Steering creativity regardless of politics The Great Gatsby was helped by the government's 40 per cent offset on Australian production costs. IT is the fate of governments that policies and projects set in train during a term of office may not come to fruition for several years. This is no less true in the arts than other portfolios. To name two examples: the entry and indigenous art rooms at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra, and the splendid new National Portrait Gallery next door, opened during the term of this Labor government. Both projects were given the go-ahead by the Coalition. Similarly, a lavish movie such as The Great Gatsby was financed in part by the generous 40 per cent offset on its Australian production costs, payable by the government. The producer offset, too, was a Coalition initiative, introduced in the final year of the Howard government. A landmark drama such as The Secret River, seen in Sydney, Canberra and Perth this year, is possible because of secure, long-term support, assisted by the private sector. An ambitious commercial musical such as King Kong owes its existence to private enterprise but it, too, draws upon the theatrecraft and skills developed in national training institutions and the subsidised arts sector. A feature of the arts in Australia is the bipartisan support the sector enjoys from both main parties. Cultural policy can be a highly contested arena, but the spirit of bipartisanship means that both Labor and Coalition governments recognise the value of cultural investment, even though they may differ in their rationale, priorities and methods. A reminder has arrived in the form of a new study of government art spending from 1967 to 2009, which finds that neither Labor nor the Coalition can claim to be the best bestie of the arts. "A relationship between political persuasion and increased arts expenditures cannot be presumed," conclude the authors Kate MacNeill, Jenny Lye and Paul Caulfield. Both sides of politics have boosted arts spending at different times, especially as a result of reviews or inquiries. That said, the final week of the election campaign may be an appropriate time to assess Labor's record. How has the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government - or the Garrett-Crean-Burke ministries - handled the arts? The national cultural policy, Creative Australia, stands as the most significant arts achievement. Launched by former arts minister Simon Crean in March, it is a pragmatic document, largely free of the national identity rhetoric that accompanied Paul Keating's Creative Nation. The policy makes the connection between the arts, cultural heritage and creative industries as drivers of prosperity: not a new idea, but one seen as necessary to demonstrate the economic value of culture. Creative Australia's headline figure of $235 million was a modest stimulus to a sector that, according to the policy document, employed 5.3 per cent of the workforce in 2011. The funding package is spread across four years and in some of its allocations is making up for a period of underfunding. The biggest beneficiary was the Australia Council, given an extra $75.3m over four years. Other outlays are to help preserve indigenous languages ($14m), entice movie producers to film in Australia ($20m), and top up funding to elite training institutions ($20.8m) and six major arts companies ($9.3m). As arts minister, Crean had a committed but unshowy relationship with the sector: he didn't parade his cultural credentials. He was clearly frustrated at cabinet's reluctance to back the cultural policy, and his forced departure from the arts ministry a week after its launch was dispiriting. Even his opposite number, Coalition arts spokesman George Brandis, declared Crean could have been a great arts minister, if his party had backed him. The sector had reason to be optimistic with Labor's win in 2007. The first arts minister, Peter Garrett, was not just the holder of a portfolio, but a cultural figure in his own right. Within days of the election, Rudd had announced a new award for writers, and the next year made the creative sector one of 10 key policy areas for discussion at his 2020 Summit. There were also missteps and policy failures. Rudd's condemnation of Bill Henson's photography as "absolutely revolting" - without evidence of wrongdoing - set a philistine tone to a serious debate about art and child protection. The art resale royalty introduced in June 2010 has largely benefited the estates of dead white males and had the unintended consequence of deterring buyers of indigenous art. The indigenous art market has tumbled during Labor's term, not helped by the tightening of superannuation rules for art holdings. Labor cut funding for international touring programs and regional arts, threatened the Australian National Academy of Music, and gave no relief from the regime of enforced savings on cultural organisations. The efficiency dividend has been blamed for job losses at the Australia Council and for a diminished exhibition program at the National Gallery of Australia. The government has recently exempted core programs at the Australia Council from the increased efficiency dividend, but not national collections such as the NGA. Overall funding for arts and cultural heritage has trended upwards during the Labor government, but has decreased in some years. Budget figures show the allocation in the last year of the Howard government was $873m ($1026m in 2012 terms), while this year has an allocated $1179m. The impact of some of Labor's arts policies will not be known until after the election. The Australia Council restructure that came into effect on July 1 is intended to make the funding body more responsive to modern art-making and to the "unfunded excellence" happening in the nation's studios and rehearsal rooms. This shows a determination by the bureaucracy to be where the action is, but it may take several funding rounds before we see results. Crean's "arts accord" with state arts ministers is expected to better co-ordinate arts initiatives through different tiers of government, and a new body, Creative Partnerships Australia, is intended to recalibrate private sector support for the arts. Federal and state education ministers have recently endorsed the new national arts curriculum: a course of study that will ensure all young people have lessons in dance, drama, music, visual arts and media arts. Labor has also invested in digital storytelling ($10m over four years), interactive games development ($20m over three years), and digitisation of national collections (part of a $39.9m package over four years). Bricks-and-mortar spending includes $40m for cultural infrastructure through the Regional Development Australia Fund, and $37m towards Hobart's Academy of Creative Industries and Performing Arts. The opposition has outlined its arts priorities, promising to encourage international touring, regional arts and commercial success. George Brandis has spoken of the Western canon, of promoting excellence over political correctness and of catering for audiences beyond the inner cities. Brandis has also warned of cuts that he says would not significantly affect what audiences see. Labor's most positive contributions to the arts have happened within the past six months, after a long wait that tested the patience of the sector. The Creative Australia policy is intended to be a 10-year blueprint, linking the creative industries to jobs, prosperity and unique Australian stories. Unfortunately for Labor, the realisation of that vision may come too late.