AIDC 2010: Ruth Harley speaks, and deals with probing questions
by: Mark Poole
Published in Screen Hub
Wednesday 3 March, 2010
As CEO of Screen Australia, Dr Ruth Harley is a key player in shaping the funding and cultural landscape of screen expression. After her speech, she was watched very carefully as she picked her way through questions from UK commentator and filmmaker Steve Hewlitt, and a fascinated audience.
Last Friday CEO of Screen Australia Dr Ruth Harley made a presentation to the delegates at AIDC, and then sat down and discussed past present and future with British media commentator Steve Hewlett. During her presentation, Dr Harley announced that henceforth all Screen Australia funding below $200,000 will be provided as a grant rather than a recoupable investment, and will not have to be repaid unless the terms of the grant agreement are breached.
The audience and the industry greeted this announcement with acclaim, as you might expect. And there’s essentially no catch, although there are a couple of quirks which we’ll explore shortly – such as that the new system won’t be retrospective, and that Screen Australia will still own 1% of the copyright in the work funded.
The session was divided into two discrete components, the first of which comprising Dr Harley presenting via Powerpoint an overview of how Screen Australia supports the documentary industry in Australia, and the second being a discussion between the CEO and Steve Hewlett.
The presentation was brisk and breezy, and impressive and Screen Australia has posted the powerpoint on their website:
http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/.
And the download for the announcement about investments becoming grants is also available there.
Then there was a quantum shift in proceedings as Ruth stepped from the podium to the table next to Steve Hewlett. She was clearly on edge, possibly after the previous year’s session when he asked her a number of probing questions, which he proceeded to do again this year. On his best behaviour, Steve still voiced a number of questions that were uppermost in the minds of many in the audience, such as floating the notion that Screen Australia might be better off dispensing with funding documentaries altogether, and giving the money directly to the broadcasters. However Ruth soon dismissed this idea, as she did a number of other Steve Hewlett suggestions during the morning.
The most significant concern raised during the session was the budget cuts faced by Screen Aus, which were always going to happen from the beginning of the agency, as a tradeoff against the new Producer Offset monies. Government expectations were that the merging of the three former agencies into one would produce cost savings, and also the government was going to shell out significant dollars via the Offset and that would have to mean a reduction to the flows through Screen Australia’s production and development doors.
After the jousting between Steve and Ruth had concluded, there was some discussion from the floor, but there was nothing like a heated debate on offer, perhaps because practictioners are wary of running foul of the only door in town.
The other point to ring out loud and clear is that Screen Australia doesn’t see its role as advocating on behalf of the screen industry to Government. When Steve asked Dr Harley what position she might advocate, on behalf of the industry, to the Government, Dr Harley’s reply was that she doesn’t advocate on behalf of the industry at all. Her role, as she sees it, is to provide quality information about significant issues to government, which she said often has the same effect.
Steve pointed out that in the past the former agencies did take a position to the government, and lobbied hard for a particular point of view, but clearly the way the agency and the government is operating, such outright advocacy must now be taken up by others. It reminds one that there is no Screen Council speaking for all the parts of the industry – all we’ve got are the temporary and shifting allegiances among the peak unions and guilds. Whether that is enough remains to be seen.
Steve Hewlett began the session with a question about Screen Australia’s announcement moments earlier that what would have been investments for contributions of $200,000 or less will now be turned into a grant. He wanted to know how much of the savings produced by the efficiencies generated at SA via less reporting and checking would end up in more money for production.
Dr Harley answered that she didn’t know the answer to the question. “I wish I did,” she told us. “But I can’t tell you that because it depends on our information coming together from the three former agencies.” She explained that some of the data from the former agencies still hasn’t been seamlessly merged into a single database, making it virtually impossible to answer a question like Steve’s – at least for the moment.
Steve pressed that the new initiative must cover the vast majority of documentary projects, and Ruth agreed that it covered a lot. And she hoped that this would produce significant reductions in the workloads of investment managers, lawyers, business affairs people and accountants. But she couldn’t say for sure.
Steve then asked why the agency stopped at $200,000. Ruth explained that it seemed to be a natural cap within the spread of budgets. “There are a lot of things under $200,000 and a lot of things significantly over.”
Steve. Are there other categories of projects that don’t produce returns or rarely produce returns, where it would be worth taking the same approach?
Ruth – “There is a category that’s hard to identify at the beginning - they’re called bad films. There is a whole category there, but if you knew what they were you wouldn’t fund them in the first place.”
Steve: Is this an approach that should logically be expanded?
Ruth – (interrupting) The answer is no.
Steve asked what returns the agency gets overall from the documentary sector. Ruth’s answer was that they don’t know. She consulted her front bench but Chris Oliver and Ross Mathews didn’t have the figures to hand. However they know it isn’t much.
Steve – Okay. Would you apply the same rationale to drama as a matter of interest?
Ruth – I just told you why not.
Steve – because –
Ruth – You can’t pick them.
Steve - Some do make money, some don’t?
Ruth – That’s right.
Steve – Okay. Would you consider some sort of amnesty where certain –
Ruth – (interrupting) – No!
Steve and Ruth explored the idea of turning the investments for amounts under $200,000 in documentary into grants retrospectively, but that was nipped in the bud by Dr Harley with the simple explanation that Screen Australia is not going to do anything retrospective. Put to her that this was a somewhat irrational approach, Ruth cut across Steve once again: “It’s not irrational. You have to be faithful to the contracts, and it’s not worth the work. We’re going to go forwards with this program, we’re not going to go backwards with it.”
And so with that the idea of making the grant initiative retrospective, clearly one that had been suggested to Steve by Australian filmmakers, was dispatched.
Steve raised the issue of the length of contracts for documentary projects, which seem extremely long and complicated. Ruth said she’d tried to make them shorter, and they’re as short as they can be now, since they’ve been through that process. She said that the Australian contracts are a lot longer than their New Zealand counterparts.
Steve: I’m an outsider so forgive me if this is a daft question, but why is it so complex?
Ruth: “All agencies and all jurisdictions have this problem. Which is there’s a bad egg in the basket and problem X occurs. The agency gets thrashed by the public and by the Senate Estimates. So they create a new clause in the contract which says Problem X can’t happen because of this. And of course there’s umpteen problems over time, and the solutions to the problems are codified in the contract. And that’s why it is. I absolutely understand why it is. And one of my colleagues said I hope this grant money doesn’t create a lot of thrashings. So there are risks.”
Steve asked if the investment managers take editorial decisions, and the answer was that they don’t. However, they do have editorial input. “Is that different? Yes.” said Ruth. “They don’t have editorial control. Absolutely not.”
Steve and Ruth discussed the situation currently at Screen Australia that if you’re looking at the domestic door, the guidelines spell out that if you have a domestic broadcaster on board, and it’s not a reality show, then you get the money. Unless of course Screen Aus is oversubscribed, which is where the investment managers may have to exercise some editorial discretion about which projects get funded. Ruth explained that although it’s not enshrined in any sort of legislation, at present the domestic funds are split 40% to the ABC, 40% to SBS and the other 20% to the rest, being commercial networks and cable TV. And the reason for pre-allocating the funds is to allow the broadcasters to plan ahead.
Steve – “So given that the broadcasters are eminently managing this process, why not give the money to the broadcasters?”
Ruth – “Because you don’t get the same contestability. Of course I’ve asked myself the same question, it’s a really obvious question. Contestability is the only reason that Screen Australia should be involved in this documentary area. And the 40 40 20 split is not enshrined in kind of legislation, it is current practice and it may change over time. It’s a guide really and we’re working in an environment that’s changing over time.”
Ruth said that Screen Australia has a role in ensuring that culturally relevant higher end docs are produced, as opposed to reality TV type programs at the light entertainment end of the spectrum. Alluding to her earlier presentation, she said that it was fantastic that there is a whole lot more factual programming going on all the commercial channels. “But maybe it suggests that the documentary funding at Screen Australia should be more clearly curated at the higher end of the spectrum. It’s clear to me that we have a niche at that end of the spectrum.”
There was some discussion about how much money goes to documentary, and they arrived at a figure of $17.6 million as a total spend. However it wasn’t clear whether that was up or down on previous years, partly due to the problem of opacity created by the merging of the three agencies. Essentially it’s the same. Ross Mathews added that 25% of production spending by the agency goes to documentary.
Steve suggested that this may be too low, compared to drama, especially give that documentary only has access to the 20% offset. However Ruth countered that Children’s TV and Adult TV drama would also argue that they are underfunded. “And we’ve got another $4.5 million of budget cuts, so I’m not looking to increase any sector’s funding, to be perfectly frank,” Ruth added.
Steve – So in a five year view, is the amount of money for documentary going to go up and down?
Ruth – Down.
Steve – By how much?
Ruth – I don’t know, but there’s a $4.5 million budget cut overall next year.
Steve – Can you give us a clue here about as you’re looking at the documentary categories, which areas might you cut back?
Ruth – We haven’t done this work so I clearly can’t give you the answer. We’ll be doing it over the next few months.
In discussion from the floor, Steve Warne Documentary Manager from Film Victoria clarified whether the offset can be included and changed into a grant with the new scheme.
Ruth – You can count whatever you like up to $200,000, including the offset.
Steve Warne - That’s fantastic news.
Trevor Graham, co-chair of the AIDC and independent documentary filmmaker commented: “That was a fantastic presentation. Ruth what’s your vision for documentaries, and where you want to take the sector into the future.”
Ruth – “I haven’t changed since last year. Australia has a really rich documentary landscape and I want Screen Australia to contribute to that, and continue the richness of it. When I saw the figures I saw how really strongly the factual area was performing, that’s really terrific and we need to ensure the diversity remains.”
Trevor: Is your vision to develop a relationship with broadcasters?
Ruth – “Broadcasters are very important. If you take into account all the windows including television that feature films can access, they can gain big audiences. Kim Dalton said that in the Australian last week. He was very pleased with himself, and rightly so. But I do see that there are more channels, there are more subscription channels, there’s the NBN and all of the digital opportunities that will come. And then there’s the potential for theatrical release and DVD. So the opportunity is the range of channels. That’s the strength and the opportunity that we have in the sector.”
Steve Hewlett chimed in with another question: “Do you see it as Screen Australia’s job to campaign to government for documentary?”
Ruth – Our job is to provide excellent information to both sides.”
Steve – Well that’s interesting because traditionally your previous organizations were not averse to taking up the cudgels.”
Ruth – Well I would prefer to say it’s a quality information role. And very good quality information often has the same result as advocating a position.”
Mitzi Goldman asked if there was any scope for broadening the definition of market attachment for documentary projects beyond traditional broadcasters, but Ruth replied that this would require taking money from A and giving it to be, and they haven’t considered those sorts of questions yet.
Anna Grieve made the important point that the history scheme was created under the Howard government, and when that money is spent we will have to lobby for a continuation of the scheme or lose $7.5 million of funding.
Richard Harris, CEO of the South Australian Film Corporation asked if Screen Australia was tracking the viability and sustainability of documentary production companies. Ruth said that the ABS used to do that but have been canned from doing that work. However the Enterprise Program is there to support 12 companies, half of which do documentary. “I expect all of those companies to succeed.”
“I think it’s likely that there will be fewer, largely companies in the future. But I think that documentary filmmaking is characterized by lots of individuals doing their own thing as well, and I don’t see that changing.”
A fascinating interchange and some valuable insights in this session.
Mark Poole
|
