Larvatus Prodeo

As a follow up to the discussion of the 2020 Creative Australia stream here, I’m reproducing (with permission) below the fold an article by Nicholas Pickard in today’s Crikey. Pickard writes about a group of delegates who are apparently so “incensed” that the recommendations didn’t reflect the ideas suggested or discussed that they’re now forming an advocacy group to hold Peter Garrett accountable. It’s intriguing that the invitees the government copped so much grief for having there in the first place seem to be the most dissatisfied of all the streams (it’s not as though a lot of the rest are shrinking violets when it comes to soliciting media coverage, unless they’re hiding their lights beneath a bushel while simultaneously gritting their teeth). It’s also interesting to see that Garrett has been unable to capitalise on the goodwill including the arts and culture crew inside the tent should have generated, suggesting that he might be a flop in both his portfolios (that’s if you accept, as I do, the argument that the signs are he’s not flash in Environment). Certainly the article seems to indicate that delegates blamed Garrett for putting in the fix rather than his two co-chairs.

Of course, we don’t know (yet?) who the dissenters are or how many delegates are unhappy. It could be that the anonymity approach might be a way of running a campaign to have the final report more accurately represent the discussions, and those concerned aren’t yet ready to go fully public with their criticisms.

Nicholas Pickard writes:

So incensed are the delegates that attended the Creative Australia strand of the 2020 summit, they are now forming an advocacy group from within to keep a check on the Federal Government.

What’s angered the delegates to this point? The censorship of ideas within the Initial Summit Report, which have been replaced by other ideas that were never discussed.

“We got hints this was going to happen when the statement which came out bore no relation to what came from us,” one delegate tells Crikey, “It is clear that it came from a pre-existing agenda.”

Many of the delegates are still holding their tongues until the final report, which is due out in a few weeks. But that hasn’t stopped the delegates exchanging contact details and setting cyberspace alight with emails, proposals and furious debate about what to do if their real recommendations continue to be ignored.

Some of the ideas put forward by the delegates that have so far been gone missing include:

- The formation of an organisation to work with planners, developers and architects to ensure that good design is a core requirement for every building and public space

- Develop a whole of industry national screen strategy with government taking culture out of the US Free Trade Agreement

What has amazed the delegates is that the initial report somehow changed ideas like develop “closer links between industry professionals and schools” into “Creativity Summer Schools”.

“No-one ever mentioned summer schools,” Crikey has been told by another delegate. “And the first time I heard about the Indigenous proposals was when the report was released on the Sunday.”

This is not to mention the contentious idea (also published in the initial report) which proposed that creative endeavours be funded “through a 1% creative dividend from all Government Departments for expenditure”.

“Everyone in that room knew that Queensland had tried that idea and that it had failed. I don’t know how that got put forward either,” the delegate explained.

“I went to the summit with an open mind,” another stated. “But every now and again Peter Garrett would come up to each of the groups saying he didn’t need to listen to us because he had total faith in us. My scepticism rose each time he said it.”

Another delegate added that, “I don’t believe that he [Garrett] is bearing ill will and I do think he genuinely wants to listen. But this is compromised by political ambition and his essential powerlessness within the ALP. I wish we had a smarter arts minister.”

If 2020 was just a publicity exercise as some commentators have suggested, then the Federal Government may get a lot more than it bargained for.

“The summit has created a motivated group of diverse people who realised that we all have a lot in common,” another attendee has told Crikey. “Everyone realised that other people outside the stream were saying they needed the arts.”

If the make-up of the advocacy group is anything like the chosen delegates then there should be concern within the arts community at the real lack of practising artists. Almost all of the attendees were from funded institutions and the corporate sector, with gaping holes around music and new media.

Either way, 2020 provided a rare opportunity for the often fragmented Australian arts community to unite and share ideas. Let’s just hope that Garrett’s short-staffed and over-worked arts advisers are on their toes because after eleven years of suffocation, the industry is more than determined to get some real results through Government policy.