Open in app

Sign in

Write

Sign in

The Politics of the Screen Industry in Australia

Naomi Robinson
10 min readMay 31, 2021

--

This report highlights the political implications on the screen industry in Australia. As a representative survey of current information available, below is an exploration of the power distribution, governmental mandates, societal processes, and how public policies impact the production and consumption of television and film. Further, this report engages with conversations about the rapidly changing landscape through the prominent ‘Make It Australian’ campaign. Ultimately, this report contends that the uneven distribution of power impacts what is being made and when. With a focus on diversity and intersectional change, slowly there is a shift in not only the amount of content being made in Australia, but the type of content as creative restrictions inherently in place from funding and distribution bodies broaden and become more inclusive.

Organisations and Government Bodies

Australian Communications and Media Authority
https://www.acma.gov.au/

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Communications
https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/screen

Film Victoria
https://www.film.vic.gov.au/

Screen NSW
https://www.screen.nsw.gov.au/

Screen Queensland
https://screenqueensland.com.au/

Screen Territory
https://screenterritory.nt.gov.au/

Screenwest
https://www.screenwest.com.au/

South Australian Film Corporation
https://www.safilm.com.au/

Introduction

In Australia, the screen industry has a significant economic and cultural impact. The most recent data indicates the upward trajectory for economic contribution showing a 15% growth of Gross Value Added (GVA) in 5 years with 2017/2018 generating an approximate total output of $22.50 billion and $9.19 billion GVA (Olsberg-SPI 2019).

There are several moving parts that come together in Australia to create screen content. On the surface, the process exists entirely under a value chain as follows:

  • IP Creation: Initial ideas and content preparation including sourcing information and writing scripts, bibles and documentation
  • Financing: Raising the funds from private and government
  • Pre-production: Securing cast, crew, locations etc.
  • Production: Principle photography
  • Post-Production: Editing, processing footage, special effects, CGI, sound, music, voiceovers
  • Marketing and Distribution: Advertising, critic screenings, sales for syndication and distribution
  • Release: Finished product in the hands of consumers (Deloitte Access Economics 2018).

However, the reality is that the Australian screen industry follows certain standards and policies to create and distribute content. There are several government departments concerned with the regulation of screen to maximise both economic and social benefits nationally. As such, there are several political implications on the production and consumption of screen media that can be broken down through the complex hierarchy of organisations and government bodies involved.

Statement of Objectives

The aim of this report is to examine both the macro and micro systems at play in Australia. To do this, the below report will examine the influential players that control, regulate and maintain the screen industry. Specifically, this report will move down the ladder from departments and sectors of the federal government, to local governments and states, and finally, to industry executives and creatives. Largely, this report considers the political implications on the production and consumption of television/film and the complex relationships between individuals, society, governments and public policies.

Politics, Economy and Society

In Australia, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, is responsible for providing advice to the Australian Government on the regulation and trends of television. Under commercial broadcasting for television, content is required to adhere to licencing, program standards, and industry codes of practice. This includes specific guidelines for free-to-air, pay TV and foreign ownership. As a federal appendage, this falls to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) who are the major communications and media watchdogs driven to expand and amplify social and economic benefits for Australia.

In a snapshot of the industry, data indicates that economic contribution of free-to-air television is $2.3 billion with an additional $4.4 billion in advertising and over 16,300 full-time positions supported. Fundamentally, there is a strong indication that commercial television supports Australian culture and losing it would significantly impact society (Deloitte Access Economics 2020). This is not just a result of the demand for entertainment, or the fact that media landscapes are heavily embedded in our day-to-day lives, but in the fiscal and cultural implications of the essence of screen residing firmly as a communication and community-building tool.

While the screen industry provides many valuable benefits, it comes with many issues. Comparatively, Australia is behind the ball when looking at countries like the US and UK. This is, in part, due to incentive productions that encourage swift and exponential growth for screen; a measure that is somewhat lacking in Australia (Olsberg-SPI 2019). Commercial broadcasts exist in a high-cost environment that demands even higher revenue and profitability. These are both ultimately dependent on viewership and audience reception. As such, in a highly regulated space for consumers and creatives, and with an increase in streaming and subscription services, the industry faces not just competition but a decline in viewing times (Deloitte Access Economics 2020; Deloitte 2020). Thus, innovation holds urgency in an evolving landscape dictated by consumption and accessibility.

Distribution of Power and the Impact on Individuals

The power distribution in the Australia screen industry can be discussed in very simple terms: government media organisations, commercial media owners, and community ownership through government provision.

The federal government own two independent channels, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Corporation (SBS). Both of these broadcasting services are shielded by legislation that maintains their independence from the government while being owned by them. Further, they were designed to promote an Australian community through entertainment by representing cultural diversity and promoting educational and the arts (Australian Government 2020a). The Australian Government also allocates space for three community television stations: 44 Adelaide, C31 TV Melbourne and West TV. Finally, commercial media owners are a limited group for free-to-air television. Speaking purely about ownership not shareholders, Nine Entertainment Co., ViacomCBS Inc., Bruce Gordon and Kerry Stokes control the remaining free-to-air channels (ACMA 2020).

Media diversity is incredibly important because screen, print, radio and communications are highly influential agents on public discourse and societal norms. From a personal perspective, media helps people make decisions through knowledge and information sharing. A sense of community is built through shared experience and opinion which, in turn, promotes the need for screen to voice community ideals and concerns. Media diversity also adds accountability and limits the political influence of a select few controlling narratives that then trickle towards privatised interests rather than public. Lastly, having a small media portfolio potentially limits Australia’s national identity because people look elsewhere for content (Nehl 2006; Elites n.d.).

Australia’s regulatory bodies combined with a narrow media control group not only limits the potential for expansion in the industry but becomes potentially harmful for the economy. This is the result of an industry built as a business with a primary goal of profitability without fully comprehending the human impact of policies and regulations that box in variety and choice. Therefore, media diversity becomes heavily embedded in conversations about diversity, authenticity and representation.

Funding Under the Influence

Following the money, it becomes evident that screen productions require funds to get off the ground, promote and distribute content. Investments in the screen industry can be gained through private investors, however, the Australian government also supplies a significant amount of capital to the sector.

To stimulate the industry, the Australia Screen Production Incentive supplies offsets including producer rebates, location allowances, and PDV (post, digital and visual effects) offsets. However, recently, $400 million in additional funds were provided under a location incentive initiative with the objective of attracting large budget international screen productions. This supplement supports an earlier $140 million from 2018 (Australian Government 2020b). It is estimated, that of the 10 productions that the Government announced $123 million for, will generate approximately $1 billion and support countless jobs (Prime Minister, Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts 2020).

Further, the Federal Government’s primary funding body for the screen industry is Screen Australia. Tasked with supporting the development, production, promotion and distribution of screen content, Screen Australia is a vital hub for Australian content.

Sitting in each state are official screen organisations and agencies with different local governmental influence. Screenwest (Western Australia) is a not-for-profit and South Australian Film Corporation is private, however, Screen Queensland is government-owned as is Screen NSW, Screen Tasmania, Screen Territory (Northern Territory) and Film Victoria. Despite their obligations and beginnings, primary to each of these companies are core values and intent to foster and build Australian talent and content.

While the financial benefits of the screen industry are overt, cultural investments are increasingly significant. The value of Australian entertainment in Australia categorically positively impacts Australia’s culture which becomes the primary reason for ensuring content actively represents all Australians, not some. Easier sad than done, all funding ultimately relies on adhering to specific guidelines. Without changing these systemic structures, it is difficult to follow innovation and evolve the symbiotic relationship of Australian national identity and screen content.

A Revolution is Afoot

There is a push in the screen industry to actively seek the progression and development of practices and policies to match the socio-cultural zeitgeist. Diversity and inclusivity are incredibly important for the disruption of norms and standards that hinder equality and representation both behind and on the screen. Several initiatives have pooled the collective need and want to evolve the industry.

For example, Screenwest and Screen Australia created Out Now an LGBTQIA+ scripted web series initiative (Screen Australia 2020). Gender Matters is another system from Screen Australia attempting to make female key creative talent on productions equal to men (a measure that is steadily becoming a norm in all productions). Recently, Gender Matters Connect was announced with WIFT Australia (Women in Film & Television Australia) as facilitators for industry mentorship (WIFT Australia 2021). Indigenous participation and inclusion in screen content are both culturally significant and relevant for authentic storytelling. Providing a large platform for displaying the importance of Diversity and Inclusion Commissioning Guidelines, the Australian International Documentary Conference (AIDC) announced they have partnered with ABC for an Indigenous Documentary Placement initiative (Slatter 2021). These are just a few of the many initiatives and guidelines designed to shift industry perspectives.

With a sea of content available, some creatives in the industry are campaigning for more local content obligations for ‘new market entrants’ including but not limited to Netflix, Amazon, leading telecommunications and internet service providers, competitive tax offsets and well-funded public broadcasters and screen agencies. The Make It Australian campaign echoes calls to reduce the risk for Australian creatives by providing adequate support and incentives. The campaign highlights the risk involved in trying to make Australian content because Australia’s capacity to compete with international productions is difficult with regulations that limit quality local productions (Make It Australian 2020).

Make It Australian is a timely and much needed campaign, especially in the wake of a global event that altered viewing behaviours and production processes in a sector that was already in flux (Deloitte 2020). The fiscal reality is that current regulations and policies requires international investment because Australian screen is still local in terms of consumption and distribution. This means that unless the cycle of creating low-budget content that only reaches Australian audiences is broken, it will continue to confine the scope of what can be made in the future.

Conclusions and Implications

Australia has potential. In examining the complexities of economic interests and regulations, Australia exists in a precarious space of investing internally and externally in a way that creates a prosperous enterprise of valuable creative productions. The screen industry in Australia is one built on outsourcing our resources and talents to international productions instead of supporting local content more.

Importantly, like any business, the screen industry must listen to the consumer. Australian audiences are looking elsewhere for content because it is accessible and plentiful. More than this, there is a vital component of media landscapes heavily influencing Australian society at the same time as being controlled by a small collective of companies or people. Media diversity and cultural diversity are still lacking in Australia, however, there is precedence to do so — both from a socio-cultural and fiscal perspective.

Ultimately, there is an uneven distribution of power that impacts what is being made and when. With a focus on diversity and intersectional change, slowly there is a shift in Australian screen content as creative restrictions from funding and distribution bodies broaden and become more inclusive.

References

*This was originally written for Master of Creative Industries module CIM503 — Creative Industry Perspectives at SAE Institute.

Film
Australia
Television
Screen
Arts And Entertainment

--

--

Naomi Robinson

Written by Naomi Robinson

11 Followers

writer. researcher. human. nomie.com.au

Help

Status

About

Careers

Press

Blog

Privacy

Terms

Text to speech

Teams