Simon Crean in Conversation with Sally Heath

A former president of the ACTU, Simon Crean has been a member of parliament since 1990 when he was immediately appointed to the front bench in the Hawke Labor government as minister for Science and Technology. He was subsequently minister for Primary Industries and Energy and then Employment, Education and Training.

With Labor in opposition from 1996, Simon became deputy opposition leader and shadow treasurer in 1998. He was leader of the opposition between November 2001 and December 2003. As leader he opposed the war in Iraq.

In the Rudd Labor government he was minister for Trade then for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Social Inclusion. In the Gillard government he is Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government as well as Minister for the Arts. It is in this capacity that Meanjin shared a 45-minute conversation with him in Canberra in September, during the period of consultation for the National Cultural Policy.

This is an edited version of that conversation.

Sally Heath: Do you think there is merit in having an arts minister with just one portfolio?

Simon Crean: What you’ve got to have is a government that’s committed to doing something. The Prime Minister is, and we needed to be serious about developing the National Cultural Policy. I’d been in a Keating government that developed the last [cultural] policy and my father was in the Whitlam government that essentially established the Australia Council, so the issue is not the silo it’s the commitment to doing something. The fact Arts is within the Prime Minister’s broader portfolio and that I am in Cabinet sends a strong signal that this government is serious about delivering.

SH: That’s true, but talking about the Prime Minister … there doesn’t seem to be a strong image or leadership role of her engaging with the arts. Do you think that’s a problem?

SC: The Prime Minister does understand the importance of the arts for the development of the nation and the importance of supporting them as a fundamental part of our activity. She’s played a very active role in the literature area with the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards.

SH: Speaking of books, what have you been reading of late?

SC: The Le Carré novel Our Kind of Traitor and Rod Moss’s Hard Light of Day.

SH: Extraordinary, isn’t it?

SC: Yes, what’s compelling about it is that he’s got the confidence of the indigenous people to be able to tell their story and about their culture and their association with land and the significance of the spirit. Sometimes it is hard for us to understand those things because it is passed down the generations, but making it available to a wider audience is I think the big breakthrough in that book.

I also read Traitor, which I thought was terrific. I said to [the author] Steven Daisley that I was most struck by how he cleverly develops the cultural understanding through people being thrown together by chance and the learning experience that comes from that. Particularly the softness in terms of the Muslims in the context of all the violence and terrorism that’s around. I thought it was a really clever piece of work. I have also read Dog Boy, which I thought was great.

SH: So you find time to read?

SC: Well I try and find time; I don’t have enough time to read. It’s a bit different now travelling to the regions because I’m in planes and airports a lot.

SH: The Cultural Policy discussion paper has been twenty years coming. It says that it’s a ten-year vision for how arts and creativity will be supported, developed and ushered into the mainstream. I was really struck by the expression ‘the mainstream’, because it seems to me that the arts are utterly mainstream. There wouldn’t be a country town that doesn’t have a theatre group, concerts that everyone is engaging in, so can you explain what you meant by that?

SC: It’s true that if you go to the regions they value the arts and there’s a lot of desire for local government and regions to develop their cultural activities because it goes to the livability dimension. But it’s the perception argument—I think people see the arts as entertainment rather than underpinning strong values in society.

I believe it’s important for governments to invest in the arts, for two reasons. One is the social investment because I think investment in the arts and encouraging participation in the arts develops a greater sense of expression, a greater understanding of culture, a greater preparedness for tolerance and understanding and teamwork and all of those values very important to Australia. It is also important because a creative culture is a more innovative culture, a more productive culture. The big challenge is to get Treasury to think of the arts as driving the economy. And the more we can get it thinking that, the more Treasury might be inclined to understand the significance of the investment and not just see it as a cost but as a return to the nation.

SH: Is that hard for you? There are almost half a million people in creative industries and only about 62,000 in the automotive sector. The government’s automotive competitive investment scheme was $2.8 billion, the assistance package was $4.2 billion, whereas government funding for cultural activities is $740 million. So in terms of raw numbers there seems to be a bias against investing in arts.

SC: Well, two things I would say. A lot of the investment in the automotive industry is essentially for encouraging the creative side; Australia can’t produce cars to sell to the world but it can develop the skills that the world needs for the vast market that’s out there, it’s the capability factor. Why did General Motors, when it was in all sorts of strife in the global financial crisis, single Australia out as the place it was going to keep the manufacturing base? Because we had strength in design; so don’t confuse those arguments.

The $740 million for cultural activities is not all we spend in nurturing creativity. What about our investment in the ABC? What about investment in terms of design, the industry portfolios, all of those sorts of things. So I think you’re heading down the path that I want people to break out of. We want to see a fusion of creativity and design as important in the theatre as we do in the design of an automobile because that’s where our strength is going to be. What the world needs is innovative solutions. If we’re not investing in creativity and design we will diminish our capacity to excel in the world.

SH: Point taken, but you say there’s an argument you need to win in Cabinet and with Treasury.

SC: Yeah, that’s why you can see I am already having it … I think the bigger argument in the Cabinet though is to convince people that there is a return for the nation from investing in the arts and some of that is hard to measure, but do we only do things because we can measure them? It is the conundrum that we have to face up to. When you put a budget together, it’s easy to identify the cost; what’s harder is to place a value on the return because the return—even if you can measure it and I believe you can—will take time to materialise. That’s why we need the ten-year horizon.

SH So how do you convince people?

SC: By pointing out the continuing success of the programs and the diversity they encourage. One of the key things that we’re talking about in the cultural policy is diversity in the context of what we are doing in the twenty-first century because that’s fundamental to the economic debate. We are an economy in transition … The great thing artists have is the creative skill but they haven’t got the capital base, they’re talent smart but asset poor. We’ve got to find a way to rebalance that and get decision-makers to understand that it is fundamental to encourage creativity and innovation.

SH: Given that you want the cultural policy to be a sort of holistic approach, how are you taking note of the medium-convergence inquiries that are underway?

SC: That’s going to be an important part of our consideration in the cultural policy, it’s due to report in March.

SH: So how will that inform your cultural policy?

SC: We’ve got people who sit on that who can get a sense of where that’s all headed, but it’s not just the convergence review, it’s the philanthropy one, it’s the design one, there’s a whole lot of them.

SH: Has any thought been given to establishing an arts export council that might work separately to DEFAT, supporting initiatives for sending content overseas? We export a lot of actors but there’s other artistic content that doesn’t get out to the world. Is there any commitment there?

SC: Well, I think it is important to promote the arts not just in the regions but internationally as well.

SH: But a dedicated body?

SC: I don’t know the answer to that and I don’t want to pre-empt anything that could come from any of the current reviews.

The Howard government at the end of its term introduced a fund called Playing the World. That was one of the savings that DEFAT offered us in the budget round when we came into government because we had to find savings, but I always thought that had merit. But I don’t think you can look at these things in isolation. The Australian Ballet is going to New York in 2012, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra is looking to go the year after.

When I was trade minister we developed Brand Australia to get beyond the notion that it was only ‘made in Australia’ that came out of Australia. It highlighted the service sector but I also wanted to ensure that our creative industries, our creative talents, were an important part of that brand. They are, because they do have the ‘wow’ factor when people see them, whether it’s indigenous art, the Australian Ballet, Midnight Oil or a travelling rock band.

SH: With the efficiency dividends, is there any argument that institutions such as the National Gallery, the National Library and the online search engine Trove are specialist institutions that could be exempt because of their broad cultural work?

SC: I think the efficiency dividend is for the purpose of saying that if you can do things more efficiently you should. Where I think that the efficiency dividend is unfair is when it impacts on the ability to do the core business, to acquire works or put on exhibitions, but that’s a matter we’re working through with the institutions.

SH: Do you feel there’s an inequity in the distribution of funding, with literature being the form least funded by the Australia Council? Eighty-four per cent of Australians say they’re readers but literature gets $7.7 million compared to $22 million for theatre, $50 million for orchestras. Is this something that will be looked at as part of this cultural policy?

SC: Well, the Australia Council grants aren’t the only things that encourage literature of course; for example, the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards are separate.

SH: But those figures are pretty stark, aren’t they?

SC: Yeah, they are but I think you’ve got to look at the nature of the industry. It costs a lot more to support a symphony orchestra than it does an author.

SH: Well that’s part of the problem, because it’s often easier or more understandable to fund a company or a group activity whereas writing is a solitary occupation.

SC: That’s the purpose of this additional $10 million [Creative Australia Artists Grants]. It’s looking to those sorts of things, it is responding to that sort of challenge.

SH: Yeah, but we all want more money the for arts, don’t we?

SC: Yes but I don’t think the solution to the problem is to divide the pie differently. Given the fixed costs for some activities, we need to find more creative ways to support some arts endeavours. While the Australia Council should be an important focus, because that’s where a lot of the money goes directly and it is at arm’s length from government, it is not the only mechanism we have to support the arts.

SH: That’s true but in the area of writing and publishing, grants have not increased for years.

SC: The Prime Minister’s Literary Award didn’t exist until we introduced them.

SH: The publishers grants haven’t changed for ten years and the book industry is vulnerable at the moment.

SC: What about the book bounty? And the GST on books? They were the campaigns we fought for the book industry. And the Book Industry Strategy is reporting soon.

SH: You don’t think support is needed?

SC: Support has been given.

SH: Is it not time now with the A&R and Borders closures?

SC: I think the specialist bookshops will come into their own.

SH: But we have large shopping centres without bookshops.

SC: And we also have large shopping centres with bookshops.

SH: But more than 200 book shops across the country have closed. Those stores are where Australian stories are sold.

SC: Yes but it’s not the only place they are told. This is the question of how people are accessing the material. The fact that Meanjin has gone online is an example of that and people are getting it in different forms, but they’re also buying online, aren’t they?

SH: Which is difficult because it’s hard to compete with Amazon.

SC: This is where the book publishers and the arguments around parallel imports and all those debates are running. I don’t know the answer. You certainly can’t dictate people’s behaviour. Online shopping isn’t impacting only the book industry. It is important to encourage authors not just to write but also to look at the ways those stories are told, and it won’t always be in print form.

SH: But no-one has found a way to fund writers with online publishing yet, have they?

SC: No, it’s a difficult area. And again I don’t know what the answer is but we’re open to submissions in all of these fields.

SH: Are you looking to make literary prizes tax-exempt? I know people have been suggesting that for a while now.

SC: The Prime Minister’s Literary Awards were made tax exempt in recognition of this significant honour for the contribution authors make culturally and intellectually to Australian life. Australian writers are also supported through the Public Lending Right and Educational Lending Right programs and we are open to new ideas through our consultations about the National Cultural Policy. The Australia Council fellowships provide financial support to a number of highly accomplished authors to produce new works and can be viewed differently to a prize, where there can only be a small number of winners.

*SH: I don’t know if you’ve also been following the Stella prize argument. Do you think there’s merit in having a prize for women’s writing?

SC: Well that’s up to people who sponsor the prizes; they’ll sponsor prizes for all sorts of reasons. I don’t have a problem with that but I think people are writers because of the quality of the product. If you look at the Prime Minister’s awards I would have thought that a fair swag of the finalists were women and certainly two of the five winners were women.

SH: The ABC is a sleeping giant. It has fantastic resources and talents around the country. Could more be made of this?

SC: The challenge for broadcasters is to look at the applications in terms of the National Broadband Network. It does go to content. It is going to open up huge opportunities. Not just the ABC but school curriculums and not just developing an Australian story but an exportable story. That’s the fusion argument.

SH: Does the decline of the study of Australian history and literature concern you?

SC: We are putting it in the curriculum and that is going to start driving it again. It will allow new pathways. We are an economy in transition. As our wealth grows people are going to look beyond the material. The regional stimulus money saw a huge refurbishment of cultural centres and activities.

SH: Why the arts are still sidelined as elitist when, as you say, the arts are in every regional town, every suburban school, people are engaging with them. Why do you think in Australia it seems the arts are tolerated rather than championed throughout the community?

SC: No, I think the arts have many champions and will have more the more accessible you make them. Look at all the people who go to the stage in Melbourne. We’ve got to get them to the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, we’ve got to get them into the National Gallery.

Andrew Lloyd Weber brought Love never Dies here because of the behind-the-stage activity. He is championing the arts in Australia; the master of musicals says Australia has got the best talent. I don’t think the arts are marginalised but we need to tell those stories of how we are regarded in the world. Here people think we’re in bad shape but the rest of the world looks at us with envy.

The press has got to get the balance right, that’s what marginalises the arts: they are seen in an arts section in the papers not in the mainstream, the news pages.