As The Daily Fugue has been posting the letters from various parties with interests as key stakeholders in the 19th Biennale of Sydney, here's the letter from Senator George Brandis to the Australia Council for the Arts:
Mr Rupert Myer,
Chairman
The Australia Council
Dear Rupert,
I am most concerned about the decision of the Board of the 2014 Sydney Biennale to terminate its sponsorship agreement with Transfield Holdings (Transfield).
Media reports suggest that the decision was based on representations by a small group of artists participating in the Biennale that Transfield Holdings was an inappropriate sponsor because it is a minority shareholder in Transfield Services, a company contracted to provide security services at the detention centre on Manus Island. Transfield has now withdrawn its sponsorship, and Mr Luca Belgiorno-Nettis AM, executive director of Transfield, has resigned as Chair of the Biennale.
If these reports are true, I view this situation as shameful.
Transfield has been an exemplary corporate citizen, and its record of philanthropic support for arts companies and events has few equals in Australia. Mr Belgiorno-Nettis AM, and members of the Begiorno-Nettis family, are outstanding Australians and exceptionally generous arts patrons. The decision of the board of the Biennale is an appalling insult to them.
Equally appalling is the fact that the board of the Biennale, apparently under pressure from certain individual artists, has decided to decline to accept funding from a generous benefactor, because of the political opinion of those individual artists, concerning a matter which has nothing to do with the Sydney Biennale. Artists like everybody else are entitled to voice their political opinions, but I view with deep concern the effective blackballing of a benefactor, implicit in this decision, merely because of its commercial arrangements.
At a time when government funding for the arts is, like all demands upon the Budget, under pressure, it is difficult to justify the funding for an arts festival which has announced to its principal private partner that it would prefer not to receive its financial support. You will readily understand that taxpayers will say to themselves: “If the Sydney Biennale doesn’t need Transfield’s money, why should they be asking for ours?”
Even more damagingly, the decision sends precisely the wrong message to other actual or potential corporate sponsors of the arts: that they may be insulted, and possibly suffer reputational damage, if an arts company or festival decides to make a political statement about an aspect of their commercial relationships with government, where it disapproves of a particular government policy which those commercial relationships serve.
I understand that Commonwealth funding is provided to the Sydney Biennale through the Australia Council, under a three-year funding agreement which expires in 2015. No doubt, when renewal of the funding agreement beyond 2015 arises for consideration, the Australia Council will have regard to this episode and to the damage which the board of the Sydney Biennale has done.
I refer to s.12 of the Australia Council Act 2013 (the Act), concerning Ministerial directions. I am mindful that s.12(2) contains an explicit prohibition against a Minister giving a direction “in relation to the making of a decision by the Council, in a particular case, relation to the provision of support” [emphasis added]. However s.12(1)(a) does give the Minister the power to give a direction to the Council “in relation to the performance of functions, and the exercise of powers, of the Council”. Those words are plainly wide enough to include matters of policy and funding criteria.
I would ask the Australia Council to develop a policy which deals with cases where an applicant for Australia Council funding refuses funding offered by corporate sponsors, or terminates a current funding agreement. That policy should deal with the circumstances in which such conduct would be considered to be unreasonable, and the consequences for the availability of Australia Council funding where an applicant acts unreasonably and specifically whether the consequence of such unreasonable behaviour is that Australia Council funding would no longer be available. The policy should further consider whether all future funding agreements should contain a clause that stipulates that it is a condition of Australia Council funding that the applicant does not unreasonably refuse private sector funding, or does not unreasonably terminate an existing funding agreement with a private partner.
I would be grateful if you would promptly develop a policy, addressing the issues which I have identified. I think it is preferable that any such policy be developed, in the first instance, by the Australia Council. I should indicate to you, however, that if the matter cannot be addressed satisfactorily at Council level, then I would be minded to make a direction under s.12(1)(a) of the Act along the lines indicated in the previous paragraph.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you at a convenient time in the near future.
Yours faithfully,George Brandis
This letter has been circulating widely on social media, on facebook, and has been reproduced in art media, and mainstream media, yet it is placed behind paywalls.
For example, ArtsHub:
http://www.artshub.com.au/news-article/news/all-arts/if-the-sydney-biennale-doesnt-need-transfields-money-why-should-they-be-asking-for-ours-198432.
In order to view the letter you are required to take out a subscription.
I am reproducing it here for the good of the community.
Mr Rupert Myer,
Chairman
The Australia Council
Dear Rupert,
I am most concerned about the decision of the Board of the 2014 Sydney Biennale to terminate its sponsorship agreement with Transfield Holdings (Transfield).
Media reports suggest that the decision was based on representations by a small group of artists participating in the Biennale that Transfield Holdings was an inappropriate sponsor because it is a minority shareholder in Transfield Services, a company contracted to provide security services at the detention centre on Manus Island. Transfield has now withdrawn its sponsorship, and Mr Luca Belgiorno-Nettis AM, executive director of Transfield, has resigned as Chair of the Biennale.
If these reports are true, I view this situation as shameful.
Transfield has been an exemplary corporate citizen, and its record of philanthropic support for arts companies and events has few equals in Australia. Mr Belgiorno-Nettis AM, and members of the Begiorno-Nettis family, are outstanding Australians and exceptionally generous arts patrons. The decision of the board of the Biennale is an appalling insult to them.
Equally appalling is the fact that the board of the Biennale, apparently under pressure from certain individual artists, has decided to decline to accept funding from a generous benefactor, because of the political opinion of those individual artists, concerning a matter which has nothing to do with the Sydney Biennale. Artists like everybody else are entitled to voice their political opinions, but I view with deep concern the effective blackballing of a benefactor, implicit in this decision, merely because of its commercial arrangements.
At a time when government funding for the arts is, like all demands upon the Budget, under pressure, it is difficult to justify the funding for an arts festival which has announced to its principal private partner that it would prefer not to receive its financial support. You will readily understand that taxpayers will say to themselves: “If the Sydney Biennale doesn’t need Transfield’s money, why should they be asking for ours?”
Even more damagingly, the decision sends precisely the wrong message to other actual or potential corporate sponsors of the arts: that they may be insulted, and possibly suffer reputational damage, if an arts company or festival decides to make a political statement about an aspect of their commercial relationships with government, where it disapproves of a particular government policy which those commercial relationships serve.
I understand that Commonwealth funding is provided to the Sydney Biennale through the Australia Council, under a three-year funding agreement which expires in 2015. No doubt, when renewal of the funding agreement beyond 2015 arises for consideration, the Australia Council will have regard to this episode and to the damage which the board of the Sydney Biennale has done.
I refer to s.12 of the Australia Council Act 2013 (the Act), concerning Ministerial directions. I am mindful that s.12(2) contains an explicit prohibition against a Minister giving a direction “in relation to the making of a decision by the Council, in a particular case, relation to the provision of support” [emphasis added]. However s.12(1)(a) does give the Minister the power to give a direction to the Council “in relation to the performance of functions, and the exercise of powers, of the Council”. Those words are plainly wide enough to include matters of policy and funding criteria.
I would ask the Australia Council to develop a policy which deals with cases where an applicant for Australia Council funding refuses funding offered by corporate sponsors, or terminates a current funding agreement. That policy should deal with the circumstances in which such conduct would be considered to be unreasonable, and the consequences for the availability of Australia Council funding where an applicant acts unreasonably and specifically whether the consequence of such unreasonable behaviour is that Australia Council funding would no longer be available. The policy should further consider whether all future funding agreements should contain a clause that stipulates that it is a condition of Australia Council funding that the applicant does not unreasonably refuse private sector funding, or does not unreasonably terminate an existing funding agreement with a private partner.
I would be grateful if you would promptly develop a policy, addressing the issues which I have identified. I think it is preferable that any such policy be developed, in the first instance, by the Australia Council. I should indicate to you, however, that if the matter cannot be addressed satisfactorily at Council level, then I would be minded to make a direction under s.12(1)(a) of the Act along the lines indicated in the previous paragraph.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you at a convenient time in the near future.
Yours faithfully,George Brandis
This letter has been circulating widely on social media, on facebook, and has been reproduced in art media, and mainstream media, yet it is placed behind paywalls.
For example, ArtsHub:
http://www.artshub.com.au/news-article/news/all-arts/if-the-sydney-biennale-doesnt-need-transfields-money-why-should-they-be-asking-for-ours-198432.
In order to view the letter you are required to take out a subscription.
I am reproducing it here for the good of the community.
No comments:
Post a Comment