Posts

When Art Crosses the Line

,

Why are taxpayers bankrolling art projects that cross the line from “expression” into outright extremism?

Creative Australia admitted to funding nearly $100,000 for events linked to an artist who has publicly praised a listed terrorist organisation and celebrated violence.

We also learned that $48,000 went to an exhibition that mocked public figures and pushed divisive political messaging, followed by another $318,000 from the department for the same project.

Everyday Australians are sick of seeing their money poured into insider art projects that promote radical politics instead of strengthening community culture.

One Nation get’s labelled as “divisive” for asking when taxpayer funding will start serving Australians, not ideology.

Labor keeps batting accusations back and forth like a game of political tennis, but we’re not here to play – we’re here to get answers for taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $1.692 million to Diversity Arts Australia, DARTS, which is the national voice for ethnocultural and migrant racial equity in the arts, cultural and creative industries. Their primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections for women and DEI related purposes’. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy groups to influence government policy? Where’s the arts funding here? This is advocacy, research and brokering connections. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy?  

Mr Blackwell: One of the functions of Creative Australia is to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia. I’m not sure about the amount of funding over what period you’re referring to, but that may well be activities that allow us to perform this function.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why are we funding this? The primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections’. Why are we funding advocacy? Basically, advocacy is funding advocacy groups to influence government policy. Where’s the art?  

Senator Green: I’m not familiar with that project, so we’d have to take it on notice. I don’t know if the officials from Creative Australia have more information for you about what that project or that organisation is doing. Obviously, some organisations are funded for a particular project, so they might have some more explanation for you.  

Mr Blackwell: We do, actually. Thank you, Minister. Diversity Arts Australia are a delivery partner to service the organisations under the community, arts and cultural development stream of our funding. Those organisations that we classify as delivery partners provide services to the arts sector. They strengthen the arts sector, and they allow the arts sector to leverage more value through that connection. That is the connection through to the arts sector and how we would then fulfil that function to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You used some nice buzzwords in there—delivery, diversity, leverage. But you didn’t tell me why you’re funding advocacy. Advocacy is not art.  

Mr Blackwell: No, but it’s advocacy for the arts. It’s not lobbying; it’s advocacy for the arts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding that?  

Mr Blackwell: Because that’s part of our remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, RP? Can you give a quick explanation of that, please?  

Mr Blackwell: Sorry; could you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, and could you give a quick explanation if it is?  

Mr Blackwell: I would say that we have a responsible process for issuing our grants from start to finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that incorporate a responsible person for each grant?  

Mr Blackwell: Could you define ‘responsible person’ for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you if it includes that. It doesn’t sound like it does.  

Senator Green: Perhaps you need to provide the context of what you’re referring to—the agreement or the consideration of the application. You may have to give us a guide on what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps it’ll come out in the more detailed questions.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $197,500 to a recipient called Click Ink Inc. for the Bankstown Poetry Slam. They describe themselves: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power, and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by, and disaffected with, systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism, solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ That’s the end of the quote. Events include ‘They call me the good Muslim’, ‘I am Palestinian’ and related pro-Palestinian events. My question is simple. Why are taxpayer dollars funding propaganda? This isn’t art; it’s politics. 

Mr Blackwell: I would say that it is art. I’d have to disagree with you. I would say that it is art. Poetry slams are a common and popular form of artistic expression in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go through the quote again: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by and disaffected with systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism and solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ This sounds like it’s very divisive and pushing an ideology, not art. It doesn’t bother you?  

Senator Green: Art can be political or non-political. You might not like that type of art, but it might be what other people choose to express. It might be a form of expression for them, or there might be an audience for that type of art. I think it’s wrong to say that art can’t be political or shouldn’t be political in some sort of way. Otherwise, we might have a lot of pictures of fields but we wouldn’t have any generation of debate or discussion through the use of art. Are you suggesting that there should be no politics in any songs, music, plays or artistic expression?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying it’s okay for your government to push ideological issues as politics.  

Senator Green: No, that’s not what’s happening here.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what’s happening.  

Senator Green: No. This is funding for artistic expression projects. I thought One Nation was the party of freedom of expression, so I’m a little confused about why you would want to stifle people’s views even if you don’t agree with them and even if you don’t agree with the art. You might not want to go to the poetry slam, but it doesn’t mean that art can’t be political in some way.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are not in favour of government funding government propaganda and government ideology.  

Senator Green: But you are in favour of freedom of expression, aren’t you?  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but not funded by government necessarily.  

Senator Green: Only when it suits you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not funded by government.  

Senator Green: Only the freedom of expression that you—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re defending propaganda from your own government.  

Senator Green: No, it’s not propaganda. The views of the artists might not support our government, but we don’t think that that is a reason why particular art shouldn’t be supported. To make my final point for your next question, the law that was passed in 2023 made it very clear that the government has no role in the funding decisions so that any type of government that might be in power can’t influence the independent funding decisions to alleviate the particular issues that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’m heading—accountability. Here’s an example. The registered person for this organisation—presumably, it’s registered with you. I don’t know who it’s registered with. The registered person for this organisation is Bilal Hafda, who said on social media that ‘any Australian who fails to support Palestinians who attacked Israel is a white supremacist’. Another registered person is Sara Saleh, who celebrated the Hamas terrorist aerial attack on Israel on her social media. Is there any rule in your grant guide that precludes grants from being used for political purposes?  

Mr Blackwell: In our funding agreements, we have conditions. If you give me a moment, I’ll find it. Our funding agreements have a condition that says that ‘it is a condition of your funding that you comply with all applicable state, territory and Commonwealth work, health and safety and antidiscrimination laws’.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it?  

Mr Blackwell: And we refer them to Safe Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information on those applicable laws. So that is—  

Senator ROBERTS: So celebrating terrorists is okay?  

Mr Blackwell: I—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go on. Ali Al Haj Hussein, who is also known as the Poetic Ninja, has won multiple awards at the Bankstown Poetry Slam. He has praised Hezbollah—declared terrorists—as ‘men of God’, praised the 7 October murders as ‘just the beginning’, promised to ‘drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell’ and used an implicit threat of violence in a poem at the Sydney Writers Festival, where he called for the downfall of the western empire and all its debauchery, including in a general context the same 2SLGBTQQIPAA community your grants are advancing. Does this sound to you like a great day out for the family to listen to poetry? This isn’t art or free expression. It’s an incitement to violence against the Australian community. Why are you funding it? 

Mr Blackwell: I can tell you, in terms of the funding, the grant was $98,000—  

Senator ROBERTS: Nearly a hundred thousand dollars.  

Mr Blackwell: and the project summary, which was funded, was monthly themed poetry slam events; the grand slam championship, Real Talk; high-school poetry programs; the National Youth Poetry Slam; and the development of the Brave New Word Youth Poetry Festival at the Powerhouse Museum. That’s what we funded.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are funding multiple awards for someone praising a terrorist group and wanting to drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell—an implicit threat of violence.  

Mr Blackwell: I’m not aware of that quotation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you are now. Moving on to the artist Kait James and her Red Flags exhibition, this was partly funded by Creative Australia with a grant of $48,000 on 28 November 2023. As the title suggests, this exhibition decided certain people and events were red flags to the Aboriginal community and proceeded to insult these people and events using a series of pennants and tea towels. One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was mocked, and Captain Cook had his eyes crossed out and was called a c-u-n-t. This is kindergarten art. You talk about not being political, Minister. Why does everything you or Creative Australia fund which could be considered political aim to promote radical causes, including radical Islam, and attack conservatives and everyday Australians? Where’s the balance? This is divisive, and it’s pushing a Marxist ideology. Why are you funding only one side?  

Mr Blackwell: In regard to Kait James’s Red Flags, we funded it for $48,000 under an arts project grant for the development of the artwork. We weren’t involved in putting on that exhibition. The grant has been acquitted. Within that, there is content which we would say falls into freedom of artistic expression. It may offend some people, Senator, but not necessarily all people. There may be satire in it. All of these things form part of artistic expression.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition, the same one I just raised. Was the criticism of a political rival the quid pro quo for making such a large grant, and what pot of taxpayer money did that grant come from? Where did the money come from?  

Senator Green: First of all, to make it clear, the funding was provided through Creative Australia. It’s not a decision of government; it’s a decision of Creative Australia. But I take your point. The art is not to my taste, but people are entitled to express their views in different ways. I note that viewers of the exhibition were provided a warning about the fact that the art depicted themes and images related to historical and ongoing systematic racism and discrimination and included critique of the artist’s perspectives and strong language. Viewer discretion was advised, so certainly people who wanted to view that art were given fair warning. As I said, it’s not something that I necessarily would consider. I wouldn’t have done it myself, and it probably isn’t something I would go to see, but people are entitled to respect the views of individuals and to present their views in different ways.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your answer, Creative Australia gave a grant of $48,000, which Mr Blackwell confirmed.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition. That would seem to me to be outside the Creative Australia funds. So where did that money come from? What pot of gold in the department did that money come from?  

Senator Green: You are correct. Sorry; I thought you were talking about the grant from Creative Australia for the development of the exhibition.  

Senator ROBERTS: No—the $318,000.  

Senator Green: There was funding under the Office for the Arts, who were with us a bit earlier. Apologies; those officials have left. You won’t be able to ask them about the funding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can ask you, though.  

Senator Green: Yes, but I’m not an official, so I will have to take it on notice if I don’t have enough information for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When you come back with your answer on notice, could you tell us whether or not this was political quid pro quo for a political rival.  

Senator Green: Definitely not. I don’t need to take that on notice. I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that we don’t fund art because we want to attack One Nation. We can do that if we just walk up to the press gallery.  

Senator ROBERTS: For ministers, it’s much cheaper to walk up to the press gallery, hey?  

Senator Green: You should go up to the press gallery! They can ask you some questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to it. Minister, everyday Australians are sick of taxpayers’ money being spent on insider projects and social engineering. We had embarrassment from your government yesterday on this. When will your government listen to them?  

Senator Green: We do listen to Australians. We’ve just finished consultation on the most recent cultural policy. It’ll be the first time Australia’s ever had two national cultural policies in a row. You will remember the release of the Revive cultural policy. So we do give Australians an opportunity to give us feedback on what our cultural policy should be. We’re making sure that that development of that policy takes into consideration all of those views.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you push ideologically driven, divisive policies that split the Australian community?  

Senator Green: I think that’s what you and One Nation do, Senator—respectfully—and unfortunately we’re seeing that more and more from the Liberal and National parties as they try to join you in that fight.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thanks, Mr Blackwell.

/1 Comment/by

Political Extremism and the Public Purse

,

I raised with Creative Australia the “rumoured” $800,000 grant to Sara M. Saleh. While the CEO, Mr. Collette, could not confirm this specific figure, he did clarify that artist Khaled Sabsabi, whose political views have been a point of contention, has received over $800,000 from the agency over the last 20 years, including his current representation of Australia at the Venice Biennale.

I questioned why a commercial entity like APRA, with record revenues of $740 million, requires $4.3 million in taxpayer-funded grants. This raises the question: should public money subsidise the talent development of a profitable private firm? We must ask if these funds are supporting growth or simply replacing private capital.

I also sought clarity on the accounting for Aboriginal arts programs. It was confirmed that approximately $32.1 million is dedicated to First Nations creative practice out of a total grant pool of $285 million.

Several questions have been put on notice. I will wait for the exact figures on overseas spending, recent grants to Mr. Sabsabi, and the specific KPIs from their annual report to ensure that “investment” isn’t just a buzzword for unchecked spending.

My focus remains on ensuring that government funding serves the Australian public effectively and stays clear of political extremism.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My first question is on behalf of a constituent, who provided it, actually. It is a fact check on social media reports that Sara M Saleh, a Palestinian Australian writer, activist and human rights lawyer, has received an $800,000 grant from Creative Australia. We can’t find anything on your website, and it’s a larger grant than usual. Do you have any information on this?  

Mr Collette: I don’t have specific information. If you let me speculate for one moment, I think that, if it were a grant of that size, I would be aware of it. But we will have to take that on notice to check it.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.  

Mr Collette: You have to remember that we give about 3,700 grants and contracts a year.  

Senator ROBERTS: In reviewing your grants, we can see a lot that appear to be for the purpose of sending Australians overseas. My question is not criticism at this point. Please explain how much was spent sending artists or students overseas and what the cost benefit for taxpayers was.  

Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice and get you the final figure. But, yes, we do invest in programs to send artists overseas. That is done for the best possible reasons: to support their careers and to make sure that great Australian storytelling and music making are experienced overseas. I’d ask you to keep this in mind, particularly in the fields of literature and contemporary music: we are a relatively small English-speaking market competing increasingly against very large English-speaking markets. Since the establishment of Revive, in particular, we’ve doubled down on supporting Australian artists to establish their careers overseas. We are at a particular moment now in contemporary music, for example, where we find that Australians have never listened to more music, because of streaming services, but that the Australian artists they are listening to constitute only about eight per cent of that. So we have a big challenge ahead of us. The way we are working in contemporary music, in particular, is through matched and incentive grants, which I think is a great development in Creative Australia. We have a very strong eye on export. We will co-invest in an artist and a career with a record label with other forms of matched funding that are trying to break this artist overseas.  

Senator ROBERTS: Khaled Sabsabi and his extremist political views have been an issue for Creative Australia. First, he was our Venice Biennale selection, then he wasn’t, then he is again—perhaps—then he had a large grant, then it was a $100,000 ‘sorry’ grant. Can you provide us the latest on Khaled Sabsabi, please? What sort of money is he being given? Is he representing us in any way?  

Mr Collette: He’s representing us, I’m very pleased to say, at the Venice Biennale, which opens in May this year. You’re aware of the history. We recommissioned Khaled Sabsabi as the artist and Michael Dagostino as his curator. We have worked very closely, as we do with all our Venice artists, to support the development of their work.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much money has he received from Creative Australia?  

Mr Collette: All up, we believe he’s received slightly in excess of $800,000 over a 20-year period. That includes his commissions for Venice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the last 12 months?  

Mr Collette: In the last 12 months he’s received—I’m trying to get the dates right in my head—his commission for Venice and he’s also applied for, competitively, and received a grant. Actually, more accurately, I think the South Australian gallery did to ensure that the work he does in Venice is able to be brought home so that Australians get to enjoy the work as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: What would that total in the last 12 months?  

Mr Collette: To get you an exact number, I’d have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Moving on, I note your continued strong spending on orchestras, theatre and dance. Thank you for that. This question goes to accounting, not to Australian values. You list the Australian Cultural Fund at $13.5 million, which includes several programs for First Nations. Then you have a line item for First Nations of $15.6 million. Is this figure the total spend for dedicated First Nations and Aboriginal arts programs or just an element of it? If not, what was the total spend on Aboriginal grants?  

Mr Collette: We can get you that number. I think the number you are alluding to—the $15 million—under Revive we established a dedicated First Nations fund with its own First Nations board that has decision-making rights over the spending of those funds.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you give money to the board and they disburse it?  

Mr Collette: Yes. We had that fund, and the First Nations board, appointed by the minister, has decision making rights on how that fund is invested. What I’m trying to get for you is the total—I think the total for 2024- 25 invested in First Nation creative practice and arts was $32.1 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: To give the figure context, for those new to the subject, this is out of a total spent on grants of $285 million—correct?  

Mr Collette: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And about $74 million for orchestras, including regional.  

Mr Collette: As a part of the creative sector, the orchestras constitute our biggest area of funding. That is as part of the National Partnership Framework. Importantly, that is an understanding of co-investment with all the states and territories as well. We fund each of the state orchestras, plus the territory orchestras. We co-invest with the states.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I note that the Australasian Performing Right Association, APRA, has received around $4.3 million in grants in the last three years. APRA had record revenue last year of $740 million, with revenue noticeably outpacing inflation. Isn’t it their job to develop local talent and then benefit from increased Australian airplay and the royalties they collect from their talent? They have a great business model here, it seems. Why are taxpayers funding a commercial operation that should be funding new talent themselves?  

Mr Collette: They do indirectly fund new talent, because their business collects receipts for—  

Senator ROBERTS: So why should you be funding it?  

Mr Collette: Well, the most particular thing we do with APRA is fund Sounds Australia. That is an organisation that we have funded historically, and we chose to continue that funding, even after the establishment of Music Australia, because it is such an effective way of supporting Australian artists to get to and benefit from overseas markets.  

Senator ROBERTS: But can’t the Australasian Performing Right Association—which are a commercial entity, by the sound of it—do it on their own? They’re developing the talent and they’re making money off it.  

Mr Collette: You’ll have to ask them that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re giving them money, so you—  

Mr Collette: We’re giving them money because we think it is very good value for money, given the expertise they bring to supporting Australian artists to get to overseas markets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you replacing private funding with government funding?  

Mr Collette: Not at all. In fact, it’s growing, I’m happy to say. To get back to first principles, under Revive, our revised legislation allowed us, really for the first time, to co-invest. That means co-invest with philanthropic interests. It means co-invest with commercial interests. That is why, for example, if we want to invest in Australian artists getting overseas, we can ensure that we are co-investing with commercial interests to try and drive the value of our government funding further.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are only a few more quick questions to go. Doesn’t the music industry need more live venues? Have you done any grants in that area?  

Mr Collette: I don’t think we’ve done any grants specifically into live venues, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: You call these grants ‘investments’, yet we don’t see any mention of a return on investment—how Australia benefited from the spend. How many people attended events that you funded? 

Mr Collette: We do have that number. I will get it to you. In the last annual report it was upwards of $14 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: do you have any performance metrics to ensure that you are spending where the public want it spent, as evidenced by ticket sales, artwork sales—some tangible KPI?  

Mr Collette: Yes, we do. If you look at our annual report, we report against KPIs, and attendance at the events we fund is very much part of that. Again, because of Revive, we will be putting an even greater emphasis on audience and market development going forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where can we get that figure?  

Mr Collette: We can get it for you. It is in the annual report last published.  

Senator ROBERTS: Send us that on notice.  

Mr Collette: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

Australia Council Manifesto is Art Propaganda

The Creative Australia bill 2023 is more about politics than art. It is legislation designed to modernise the Australia Council, but in reality it’s driving artists and writers overseas in search of art and culture.

Modernising art has resulted in a era where junk is put on display in the town square and the real works of art are being torn down. Creative Australia celebrates the primacy of left-wing controlled politics over entertainment, humour, culture and class.

The injection of a staggering $286 million into a new Creative Australia in the coming year is an unwarranted extravagance at this time. It’s the kind of expenditure you would never expect to see when a country is in economic and health crises. Many Australians are struggling with mental health issues and seeking help — the kind of professional help that the government cut by $200 million last year.

Instead of welding politics to the arts we should allow the people to genuinely reward artwork and other creative works that appeal to them. Let the public decide what they genuinely connect with. Artists that produce rubbish should not be funded and flattered because of their politics.

More deserving artists are being shut out of Creative Australia because of wokism. It’s no wonder Australians are going overseas for their culture.

You cannot buy culture Minister Burke, no matter how much taxpayers’ money you throw at it.

Transcript

As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our great Queensland community—our one great Queensland community—I rise to speak on the Creative Australia Bill 2023. It is legislation that is so out of touch that it’s my duty—indeed my pleasure—to make remarks on this legislation, which implements a previous bill to modernise the Australia Council. ‘Modernisation’ is a word few Australians wish to hear when it comes to the arts. Modern art, with its ugly exterior and substandard political shouting, is the reason so many Australians turn their back on the local arts community, sadly, choosing instead to seek their cultural fix overseas, amongst the historical buildings and ruins and the splendour of Western civilisation. A single marble pillar from the Roman age holds more fascination to the typical Australian than the entire offering of last year’s Australia Council. Despite the terrifying amount of money spent on the arts, it’s not the beating heart of Australian culture. It’s a desert of talent, accentuated with outcrops of brutalism, obscurity, absurdity—installations made from literal trash, the obscene, the lazy and the inconsequential masquerading as talent.

Creative Australia celebrates the primacy of left-wing controlled politics over entertainment, humour, culture and class. Minister Burke has taken up his position on the throne presiding over this self-indulgent mess—this slop. To stop the overpaid leaders of the art world snapping at his ankles, he’s decided to throw even more taxpayer money at them. It’s a terrible shame, because the real artists and writers of Australia are forced to leave our country and seek a career overseas, where the merit of their work is valued above the artist’s identity.

Creative Australia and Minister Burke are failing the real arts community and, with that, failing everyday Australians, failing our country. Remember, this is the era when local councils erect bits of junk in the town square while tearing down bronze and stone statues—works of real, actual art, erected to honour the real builders of Australia. Our so-called arts community is busy deconstructing its historical betters while replacing them with nothing of lasting merit. It’s no wonder the Australia Council had to spend money on surveys, trying to work out why their performances are empty and, as a result, changing their name, not their product. That’s what seems to be the outcome.

Modernisation, the key part of this proposal, can be best illustrated by using a scene outside the Melbourne art gallery. By the way, yes, this really happened. Imagine this: customers were queueing to gain access to a collection of Renaissance masters while a modern piece of installation art outside involved adults dressed as sheep, pretending to eat the grass and baa baaing at the customers. Can you believe this!

Senator McGrath: Yes, I do!

Senator Roberts: That’s the sad part! Considering this was before the age of COVID, perhaps we should have taken that as a warning for how eager modernity is to embrace a sheeplike existence. Suck it up!

In the middle of an economic crisis, as a result of government overreaction and wastage in the COVID years, the government has decided to undertake an unnecessary refurnishing of the arts, using money taken from places where it would have actually done some damn good. Modernising the arts and needlessly rebranding its bureaucracy is something a bored government does on a slow day when it’s rolling in a surplus, not when we’re in a crisis—a financial crisis, an economic crisis, a moral crisis, a social crisis.

First, we sat through Minister Burke and his 14 town hall meetings, worth $40,000, so that he could introduce himself to the cultural sector, apparently forgetting that he is caretaker of an existing and well-known department and not a freshly appointed CEO with a fragile ego. Instead of spending $40,000 of taxpayers’ money on himself, perhaps Minister Burke could have given that money to the cultural sector and sent out a few tweets saying, ‘Hi,’ or maybe ‘G’day,’ and called the whole thing done. Maybe that’s what he could have done.

The rest of the legislation behaves like the Tim Tam genie’s infinite arts grants. We are told that in order to deliver the national cultural policy, of which this legislation is in service, $286 million will be provided in the next financial year—$286 million in 12 months. That’s more than a quarter of a billion dollars. For perspective, $200 million is roughly the cost of the one million mental health appointments that the Labor government decided to cut from Medicare last year. Labor has looked at where that money should be spent and decided it’s better off being handed over to this new Creative Australia and not on psychology sessions for Australians struggling with mental health.

What is it that the Australian taxpayer gets for that $286 million, aside from a bloated bureaucracy that spends its time drinking champagne and shaking hands, perhaps calling patrons of fine arts ‘sheep’ again? When was the last time the Australia Council showed some real diversity and inclusion and funded artworks and cultural endeavours from conservative artists? Where are the grants to preserve colonial artists and the enormous work they did recording Australia’s pioneer days? What about artworks dedicated to the Western values of liberty and individualism? What could be more important? Artists protesting against the cruelty of big-state authority and abuse during the COVID years perhaps? That’ll be a long wait, a very long wait. Their voices are exiled from this so-called inclusive publicly funded boondoggle.

The sort of arts and culture funded by the previous Australia Council is not rich and diverse; it’s a saturated market of climate-apocalypse propaganda, seen through the prism of race and religion and ideology. Their corporate strategy says exactly that:

It includes emphases on access and equity, advocacy for the vital role of arts and culture, and investing in arts and creativity that reflects and connects the many communities that make up contemporary Australia.

It doesn’t say, ‘We are committed to funding excellence and achievement for talented individuals in the arts community.’ It doesn’t say that. The Australia Council even threw in some World Economic Forum propaganda for good measure, stating:

The technologies of the fourth industrial revolution are transforming and disrupting industries, economies, and how we interact with our world and each other.

Wonderful! This isn’t art. It’s politics—international, unelected bureaucratic politics and ideology of the elites, the globalist predators, masquerading as art and funded by taxpayers. What was it doing on the Australia Council website? Why? What was it? And will Creative Australia adopt the same fealty to foreign powers? Two hundred and eighty-six million dollars is the reward for hijacking the arts sector to promote a woke ideology over an artistic one. I’ll say that again: a woke ideology over an artistic ideology, an artistic culture. The inclusion of Aboriginal art as the predominant destination of Creative Australia funding suggests this is another bribe to support the Voice. It’s coming at us from every angle. That shows that they’re actually desperate.

Creative Australia is advocating that the arts become all about ‘a place for every story and a story for every place’. I’m sure the public is trembling in anticipation of that agenda—’agenda’ being the operative word. It suggests the government is doubling down on woke and calling it art. The government hasn’t realised that, in order to increase the reach of arts and culture, you let the free market direct the program. That ensures that the program meets people’s real needs. You allow the people to reward artwork that appeals to and connects with them. That ensures that it meets people’s real needs.

Artists that produce rubbish should not be funded simply because they flatter the Labor-Greens-teal government. Their work is drowning out more deserving artists who are rejected because Creative Australia does not like their politics. There’s a reason working-class families in Australia save up for years to fly to the other side of the world and stand beneath Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling. When was the last time a product of the Australia Council left millions of international tourists in awe, questioning the human limits of skill and vision? The answer is never—never—because you cannot buy culture, no matter how much taxpayer money Minister Burke throws at it.

/1 Comment/by