Is the Victorian government's review of arts funding short-changing the arts?

. The recent release of a discussion paper by Arts Victoria on funding for organisations should be a major step in the development of the arts in Victoria. Yet, if we are looking to take a leap forward with better funding policies, we will be disappointed. The very idea of Arts Victoria undertaking a review of the arts-funding policies for which it has been the architect and administrator for many years is clearly inappropriate. It cannot be its principal investigator, prosecutor and defender all in one. Not only is it in a position of irretrievable conflict of interest, its own performance should be under scrutiny in any review. This in-principle concern was reinforced by the release of a discussion paper in May that is likely to prelude the introduction of new funding arrangements in September. In place of an informative critique of the outcomes of the existing funding program, the discussion paper has a pervasive promotional tone with no obvious purpose other than to justify Arts Victoria\u27s stewardship. Sweeping assertions about Victoria having "a reputation as Australia\u27s art and cultural capital" and that "it is widely acknowledged that Victoria has an advantage as a cultural leader" have no place in an investigative report. Neither are they supported by critical analysis. How is it, for instance, that Sydney is the crucible of so many of our truly national arts companies and Victoria so few, if Victoria is so favoured? Funding for organisations chews up the overwhelming majority of government spending on the arts and a review of that funding goes to the very core of arts strategy in Victoria. In 2012, Arts Victoria provided $31.5 million for arts organisations: $7 million for the seven major performing arts companies (such as the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and the Australian Ballet) which are funded under agreements with the Australia Council; and $24.5 million to the 73 small and medium companies funded annually or over several years. (The National Gallery of Victoria and Melbourne Recital Centre are government agencies that collectively account for $180 million a year but are not covered by this review.) The key question of public accountability — are Victorians getting value for our money? — is not even raised in the paper. Read more > Read the Arts Victoria May discussion paper. Image: davidyuweb / flick