Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 4:03:20 to 4:31:40
Creative Australia discusses film tax offsets, AI copyright concerns, and grant eligibility reviews. The hearing concludes with questioning regarding funding for organizations like NAVA and measures to address Antisemitism in the arts sector.
Topics: Grants administration, Social cohesion
Speakers: Senator Sarah Henderson, Adrian Collette, Senator Nita Green, Speaker 1, Senator Malcolm Roberts, Interjection, Speaker 17
>> I now call Okay, I'm now in a position to release the officials from Screen Australia. Um so thank you very much. Uh appreciate that. And in light of the time and the fact that we will be uh concluding at 11:00 uh we are going to combine the officials of the department and creative Australia for this last session to permit a more efficient questioning. It will be a crowded table I'm sure but if both sets of officials could come forward uh we would be very grateful and we'll just suspend for one Uh we'll now make a start again. Thank you very much. I appreciate the department and creative Australia for accommodating the slightly unorthodox combination of the two of you in the interest of time. Uh in the ordinary course uh I would call officers and I would also invite um Mr. Collette uh to make an opening statement in the interest of time. If you have an opening statement, I would ask that you table it if that's okay, Mr. Collette. Yes, of
course.
>> Thank you very much. >> We're very appreciative of that. All right, I will now um go to Senator Hemson.
>> Thank you very much, Chair. Look, I just want to ask firstly about the government's broken promise regarding the production tax offset for the Australian film industry. So just referring to the 2024 budget paper number two on page 152 which states the government will also remove both the minimum length requirements for content and the above the line cap of 20% of total qualifying production expenditure for the producer tax offset. So it's been 2 and a half years there's been no legislated budget measure. Can I get an update on why the government has not delivered this budget
Uh, Senator Steven, deputy secretary, creative economy in the arts. Um, the timing of legislation because it's in the income tax assessment act as a matter for the treasury. We don't have any [clears throat] say in when the
>> No, but you would be working with Treasury in terms of progressing that.
>> Yes.
>> Uh, it was a um election commitment. Sorry, not sorry. Budget commitment. I'm getting tired.
>> Yeah. No worries.
>> Uh, in 2024 in this portfolio. So could you please update the committee on why this has not progressed? Have you done all the work at your end? Who's who's at fault? Is the treasurer sitting on his
hands? Uh I can't say anything more other than the timing of legislation because it's tax legislation is a matter for the treasury and the treasurer. We don't have uh any control over what the timing of tax
>> what representations have been made to treasury to progress the legislation of
this measure. Uh I think it's fair to say we've follow up with Treasury very frequently on
>> and in what what through correspondence
>> uh through discussions with our contacts in the Treasury
>> and have you made any representations through uh or has the minister through uh various means about why this has been delayed for so long?
>> Uh I'm not aware of that. I would have to take that on notice, Senator.
>> And when did the department last engage with Treasury on this matter?
>> Hello, Senator. Um, Mr. Jesse Patnau, assistant secretary, creative industries branch. Um, I'd have to take the exact date on notice, but it was very
>> All right. Well, if I could ask for all correspondence between the department and treasury uh in relation to this matter since the 1st of January and if that could be please be tabled or provided uh on notice uh I would be grateful. Uh minister, do you have any idea when this will be legislated?
>> Um thank you for the question Senator. Um I can tell you that the government remains committed to removing the 20% cap. Um and uh as announced in the 2024 budget, uh the measure remains part of the government's legislative program. Um and obviously timing subject to the broader legislative agenda, which I think we've discussed a few times today. Um the changes will be applied retrospectively from the 1st of July 2024, consistent with the original announcement, providing greater certainty for screen producers. Well,
there's I'm just looking at at a report saying that Australia is set to lose $30 million of film benefits and a thousand jobs which will go to New Zealand because of the failure to uh legislate this measure. And I'm referring to an article in the Australian by Tim Douglas on the 3rd of August So where this is potentially going to cost a thousand potential jobs going to New Zealand?
>> Well, as I've said and I've said this a few times before in relation to legislation, um first of all, this is a I think a matter for Treasury. Is that right? >> Um uh so they're appearing tomorrow. Senator Smith will be there. He can um ask those questions on your behalf. Um uh we are continuing to um progress it as a piece of legislation. Um and uh we look forward to your support to get it through the parliament in a timely manner if that's the case.
>> I mean this this is very embarrassing. Has Treasury indicated >> when it will be progressing this legislation? I mean there there are a thousand jobs on the line right now. Minister
>> Senator I've answered your question. Treasuries can provide you more information tomorrow um because they are appearing there the relevant um uh the relevant um agency. um but we are still committed to um delivering it.
>> So the question and I can ask the officials has Treasury indicated a timeline as to when uh this proposed legislation will be introduced into the parliament. Do you have any timeline?
>> Not that I'm aware of, but we can take that on notice to request that.
>> Okay. Well, that's a very disappointing outcome for the film production sector in this country. if I can just um Uh can I just quickly turn to the government's position on copyright for artists?
>> Yes.
>> Uh there's a lot of I'm not going to go we haven't got time to go through all the history and all the controversy We all the government commit to not change Australian copyright laws which will protect artists and other creatives
Just one second Senator um you would have seen comments public comments I think from the minister um and also from the prime minister. I can repeat those comments for you if you like. The um the prime minister said at a on a speech at the University of Sydney on the 15th of July um Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work. Our laws will spill that out plain as day and artists creative endeavor is their work and their property. [clears throat] No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without artists control. That includes the artist control of the piece and value of their work. Anything less is theft.
Okay, but that didn't quite address my question. Has will the government or will the government as far as you are able to inform us commit to not changing copyright laws in this country?
>> Um Senator that is the same answer to the question that you asked. Um if it assists you um responsibility for copyright sits with the attorney general that department appeared yesterday. There was questions around copyright and AI throughout that committee. Um, of course, um, responsibility for the broader AI policy, sits with the Minister for Industry and Innovation. He will be appearing later this week as well. Minister Burke, who is now the relevant Minister, I'm not representing the Minister for Communications anymore. Um, but his department are um working to ensure that the creative sector's view is part of the conversation that we
No, look, I appreciate um which ministers have responsibility for what um elements of of um this proposal, but I I can assure you, Minister, that Australian musicians, producers, authors, artists uh right across this sector are ex writers are extremely concerned about the current debate and the suggestion that their copyright, their intellectual property rights will be undermined. by your government and so uh I am not sure that what you've told me is sufficient to give them the certainty they need that their property will be their own to do as they see fit.
>> Well, Senator, you have a habit of um taking an answer that I give and and turning into something else. I can't
>> I don't think I do and I'm not reflecting on you. >> It's that you have an extraordinary
ability to reframe answers into something else. Um I think that the prime minister's statement is very clear and unequivocal about the government's commitment to protecting artists and their work.
>> Look, I'm I won't continue with this because we are so short of time and uh I want to move to Creative Australia.
>> sorry.
>> Pearls and Irritations raised $669,240 through the Australian Cultural Fund for the promotion and presentation of arts and cultural activities. And Mr. Klet, good evening to you. Uh, what arts and cultural projects did Pearls and Iritations promise to undertake if it was provided with grants through the
it's um it at the time met the uh eligibility conditions because uh they have parts of their publication. Good evening Senator. I'm sorry I should have said.
>> Okay. No, I know things were rushed.
>> Uh because they run a number of book reviews for example and have um critical reviews of creative work. Uh the conversation has moved on. I can tell you Senate from the last time this was spoken about in Senate estimates uh as you know and as we've talked about before we have reviewed the terms and conditions around eligibility for the Australian Cultural Fund over the last few months and it's a really important distinction here that Creative Australia is not the decision maker. It's not like a normal grant. I know this is an obvious thing to say but it goes to this whole issue of eligibility. Once we are satisfied that a program or an artist meets the eligibility criteria which we have revised then we post that program or artist on the site and it's actually the donor who decides whether they're going to support that program. of money that uh pearls and irritations have raised is not because we've made a decision. We've made a decision around eligibility but it's because donors have decided
>> no
having said all that in answer to your question um since we've reviewed our eligibility criteria to ensure that 100% of the funds raised are invested in arts and cult an arts and cultural program. We are not satisfied as we sit here that uh those eligibility criteria are being met by pearls and irritations as we sit here. So
>> which is what I've been raising with you previouslydeed in relation to the fact that they were not undertaking uh arts and cultural related activities in all respects. >> Indeed. No, but still taking the tax deduction. still getting the
>> and taking the tax deduction on on money that donors have invested. That's right. >> um so we have had complaints including your point. We take it seriously uh and we took a very close look at it and we're now in active discussions with Pearls and Iritations about the way that money has been spent and what it has been spent on. We've also met with the Australian Tax Office to get further advice and they are satisfied with the way we now define our eligibility terms in line with the tax act.
>> So in light of your revision is so can I confirm that pearls and irritations no longer meets the eligibility criteria?
>> No, I can't go that far at this stage. We are in discussion with pearls and irritations and as you can imagine >> um those discussions still have to play out and we will make a final decision but but to speculate on that now could be prejuditial to those discussions.
>> Okay. So their eligibility for this program the Australian Cultural Fund is is under threat quite rightly. I would put >> we're reviewing it Mr. Collette because it was quite clear they were not this website and the other related activities. We're not concerned 100% with arts and culture. There was a whole range of other activities.
>> We have sufficient reasons now to question fools and irritations about how the money raised was invested. But at the time that we agreed to post their programs, we were of course convinced that the money raised would be going to arts and cultural activity.
Well, you did previously very vigorously defend their activities. Uh thank you for that update. How long will that review take? When will we know whether pearls and irritations will be able or not able to access these um benefits
>> uh
>> through the tax office of course
>> I can't put a I can't put a time frame on it right now but I can assure you that discussions are happening
>> and so what about those who are considering donating to Pearls and Iritations?
>> Well they don't have a program live on the on the cultural fund site now. Oh,
so that's been taken down, has it?
>> It was completed. Yes.
>> Okay. So, meaning that they've got no current eligibility because there's no
current program. Is that right?
>> There's no active fundraising campaign at the moment on the website. >> And And when was that withdrawn or removed? >> Was that withdrawn or removed as a result of this investigation or review?
>> No, I think it I think it was completed
Um, it was completed on the 14th of December, uh, 2025. Sorry. Nicola Grayson, executive director, corporate >> All right. Could we please have on notice the correspondence between yourselves, the the uh department uh and any other party including the ATO about this matter so we can properly understand uh the the background and the details. We obviously don't have a lot of time now to go through any more detail. so I I will look for forward to >> receiving your your Sorry,
>> I want to share the call to Senator Roberts in a couple of minutes.
Why don't you share the call to Senator Roberts and I've just got a few more questions after that. Thank you.
>> We'll be coming right up against Senator
>> Thank you. Thank you for hearing tonight. How much money did Creative Australia distribute by way of grants in the most recent financial year, please?
>> Uh, well, our total investment was $31.4 million. Uh, it depends, and I'm not being evasive here, what you mean by a grant. uh twothirds of that sum is through government directed programs that agreed with obviously the federal government but also uh with um state governments and territories for the biggest uh programs that we run and invest in. so that's that's the total package. We we invested about 30 million. I'm looking at my colleague, Liz. Chapman. Yes,
>> Liz. Chapman, chief financial officer. Um, our grants expense in our 2026 annual report is $286.85 million.
>> Thank you. Is political persuasion a criteria to be considered when comparing the merits of any request for a grant from a group falling generally into the arts arena?
>> I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?
>> Is political persuasion a criteria for allocating those grants? >> Not at all. Thank you. The National Association for the Visual Arts has received funding from Creative Australia. How much was given to that group last financial year?
so Creative Australia provides I have it here actually $229,522 per year to NAVA under a delivery partner investment agreement uh between 20 2025 and 2028. So, it's a 4-year contract. Uh, NAVA receives this funding to provide important services and support to Australia's visual arts sector, which includes delivering a member insurance package and managing the visual arts code of practice, which sets appropriate fees uh for artists. Um, as a national funded service organization, we expect NAVA to deliver the services for which it is funded in a way that supports and is accessible to the full diversity of visual arts of the visual arts sector. So, the answer to your question, Senator, is upwards of $229,000 a year.
And you've also explained how the money was that was to be spent. Are you aware that NAVA members, the National Association for the Visual Arts members have been particularly vocal in their support of the Palestinian cause, supportive of the terror group Hamas, and have been particularly vocal in the negative views of the Jewish people, the Jewish Australians. Senior staff from this taxpayer subsidized visual arts body, reposted online messages celebrating the October 7th terror attacks, the massacre, and dismissed concerns for Jewish safety. Are you aware of that?
>> I'm aware uh of NABA's uh published support for the Palestinian cause. I'm not aware of the level of detail you went into then about parts of it that is critical of but but to go to the substance of your question. as I said as a national funded service organization. So we contract NAVA as a service organization to provide services which we've agreed on to the full diversity of the visual arts sector. And to that to that extent we wrote to NAVA uh after some of these publications came to light seeking further information from them about the steps it's taking to address the concerns raised. We reinforced the importance of ensuring that all Australian artists and craft practitioners feel included and safe when engaging with Creative Australia funded service delivery partners and those discussions um still continue.
>> So you're saying that this is not a good way for Australian tax dollars to be
>> I'm not saying exactly that. We're very clear about the services that we are contracting as a service delivery partner. The assurance we want given some of the statements that have been brought to light is that as a membership organization, NAVA will support provide services to the full range and diversity of Australian visual artists.
>> Okay. On on that uh how many grants were provided by Creative Australia to Jewish creative groups in the last financial year?
>> Um Senator, I can't answer that. I couldn't add to it on any religious faith or culture because we simply do not as a point of principle um um gather that information. It's not the reason that we would fund artists or artistic programs.
>> So you probably can't answer then the value what was the value of grants made by creative Australia to Jewish creative groups in that period either.
>> I can't answer that. No.
>> Is there an anomaly here? Robert said
the last question I've
>> is there an anomaly here and uh how do your eligibility criteria stack up? Now
>> I don't think there's an anomaly. I can't to my mind see why there is an anomaly. We do not we do not collect uh religious or information about race or culture on any of our on any of the people who apply
>> grants for investment. Surely you're not saying it's it's okay to support uh terrorists.
>> That's not what the >> No, I'm certainly not saying >> I'm not saying that.
>> Thank you, Senator. >> Thank you.
>> Senator Henderson, very quickly I >> in relation to the special envoy's recommendations that the government should not be providing funding to organizations that negatively impact social cohesion, including promoting anti-semitism. Uh this is something that we've traversed a lot in uh recent times. What steps is Creative Australia taking to advance uh matters in this regard? So to assure
you, Senator, we would never invest in an organization uh a service delivery or organization or a creative organization that is um that is uh anti-semitic in its views. We wouldn't do that. We are in discussion.
>> Well, sorry Mr. Collet, you you have done that. Uh and we had a very extensive debate about that in relation to Mr. Matt Chun, the last estimates at which you appeared, I don't we haven't got time to traverse that, but you indicated that there was going to be some advancements made in relation to to dealing with this matter. Has there been any progress so that the funding of organizations or those who undermine social cohesion? Has there been any progress made by Creative Australia in relation to that? Um
there's been very significant pro progress in terms of how we are thinking about uh about um ensuring our processes are as good as they could be. Senator, you'll know that we appeared um at the Royal Commission. We took that appearance very much to heart. we brought to the table there, the kind of work we were doing to review our processes and I could go through them in great detail. But I come back to my original point. We would never knowingly invest in an organization or an art work or an arts program that [clears throat] we considered to be Islamophobic or anti-semitic uh or racist in any shape or form. where we are with NAVA to go back to that particular point is we've written to them uh we are discussing uh we are discussing our concerns that they provide services to the full diversity of artists without excluding any uh and we will continue to have those discussions and the reason we will do it is because whenever there is an issue with an organization we fund we engage with that organization and we try to make sure that our concerns are addressed whether they're financial concerns for a performing company or
>> I think I think I think history shows a very different version but look I think to be fair we'll need to pick this up at the next estimates one final question
>> chair it's past 11:00 now like on with respect to not just not just the people in the committee but the broadcasting team
one one more question and then I'm fully
aware of standing orders. I'm also aware that you've had all day to ask questions. It's now 11:00.
>> Okay, one more question, Senator Henderson.
>> Minister, the Creative Australian has been with us for a short period of time. I just indicated >> didn't bring them on until 10 time right
>> Final question, Senator Henderson.
>> Um Mr. Well, I just if you could provide the correspondence or we can come back to on notice with what we're seeking in relation to the issue I raised, but uh can I uh can I just ask you in relation to pills and irritations, is there a risk that uh pills and irritations will need to repay >> monies receive from donors as a result of this review?
>> I can't answer that as I sit here,
All right. Uh, thank you very much and thank you, Chair.
>> Thank you, uh, Senator Henderson. Uh, we now reach the end of today's proceedings. Uh, I give thanks to Creative Australia and the officers from the department for this last session. That concludes the hearing. Thank you to all witnesses who appeared and to Handen Broadcasting for their assistance. Committee has agreed that responses to questions on notice should be provided by COB 17 December 2026. I remind senators that the committee has agreed that any written questions on notice should be lodged by with the secretariat by 5 November 2026 and the committee stands adjourned.