Recently there has been much discussion about the funding issues of the Baroque Festival in Hobart. I have followed this discussion over the last few weeks. As I am no expert in these issues, and I find accounting issues to be beyond dry, I am writing this to clarify things in my mind, and not as an attempt to persuade.
The Hobart Baroque Festival was first held in April of 2013. It has quickly established itself as a unique festival in a unique setting. In Leo Schofield, the festival has a talented and well known patron.
So what is the source of the controversy? Appropriately, for our corporatised state, this debate is a question of money. In 2014 the Baroque Festival received $400,000 in funding from the state government, as well as a grant organised by Arts Minister George Brandis of $100,000. This federal money was meant to promote young Australian artists.
After two successful years, the organisers submitted a proposal to the government, based on three years funding. The money was to be allocated at $800,000 in the first year, $1 million in 2016, rising to $1.25 million in 2017.
Will Hodgman, issued a statement saying, “…in the context of the current tough fiscal environment the Government determined it was appropriate to offer Baroque Festival organisers the same amount as last year…” Further, “…given the terrible state the Budget was left in by the previous Labor-Green government we believe this is an appropriate and responsible offer.”
This entire issue has, unsurprisingly, been poorly reported. Maybe I have misunderstood, but to me the major issues seem to be the government offering reduced funding for 2015, and not entertaining triennial funding. Funding that Martyn Goddard, in his report “Hobart Baroque and the Tasmanian economy” said, would allow the event to become a major international event. If it’s true that Tasmania is open for business, and if it’s true that business loves certainty, then the idea of increased funding over a few years provides the certainty required, as well as making good business sense. To have this funding reduced and to have certainty knocked back has forced the Baroque Festival to reconsider their future.
I have read the results of the survey commissioned by Events Tasmania. The number of respondents were quite small. Ticket holders had to opt-in to be contacted, only 625 surveys were sent out, with only 325 responding. 125 were from interstate, with one being from overseas. Based on purchasing patterns, this means the festival attracted 850-900 interstate visitors. From what I can tell, this seems to be a reasonable number to accept. From these figures Martyn Goddard then goes on to approximate a total economic impact almost $5.5 million.
Assuming three years worth of funding, economic activity was projected to rise to almost $16 million in 2017. Numbers are a universal language, and as languages are universally swamps of ambiguity, let us say these figures are wrong. Let us assume the estimates are double reality. This will mean that the Baroque Festival stimulated the local economy by $2.75 this year, rising to close to $8 million in 2017. Still a substantial amount.
In our current climate there is no point arguing numbers, for the economics rationalists will just repeat there is no money. The obvious solution is to increase taxes, particularly on those who have money. But, as the idea of any sort of tax increase on the wealthy is the ultimate taboo, we shall often hear this refrain of “there is no money.”
As numbers can deceive and confuse, it is important to back up any financial arguments with ideas of long term community benefits.
Festivals, and other events can be seen as new opportunities to increase capabilities, personal skills and knowledge. Festivals work then to increase the stock of human and social capital. This in turn allows the increase in organisational capacity in the state. Networks between suppliers and retailers are created and extended as the years go on.
This is the real strength of a long term tourism and event planning agenda. While events of course supply much needed short term economic relief to many businesses in the state, they are also an indicator of what sort of future we are to have. A regular calendar of events would stir the building of infrastructure, as seen by the $2 million dollar upgrade of Symmons Plains Raceway, on top of the $3 million spent on the track in 2004. As we have seen with MONA FOMA, events can breath life into old spaces, and can innovate public spaces.
The goal must be to create a vibrate state, one that will work to generate tourism revenue, and new businesses catering to tourism, but more importantly to create an environment where innovative practice can thrive. A wide range of cultural activities should be funded as a way to energise Tasmania. This funding should be used to make a place where our children will want to stay, and build their lives, a place where we create new possibilities.
• Jane Rankin-Reid, in Comments: Hobart Baroque was most certainly a critical success, as the many positive reviews and nominations for high level awards testifies. Critical success is something all Tasmania’s cultural events and arts facilities should always be striving for, whether in exhibitions, festivals, concerts and so on. Sadly, this essential element of artistic excellence has been dumbed into submission by political appointments, ministerial duplicity and under qualified executive mismanagement at TMAG for instance. Usually, all the public hears is how local institutions have met their “targets”, not how well a particular show was received by professional critics. No wonder the public is sceptical. As page space is so scarce for cultural reviews, coverage of lesser artistic standards rarely make it into print. No government should ever put itself in a position of claiming critical success in the absence of professional reviews of artistic performances. Leo Schofield is a seasoned arts impresario who recognises critical excellence as a fundamental requirement at least in regards to what is required of an international classical music festival. Hobart Baroque was widely covered in positive reviews and features in national media, as well as specialist classical music publications. I agree with the need for increased financial transparency and a higher level of independent assessment of the true impact of cultural spending. But it is the government’s oversight that it can’t demonstrate the economics of cultural spending sufficiently convincingly to the public, not Hobart Baroque’s.
