The Claim
“Cut $105 million from the Australian Council for the Arts without consulting anyone in the arts industry.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The $105 million figure is factually accurate. The 2015-16 federal budget announced by then-Arts Minister George Brandis diverted $104.7 million (commonly rounded to $105 million) over four years from the Australia Council to establish the National Programme for Excellence in the Arts (NPEA) [1][2].
However, the claim omits several crucial details:
Partial Reversal: After Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott as Prime Minister in September 2015 and Senator Mitch Fifield replaced Brandis as Arts Minister, the government announced in November 2015 that $32 million would be returned to the Australia Council over four years, reducing the net cut to approximately $72-73 million [3][4].
Efficiency Measures: The Australia Council was also subject to efficiency measures of $1.8 million per year for four years, totaling approximately $7.2 million [5].
The funding was redirected, not eliminated. The money was moved from the Australia Council to create a new minister-administered fund (NPEA, later renamed Catalyst) with different eligibility criteria [1][2].
Missing Context
Major Performing Arts Companies Were Protected: Brandis explicitly stated that "there will be no reduction in the Australia Council's funding to the 28 major performing arts companies" [5]. The cuts were structured to fall entirely on small-to-medium arts organizations and individual artists, not the established major companies.
Not the First Budget Cut: The Australia Council had already experienced cuts in the 2014-15 budget ($9.6 million in 2014-15, plus approximately $6 million per year for three following years) [5]. The cumulative impact of 2014 and 2015 budget measures represented a total reduction of approximately $34.2 million (including indexation) or $41 million (excluding indexation) for the 2015-16 financial year alone [5].
Programs Discontinued: As a result of the cuts, the Australia Council discontinued several programs including ArtStart (for early career artists), Creative Community Partnerships Initiative, Artists in Residence program, and reduced the number of fellowships from 14 to 8 [5].
Senate Inquiry Triggered: The controversy prompted a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into "the impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts," which received 2,719 submissions and held ten public hearings across Australia [5].
Source Credibility Assessment
New Matilda is rated by Media Bias/Fact Check as:
- Bias: Left (-5.7 on their scale)
- Factual Reporting: High (1.2 - their highest rating)
- Credibility Rating: High Credibility
- No failed fact checks in the last 5 years [6]
New Matilda is an independent Australian website founded in 2004 that publishes news, analysis, and satire from a left-wing/progressive perspective. While it has a clear editorial bias, it is generally well-sourced and factual in its reporting [6][7].
The article's headline framing ("how to destroy sector without even really trying") is clearly opinionated and adversarial, consistent with New Matilda's progressive editorial stance. However, the underlying factual claims about the funding cuts are verifiable from government budget documents and mainstream media sources.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government arts funding cuts history Australia Council"
Finding: Labor governments have generally been more supportive of arts funding, but have also made budget adjustments:
Creative Australia (2013): The Gillard Labor government developed "Creative Australia," the National Cultural Policy that actually increased funding to the Australia Council by $75.4 million over four years, following a 2012 review that recommended a $21.25 million annual increase [5].
Historical Pattern: Research shows that federal arts spending fell by 22.7% per capita over the 10 years of Coalition government (2013-2022), indicating a consistent pattern of arts funding reduction under Coalition governments compared to Labor [8].
No Direct Equivalent: There is no direct equivalent of the 2015 Australia Council cuts under Labor. Labor's approach to arts funding has historically been more expansionary, with the 2013 National Cultural Policy representing a significant investment increase.
Comparison: The Coalition's approach to arts funding in 2014-2015 was distinctly different from Labor's record. While Labor increased Australia Council funding through Creative Australia, the Coalition's budget measures represented the most significant restructuring of arts funding arrangements in decades.
Balanced Perspective
The Government's Justification:
Senator Brandis defended the changes, stating: "This is a very good budget for the arts. There have been no significant cuts at all" [2]. The government argued that:
- The NPEA/Catalyst would "allow for a truly national approach to arts funding" [5]
- The program would "deliver on a number of Government priorities including national access to high quality arts and cultural experiences" [5]
- It would "make funding available to a wider range of arts companies and arts practitioners" [5]
- The emphasis on excellence and attracting private sector support aligned with government priorities [5]
Industry Response:
The arts sector response was overwhelmingly negative:
- Over 5,800 people signed a petition opposing the "massive defunding" [2]
- Protests were staged nationally under the #freethearts banner in multiple cities [2]
- Arts organizations expressed concerns about the removal of peer review (arm's length assessment) in favor of ministerial discretion [2]
- More than 60 small-to-medium arts organizations lost ongoing funding for the first time, a loss "never occurred previously in the Australian arts sector" [3]
- Australia Council CEO Tony Grybowski acknowledged the cuts would have "significant impact" on the sector's work [2]
The "Without Consultation" Claim:
The claim that the cuts were made "without consulting anyone in the arts industry" requires scrutiny. The budget announcement was indeed sudden and prompted widespread outrage about the lack of prior consultation. However:
- After the backlash, the government released draft NPEA guidelines in July 2015 seeking public feedback, receiving 330 submissions [5]
- The subsequent Senate inquiry provided extensive opportunity for stakeholder input, with 2,719 submissions received [5]
- The changes announced in November 2015 partially addressed some sector concerns by returning $32 million to the Australia Council and rebranding NPEA as Catalyst with modified guidelines [4][5]
Whether this constitutes adequate "consultation" is debatable. The initial decision was certainly made without prior industry consultation, but subsequent processes allowed for feedback that influenced the final outcome.
Key context: This was not a simple budget cut but a fundamental restructuring of arts funding arrangements in Australia, shifting significant decision-making power from an independent statutory body (Australia Council) to ministerial discretion. This structural change, combined with the scale of funding reduction and lack of prior consultation, explains the intensity of sector response.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core factual elements are accurate: approximately $105 million was cut from the Australia Council in the 2015 budget, and the initial decision was made without prior consultation with the arts industry. However, the claim omits that:
- $32 million was later returned to the Australia Council (November 2015)
- The funding was redirected to a new program, not eliminated
- The government did subsequently engage in consultation processes that led to program modifications
The characterization "without consulting anyone in the arts industry" is an oversimplification - while the initial budget decision lacked prior consultation, subsequent consultation processes did occur and influenced the final outcome.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core factual elements are accurate: approximately $105 million was cut from the Australia Council in the 2015 budget, and the initial decision was made without prior consultation with the arts industry. However, the claim omits that:
- $32 million was later returned to the Australia Council (November 2015)
- The funding was redirected to a new program, not eliminated
- The government did subsequently engage in consultation processes that led to program modifications
The characterization "without consulting anyone in the arts industry" is an oversimplification - while the initial budget decision lacked prior consultation, subsequent consultation processes did occur and influenced the final outcome.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1PDF
Budget Papers 2015-16 - Expense Measures
Budget Gov • PDF Document -
2
Australia Council cuts six-year funding in wake of Brandis budget cuts, dance protests planned
The "significant impact" of the Australia Council's reduced budget is already being felt.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
3
Election FactCheck: did the Coalition cut $105 million from Australia Council funding?
The Conversation
Daily Bulletin -
4
Guidelines released for new arts fund - Catalyst
Minister Communications Gov
-
5
Impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts
On the 16 June 2015 the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report: the impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts; and the suitability and appropriateness of the estab
Aph Gov -
6
New Matilda - Bias and Credibility
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
Media Bias/Fact Check -
7
New Matilda - Wikipedia
Wikipedia
-
8
What Labor, the Coalition and the Greens are offering the arts in the 2025 election
Financial support for artists, local content quotas for streaming platforms and AI regulation are on the agenda this election.
Abc Net
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.