Politicians continually associate themselves with sport and sporting success and yet at the national level are virtually absent from any meaningful discussion or involvement with the arts.

Consequently we lack a national debate about the current state of health of the creative arts sector, including the future of our cultural industries where a number of key areas like film, dance and medium sized theatre are struggling.

Australians have always produced and enjoyed art in all its forms, from the poetry of Henry Lawson to the intense paintings of Imants Tillers. And artistic expression has always been central to Indigenous culture too.

Although in earlier times distinctions were drawn between high and low arts, towards the end of the last century this artificial delineation was ebbing away.

That is until the arts became caught in the crossfire of the so-called culture wars and anti-arts voices found space to air their views.

The definition of philistine is someone who “expresses opposition to the liberal arts (and) resistance to government patronage of the arts”.

Today’s political philistines are not all necessarily implacable opponents of liberal arts; there is a coterie of right-wing commentators who fulfil that role.

Although the campaign in Federal Parliament several years ago, led by prominent government members including Health Minister Tony Abbott, against abstract art in the parliamentary collection, described at the time as “avant-garde crap”, was as good an expression of philistinism as you’d ever see.

Betty Churcher’s review of the politicians’ so-called concerns found that some members simply “object to all abstract art - seeing it as elite and not representative of broader Australia.”

I wonder how they explain the huge queues of people lined up to see the Picasso exhibit in Melbourne recently.

But the fact remains that many leaders and dominant commentators appear indifferent to the idea that Australia should aim to enlarge its artistic capacity, and willing, on some occasions, to reinforce the notion that somehow the arts is elitist and not important to Australians.

I ask a simple question: can you remember the last time a senior member of the Federal Government, with the exception of the soon to retire Minister for the Arts, stood up, hand on heart, and declared their strong support and unbridled enthusiasm for Australian art and culture?

Can you remember the last time the Prime Minister or the Treasurer offered up their view on the value of creativity, of encouraging expression, of the importance of telling our own stories?

It is no secret that the number of unmet invitations to senior government ministers to arts events continues to pile up to the roof. There is no ‘theatre tragic’ to equate with the Prime Minister’s ‘cricket tragic’.

Indeed Sydney Theatre Company director Robyn Nevin made headlines a few years ago when she observed that, “A new railway can attract the presence of the Prime Minister…but the opening of a new theatre…also of national and international significance, can’t.”

Yet attendance at the various football codes is de rigueur for pollies of all persuasions.

In July this year in the midst of yet another funding crisis besetting the esteemed Sydney Dance Company leading choreographer Graeme Murphy resigned in desperation saying, “How can the arts flourish in a society where war and sport take centre stage?”

Notwithstanding that the government had found some money to tide them over, decades of trying to maintain the viability of a leading performance company, constantly struggling to remain afloat, had taken its toll on Murphy.

A day later, and amid the frenzy created by the Socceroos, state premiers and the Prime Minister agreed to provide joint support for an Australian bid to host the football world cup.

Subsequently the Sydney Morning Herald reported that any such bid was expected to cost between $ 20 million and $ 30 million. The irony would not have been lost on observers of the arts scene in Australia - soccer 1, dance nil.

It should go without saying that a wealthy country like Australia can afford to support and encourage both fields of endeavour, but the question of what should we spend our money on and should we consider greater investment in the arts, simply isn’t asked.

I confess to enjoying a day out at the footy as much as anyone and there is nothing exceptional about this. I’m hoping the Swans will get up at the AFL Grand Final in two days time.

But as long as there is an absence of senior political voices that are willing to speak up for and defend the arts, it will continue to be relegated to the periphery of the national debate.

One consequence of the attacks on ‘cultural elites’ from the right is that it has aroused latent hostility towards those who practise and enjoy the arts.

Of course it’s an easy target for the media to belittle funding for experimental art and the constant labelling of those who like the arts as the ‘café latte set’, merely “dabbling” with their preoccupations is now almost an article of faith amongst some commentators.

One feels there is also a lurking suspicion in the minds of electorally sensitive politicians that the demise of Paul Keating came about, in part, due to his role as the last national leader willing to champion the arts.
 
Of course it’s often the case that these same ‘café latte’ artists are speakers of their ‘truth’, who are often fearless in their representation of politics and society and on issues like refugee policy or Indigenous affairs, and hence the indifference swings to outbursts of enmity.

It was no coincidence that the creative community was amongst those most opposed to the government’s sedition laws contained in Anti Terror Bill No 2.

Labor is committed to repealing this aspect of the government’s legislation. Despite an Australian Law Reform Commission report expressing concern at the sedition laws and the many voices raised in opposition the Attorney-General Mr Ruddock is pressing ahead.                          

-------------------

Yet Australia stands at the cusp of a creative renaissance where the twin forces of creativity and technology, if encouraged and harnessed, can transform our economy and enrich our culture.

The international experience is that people thrive on creativity, they are increasingly engaging in the arts in many different ways and along with what are described as the ‘intrinsic’ value of the arts, there are also tangible economic benefits that accompany creative output.

Creativity is thriving in countries that value and support the creative process.

The UK, New Zealand and South Korea are just three examples of countries who have embraced the notion of building creative industries.

In London, as Professor Stuart Cunningham from Queensland University of Technology has noted, the creative industries, encompassing fields as diverse as advertising, software design and the traditional creative arts, come second only to the business services sector in terms of economic growth, generating employment for around 600,000 people, constituting some 4% of the UK’s export income.

The New Zealand film industry too is undergoing strong growth as a result of the government’s targeting of the creative industries as one of three key sectors under a “growth and innovation framework”; I seriously doubt we could easily make a Lord of the Rings trilogy here.

What is clear from recent research is that the creative industry’s contribution to things like employment and economic activity has previously been underestimated.

With a wage and salary figure in Australia estimated at over $ 20 billion, those employed directly within the creative industries as well as those in creative occupations ‘embedded’ in other industries account for almost half a million jobs. 

It is the case that there is exciting work happening on a number of fronts in Australia. And we have our share of outstanding talents including many who succeed abroad and given these figures, good reason to energetically develop policy which promotes creative industries.

After calling for submissions to inform Federal Labor’s Arts Policy Discussion Paper it’s clear that, despite the presence of much good creative work, an air of general pessimism pervades the sector.

The view from artists, arts entrepreneurs, producers, various arts organisations, some commentators and academics was that the Australian arts sector, struggling in some areas as a creative enterprise, is in danger of stalling.

And in the critical area of visual arts education, an issue that you are discussing at this conference, there are noted and serious shortcomings in curricula, resources and approach.

A snapshot of the arts from a federal perspective in 2006 looks something like this.

Federal funding remains on a relatively static track, and in the last budget funding measures consisted mainly of what I’ve described as repair and resuscitation.

Once you take away overdue infrastructure repair, maintenance and rescue programs for those crisis-ridden parts of the sector, take away the ABC local drama fund, renewal of existing programs and the establishment of yet another Canberra institution, the ‘Gallery of Australian Democracy’, we’re left with around $ 10 million of funding, one tenth of the $ 100 million figure Senator Kemp has claimed represents the Federal Government’s commitment to the arts.

Australia runs a growing deficit in cultural goods of $ 2.7 billion (2002-03), and the proportion of direct support the arts sector receives is miniscule.

The clear and present crisis in the areas of medium sized theatre, film and medium sized dance require urgent attention.

And there is a sense of bewilderment that at a time of relative economic prosperity, for many artists the common experience is living in a state of perpetual poverty, with a miserly average ‘creative income’ of           $ 17,000 p.a. and a lack of opportunity to practice that which they have prepared and trained for all their lives.

The opportunities offered through employment in the major performing companies and flagship arts organisations are the exception rather than the rule.

Many artists live hand-to-mouth, week by week, and are still seen, in some quarters, as lacking credibility because, it is asserted, they don’t have a ‘real’ job.

And the welfare system which many artists interact with reflects this same prejudice.

For arts entrepreneurs their challenge revolves around the barriers to enabling dynamic arts activity, in film and media, to happen.

The film industry which relies on a healthy level of government patronage at federal and state levels is at the cross roads.

It’s a cottage industry stuck in neutral, with fewer and less successful films being made and a haemorrhaging of local talent to offshore locations.

The recently announced review of Australian Government Film Funding Support by Minister Kemp comes at the eleventh hour and is widely recognised as the last chance to revive this key industry.

There are bright signs with the emergent games and digital animation industries experiencing strong growth and increasing capacity to export overseas.

But the clear message from this industry is that they’ve done it in spite of, not because of, a supportive framework from within Australia.

For those industries that do operate within the global environment, a harmonisation of support, taxation and regulatory measures which compare with our major international competitors is urgently needed.

So too there is a critical need to encourage and protect Indigenous culture, affirming the positive role it plays in the social and economic well being of communities and in enlarging our shared sense of what it means to be Australian.

The government’s recent decision, announced in the last budget, to abandon the introduction of a resale royalty right for visual artists particularly disadvantages Indigenous artists, who, although they often experience significant appreciation in the value of their work, are denied the fruits of their talent.

Labor would introduce a resale royalty scheme for visual artists, and ensure Aboriginal arts centres, which play a critical role in developing Indigenous art, are properly supported.

More importantly there is an urgent need to expand and encourage greater investment into the arts so as to provide a greater level of private as well as government support.

There is also an urgent need to expand the research framework and grants programs like the R&D Tax Concession scheme to include creative projects that fall outside the science and technology criteria.

Importantly in the international realm we need to remove the ideological shutters the government erects in relation to the UN, and work cooperatively and consistently in particular at the General Conference of UNESCO.

It is extraordinary that Australia was one of four countries to abstain from voting on the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which was supported by an overwhelming majority of states.

In order to refresh their vision and produce new work, companies and artists must take risks, and failure must be accepted as part of that risk-taking; but the fiscal fragility that many arts organisations face means that risk that doesn’t pay off in financial terms can be fatal.

Consequently Labor has identified the primary task for providing a sustainable framework for federal funding and support over the long term, and to move away from the cyclical, crisis driven approach that has characterised funding of the arts sector over the past decade and longer.

And in relation to the existing reviews being undertaken into school music education and now visual art education, where discussion papers have been released, stakeholders consulted and, in the case of music education, summits downgraded to a ‘workshop’, that the recommendations are acted upon, including with the necessary resources.

Labor’s starting point is to recognise the work that artists produce gives an immeasurable sustaining dimension to the life of the nation and that the arts as a significant field of endeavour are worthy of support in their own right.

We are committed to expanding the scope of Labor’s arts policy, which has previously emphasised creativity, access and participation to include education, innovation and excellence.

We are resolutely committed to freedom of artistic expression and to strict arms length funding, recognising that both private and public investment in the arts is critical.

You would be well aware of the growing body of evidence showing that there are real benefits for children in creative learning and I believe all Australian students should have the opportunity to learn and experience creative writing, visual arts, film/video making, digital creation and crafts, music and performance whilst in school.

I am very mindful of the need for policy makers at federal and state levels to now consider the serious shortfalls in the provision of music and contemporary visual art education. This is important if we are to encourage a lifelong enjoyment of the arts and create future audiences and consumers of art.

It is also important that students, inhabiting a rapidly changing, digitally driven, multi faceted media environment, have the tools to understand and utilise it.

--------------------

In the absence of champions for the arts that can be called on to advance the argument that Australia’s well-being – cultural and economic – is linked to its creative vitality, the task of enlarging our artistic reach and deepening our cultural reservoir is that much harder.

Yet the legacy of investing in and supporting art and artists and providing the means for people, especially young people, to grow their arts experience, is immense.

And when the cheering in the sporting arena dies down the great works of the imagination will remain.

They connect us to our past, they inspire us in the present, and no matter our current circumstances, they open up all kinds of possibilities for the future.