgement-thing in the Australia Council, and perhaps a lottery like the British National Lottery is what we need to find the funds – not just for film on screens, but for all kinds of art projects.
But at the end of the day, there is still in my mind a worry that “Australianness” is an amorphous thing to imagine. It would be easy to say it must have that sense of ironic risktaking in the old cartoon “for Gor’sake, stop laughing” which has always defined the Australian way for me. But I represent only one – the Ten-Pound Pom – of all the different peoples who make up the Australian people as a whole. Can we insist on Australianness, with money attached, without losing our particular sense of humour, individuality, originality – our creativity as artists in an ever-evolving culture?
