Yesterday (Mar 17) I made a speech in Parliament in response to a motion supporting the TSO by the Minister for the Arts. It was an important and worthy motion. At the core of my speech in support was an argument against the somewhat trendy work of Richard Florida’s Creative Class and for the lesser known and earlier work of John Howkin’s Creative Economy.
Below is essentially an edited version of Hansard, for readability and contextual sake, of that section of the speech:
A previous speaker mentioned in her speech the work of Richard Florida, as espoused by the now ubiquitous and well respected Saul Eslake.
Richard Florida is a US sociologist who wrote a book about three or four years ago, but it seems to have become pretty fashionable in Tasmania
just in the last little while.Perhaps that is because Saul Eslake is talking about it, and that is not a bad thing. Florida’s book published in 2002, is titled The Rise of the Creative Class but my preference in this area, as I have stated this before, is for the work of John Howkins who published a book in 2000 called The Creative Economy.
It was this book that became a bit of a bible for me in my work in the State Government’s Innovation Centre from 2000 to 2002.
My preference for Howkins over and above Florida’s work is for a whole variety of reasons but mainly it is that Howkins is about saying that there is a creative spirit in us all – even located here in Tasmania. That we should provide infrastructure and programs that unlock this creative potential and in doing so we will can participate in the fastest growing sectors in the economy globally.
Howkins’ work says we can dream and imagine as individuals, and that that creativity is inherent within the community, and what we need to do is put in the sorts of infrastructures and ideas that will allow that creativity to come out, rather than necessarily importing that creativity.
While the core tenants of Florida’s work, such as tolerance, talent and technology – the three Ts attracting this creative class – are laudable and worthwhile, I have a problem with the idea that the creative class is something we need to import, I believe that inherent in all Tasmanians is a creative and productive spirit and what we need to do is work on ways of unlocking that creative spirit and potential in all Tasmanians.
It is a distraction to say we need to import it – when in fact we have the raw materials to export it from here.
For the rest of this speech then, I will refer to Howkins The Creative Economy of 2000, in which he said, “The creative economy over the next five years” – and he has been proven to be right because it is now five years later – “will grow at 12 per cent, outstripping all the other
sections of the economy”.If the Australian economy is growing at 3 per cent – or who knows what it is growing at the moment; if you ask Peter Costello you would probably get a different answer to the Treasury – but if the sections of the creative economy which Howkins says includes architecture, art, craft, digital media, software development, and of course, music – both composition and expression thereof – if that economy has been growing at 12 per cent, then surely that is a sector of the economy that we want to be part of.
We want to plug into that, and we want to make sure we have the cultural institutions that allow us to participate in that section of the global economy that is growing and outstripping the rest of the world economy at rates of maybe five or six times. This is an important point that I know the Minister for the Arts holds dear to her heart, and has talked about also on many occasions.
The significant event that happened in 2000, and what Howkins talks about in his book, was that in fact for the first time in history the value of all the music scores produced on Broadway in that year were worth more than the buildings on Broadway in that year.
That was the first time in history in 2000 Howkins asserts that the sum of the value of intellectual property outweighed the value of traditional property such as buildings, land, and so on, across the globe.
So again, if we are going to be participants in this significant growth sector, not only in the economy but in the value of capital and intellectual property versus traditional property, we need to have organisations such as the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra that is able to not only re-create and play modern works, and express the financial value inherent, but also obviously the cultural value that is inherent in all those musical pieces.
The full unedited text of my speech can be found at a http://www.davidbartlett.com.au/home/speechesandpapers/ and the full debate resulting from yesterday’s motion can be found at http://www.hansard.parliament.tas.gov.au/isyshh.htm
David Bartlett is State Labor Member for Denison
Saul Eslake
March 21, 2005 at 08:17
David Bartlett makes a good point when he suggests that it would be preferable for Tasmania to grow its own ‘creative classes’, rather than import them.
I agree with David’s sentiments, and it’s part of what I had in mind when I said, both in Hobart on 10 December last and in Launceston on 24 February, that the characteristics which appeal to the so-called ‘creative classes’ have to be ‘valued, nurtured, strengthened and promoted’ if Tasmania is to achieve any success in that area.
It’s also why, in recent commentaries on Tasmania’s economy, (http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/weblog/comments/tasmanias-economic-recovery/) I’ve started to focus on the importance of strengthening Tasmania’s education system so that it can impart at least as much to Tasmania’s kids as its counterparts on the mainland do for kids in other States – which my reading of the available evidence suggests that, right now, it isn’t.
I suspect that to the extent that Tasmania succeeds in ‘growing its own’ creative classes, it will also succeed in attracting them from the mainland and beyond – and vice versa. I doubt that there would be any significant difference in the kind of policies David or I would support to realize that goal.
Incidentally, I thought the Strong report’s recommendations on the Tasmanian, Adelaide and Queensland Symphony Orchestras were a classic piece of Sydney-centric arrogance, characteristic of an all too prevalent view in that city that intelligent life is incapable of existence beyond (say) Parramatta.
The same arrogance that forces the rest of the country to celebrate as our national day a day that should have no more significance outside Sydney than today (21st March) does outside Canberra, or 28th December does outside Adelaide. The same arrogance which has the Premier of New South Wales saying that because ‘Sydney is full’, the migration intake for the whole of Australia should be reduced.
The same arrogance that sees our schoolchildren inculcated with the mistaken belief that Captain Cook (fine navigator and leader of men that he was) ‘discovered’ Australia (some 128 years after Tasman, for example). And the same arrogance which has the airline of which Mr Strong used to be CEO thinking that the needs of Tasmania’s business community (and business people on the mainland with links to Tasmania) should be satisfied with one proper service between each of Hobart and Launceston and Melbourne per day.
Hopefully Mr Strong’s report will be confined to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
OK, that particular hobby-horse can now be put back in its stable.
In the meantime, I will try to get a copy of John Howkins’ book for my Easter reading.
Saul Eslake
Jason Lovell
March 22, 2005 at 03:53
Look guys, let’s face it. I think that when Saul refers to “Creative Classes,” he’s really using code to refer to the hordes of people who have fled this state in past decades, most of them due to the awful redneck theology that has held us in thrall for as long as I can remember.
Homegrown Tasmanian creatives have long been howled down when they speak up and forced out when they come out.
I’m talking about gay people; people with any shred of true left wing thought; most of the tertiary educated people from the west and north west coasts; anyone with a university degree in the yarts; artists; actors; non-heavy metal musicians and so on and so forth.
I think we’re all tiptoeing around this, so I’m going to say what most of my friends and I are thinking – under Jim Bacon there appeared to be hope that the redneck theology was over, but upon reflectiom it appears to have all been a majestic spin job.
So now, after the massive con has been pulled off beautifully, we’re left with Paul Lennon in power and his ridiculous redneck focus on logging, horse racing, gambling and dams; it’s back to the future with a vengeance and I currently cannot see Tassie ever retaining enough of the creatives to balance our society more healthily.
So what’s the point of growing our own I ask – we’ve done that and look how much Melbourne, Sydney and the rest of the world have benefitted.
Creatives don’t stay here to cop sneering criticism and alienation when they reveal that they’re an artist, or that they like drinking latte, or that they might think a bit differently about the forests than the logger and his 4 sons down the road who all left school in or before Grade Ten but are so sure they know best that they’ll join in the alienation of anybody identified as an opponent.
Creatives don’t stay here while those in many of the decision making positions in this state are obvious morons who think anyone with a uni degree is a poofter in khaki shorts who wants to wave a bit of paper in their face. (apologies to Russell Coit)
While I think Saul’s contribution is interesting, I think that he, like a lot of other talented Tasmanians who fled the state never to really return, is being more wishful than realistic.
Still, it’s a nice thought and I applaud him for his optimism.
Mark
March 22, 2005 at 13:22
In for a penny, in for a pound! I might as well lose some currency (time) in this discussion.
I’ve been meaning to ask Mr Bartlett a number of questions for a while. My understanding of your career is that you have been assessed by the party machine as having political potential. To this end, Kathryn Hay, yourself and others enjoyed employment loosely linked with the government (The Mercury reported on this some time ago). In your case, I seem to remember you were employed by State Treasury as you cooled your heels awaiting your membership of Parliament.
Dependent upon your position in Treasury, this would have been like Bacon’s, Lennon’s and Crean’s Johnny-on-the-spot. So, over to the questions:
1. Do you know where the $32.5m Intelligent Island funding balance was transferred or spent? If so, where?
2. Do you know how much State Treasury paid for Spirit of Tasmania III? If so, how much?
I’ve found in life many difficulties arise when one presents oneself as highly thoughtful, ethical and aspiring to change the perception of one’s occupation.