ESTHER:   Hello.  Good afternoon or good morning, everyone, depending on where you are.  Welcome to the NAVA Advocacy Program.  I see a few of us have already joined the chat and letting us know where you are.  Please let us know whose country you are on, where you are.  Say hello as you're coming in.  Hello Emily Wakeling Art Space on Yuwi country.  Nice to see you again.  Ann Stafford.  Saying she can't see everyone yet.  Is anyone else having trouble seeing us?  I can see and hear and can see the chat just fine.  Let us know in the chat if it's looking good.  Kimberley can see us both.  This is good.  This is an important step forward.  Ann, I hope this is going to clear up for you.  I see a few people joining the chat and letting us know where you are.  The NAVA Advocacy Program has been going for a good few weeks now.  And we have had some really fantastic conversations.  This, of course, is about working together to skill up our advocacy approaches, not just as a one‑off thing at a time of emergency, but in an ongoing way that keeps us engaged with some big picture questions.  Before I introduce Adam, please note a few things.  First of all, as ever, our session today is recorded and it is also being live captioned.  Hello to Helen again, our captioner who is in Brisbane.  You should see up the top of the chat there there is the link to the live captioning which is pinned there, and Leya has just posted it above there as well.  Super handy for seeing our words appear on the screen for when it's not clear or the sound isn't great.  So if that's helpful for you, click on that link ‑ thank you, Leya, there it is again.  And hello to Leya our Advocacy and Communications Manager who is also joining us.  

Now, the advocacy program, of course, is leading up to Arts Day on the Hill, our national day of advocacy for the arts.  And after our hour conversation with Adam, we're going to talk some more about that in a‑half hour workshop part that we have a got left because there's lots to talk about there, and, of course, given the events of the last week of changes to some of our lives, the concerns for our neighbours, and then the broader arts and cultural issues, we have lots and lots to talk about.  Hello to Kate Smith on Ngunnawal country.  Ann, does that mean you can now see us?  Was it Ann?  I am scrolling back up.  She can now see.  Good.  Because seeing is definitely advantageous because you've got Adam's office there looking really great, I must say.  We've got some posters there, some kind of bird.  Everyone, please join me in welcoming Adam Bandt.  Adam is the member for Melbourne.  He is a Greens MP, and for a time the leader of the green.  He is also the former spokesperson for the arts and is the co‑chair of the friendship group for contemporary arts and also my local member.  Adam welcome. 

ADAM:   Thanks for having me. 

ESTHER:   It's good to see you again. 

ADAM:   Likewise. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  We have had some great conversations about the arts and other issues over the years.  So it's great to be able to share these with everyone today.  Now, Adam, to start off with just tell us a bit about where arts policy and, I guess, an interest in the commitment to the art sits for the Greens at the moment.  

ADAM:   Yeah.  I think it's ‑ I mean, we've been, like everyone else, just sort of putting everything on hold to deal with the coronavirus crisis.  I think the whole country has done that, especially in Victoria we're having to do it again.  And in that one of the things that we've been conscious of putting at the forefront of not only the response to ‑ or the relief, I guess, making sure that everyone is looked after as we go through the crisis, but also the response to how we as a community get out of it, that we put arts at the forefront of that.  And we might talk during this talk today, this chat today about some of the particular issues that have been faced and how we might get politicians to take a bit more action to not only provide greater relief but also make art central to any recovery package that comes out on the other side of this crisis.  But so for us it's been something that we've ‑ that has been very much at the centre of our thinking, and we would like to say that we've led the charge in Parliament to ensure that people continue to think about arts and the creative sectors in that relief and also in that response.  

More broadly, I think that for us we feel pretty proud about the policies that we've taken to every election and that we continue to take that are about understanding the needs of the arts and creative communities in Australia, and things from providing greater security for people who work in the sector, like understanding the particular needs of people and the insecurity that a lot of people face, that I think in many respects is part ‑ part and parcel is an unfair way of putting it but there's always been a sense in which there's some form of precariousness involved in some forms of work in the arts and creative sectors but as there's been a general rise in job insecurity for everyone generally, that's really turned up the dial for people who work in the arts and creative sectors.  So we've been, election after election, putting forward policies that are about making life more secure for people who work in the arts, and that's not just about increasing levels of funding and making that funding more secure, which is something we want to ‑ continually pushed for, but also making sure that artists have that kind of, I guess, wrap‑around support that exists in a more secure ecology because that is going to be absolutely critical.  We've also, I guess, have a bit of a worry about the rising ‑ you mentioned ‑ we were chatting before about particular MPs on the conservative side who like to chime in every now and then and they find one particular artwork or one particular opinion that's expressed and use it as a ‑ as a cudgel to try and advance a broader issue.  I think in the context of the changes we're seeing in universities at the moment where we're now seeing an explicit shift to saying universities have to be about getting people a job and a particular kind of job is in the government's mind.  They're talking about massively increasing the cost for humanities' degrees in particular.  I think, for us, there's a time for say, "No, look, we've actually got to have a bit of a think about the role of arts and creativity in our society, in our culture and, yes, in our economy, but I'm not one who thinks we've got to put that right up the top.  There are some things that are more important than that."  And now I think more than ever it's important to ensure we have a well resourced and secure and prioritised arts and creative sector. 

ESTHER:   Well, goodness me, can I say first of all it's a good thing we're recording things because the way you've just articulated that is just so comprehensive and spot on in terms of the key issues, the key issues at this time but also the ways in which the work of artists and the creative economy, more broadly, powers, you know, the broader Australian economy, as well as the way that we live and work and engage with each other.  There's a lot of issues to touch on there.  Let's pick up first of all about precariousness and, you know, what is often, I guess, repurpose, reappropriate or glamorised as flexibility.  We spoke a fair bit about how artists are the inventors of the portfolio career or the gig economy and there has certainly been great advantages to being able to yourself be in control of the conditions in which you work, you know, the modes, the hours, and so on.  But, of course, what's happened across the broader economy is that basic elements of job security, income security have vanished away and have tended to then be coopted with that language of choice, flexibility, you know, a kind of glamorisation of not having those rights.  

So how ‑ in what ways can a focus on arts or cultural policy and the way in which creative people work, how can that kind of focus strengthen workers' rights for everyone?  

ADAM:   Yeah, it's a really good question.  And I think in Australia we're pretty bad, in global terms, when it comes to job insecurity.  We've got 40 per cent of people in the workforce not in what we call an ongoing secure job.  So one where you've got all the basic rights of annual leave, and so on, and where it doesn't end at a particular time and you're not casual.  So that's 40 per cent of people are in some form of insecure work in this country.  And we've kind of, in many sectors, become a casual work or insecure work has become the norm rather than the exception.  

Now, what's happened side by side with that is that the other supports, the general level of income support that might exist through social security payment or other forms of payment has also been eaten away.  So what it's meant is that the ‑ I mean, many, many people who work in the art sector, especially if you're starting out, sort of at an early stage, will be doing other forms of paid work to supplement artistic practice.  Might be making some money from artistic practice but certainly for many people it's not going to provide a living income.  It's not wholly and certainly not for many people at the early stages.  So those other forms of work that people ‑ or income support that people might dip into has just been chipped away at for many decades.  That then makes things much, much more insecure.  

What I think we need to do, though, there are a number of shifts we could make that could make a big difference.  And looking at, as you say, the way ‑ the creative process and what that means in terms of being able to have time to reflect on your work and, I guess, perfect your skills in a way that doesn't immediately turn into money and it might not be formal training but is nonetheless going to contribute to your artistic practice.  What I think we've got to do is get better in the country of finding ways of rewarding that and acknowledging that.  So one simple thing that we could start to do, for example, would be to allow artistic work to be counted towards the activity test for the purposes of unemployment benefits, for example.  So that when you're doing something that is about perfecting your practice or improving your practice, that's recognised as having a benefit.  So you don't need to do that and then go out and look for 500 jobs that aren't there but that is counted towards the work that you do.  I think the second way what we need to be looking at is guaranteed income in this country ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

ADAM:   ‑ ‑ ‑ so that people don't fall below a certain level of income.  And we've seen in the coronavirus times the double of the level of Newstart was an admission that it was never enough to live on in the first place.  I think we've got to have a big push to keep it where it is because the cost of living isn't going to suddenly halve in September.  I think if we can keep it where it is.  Thirdly in the work space we need some law changes in this country so that instead of casual and insecure work being the presumption, it becomes the exception again.  And, again, like it's ‑ like for people who work on projects and might work on a particular performance that's being put on, yeah, it might be a few months' work at a time or a year's work at a time, so it's not going to be ‑ you can't say blanket across the whole spectrum, everything has to be a year‑to‑year ongoing job but we can do a fair bit of reining in the uncertainty by changing assumptions around that. 

ESTHER:   Such an important point.  This notion of security of labour and employment is not the default is of massive concern.  And certainly in changes to various aspects of workplace legislation in more recent years that has very much become the case.  As you say, this notion that even when we look at education and, you know, the changes that were announced around the funding of university degrees, this notion that we should focus on job readiness, you know, the changes were announced in terms of, well, you know, we need to plan for jobs of the future.  But, of course, as we know arts graduates, humanities' graduates have a high employment rate, they are skills that are about the critical approach, a critique, ethical thinking, complex judgment.  We discussed many times over the weeks that, of course global studies including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank show the top skill set needed for the new economy is actually creativity.  And so part of the conversation we've been having across this period in our program we're looking at some of the issues that are important to advocate for in the arts, some of the ways in which they get captured or not by current policy, and in the last few weeks some of the ways in which they are engaged with or not in the media.  So if we look now at those places where advocacy plays out in the media, in also the political and collegiate conversations that you have, Adam, where are we ‑ what are the ‑ what are the gaps, what are the blocks?  What prevents, do you think, a more sophisticated public conversation about these kinds of issues when we know that they are ‑ that investment and a focus on the arts is great for the industry, it's great for education, it's great for mental health, it's great for, you know, that range of things.  Where do you see the blocks and the things that prevent those ongoing conversations from happening?  

ADAM:   Yeah.  Really good question.  And I think ‑ I mean, we can use the response to the Corona crisis as a bit of an illustrative example to unpack that. 

ESTHER:   Mmm. 

ADAM:   We've had ‑ the government, firstly when it came in with its Job Keeper package which was really welcomed in a lot of places but if you happened to have patchy work practices and you weren't employed on the magic date of the 1st of March then you couldn't get Job Keeper.  So even though you might have earned an income beforehand and found ways of making ends meet, working in theatre, for example, there's a lot of people who are in that situation, many people if you weren't employed on the magic date then they ‑ they weren't going to be eligible.  Then separately there's the fact that the distancing restrictions were a big blow to the business model.  Now, in that context, like there were other industries that were in a similar situation as well.  So aviation, for example, had the social distancing requirements has meant that air travel has been virtually grounded.  But if you look at the support given to aviation compared to the support given to the arts, you wonder, well ‑ and you look at the employment, for example, if all you cared about was employment, you looked at the employment of the relative sectors you would wonder, well, why aren't we giving more support to the arts?  And I think there's ‑ there's a number of reasons that have in part to do with advocacy but perhaps not advocacy as traditionally understood, in a sense.  I think the government, I think, has made just a pretty hard‑headed decision that they are only going to save certain areas and that other people I think ‑ other sectors, perhaps where they think people aren't likely to vote for them or people are used to living on low incomes anyway we're not going to give you the support we're going to other sectors and we'll cop it.  If there's any public blow‑back we'll just cop it.  And it's the same with arts policy more generally, going to elections.  I think they think, certainly on the conservative side of politics, they think, "Well, what's in it for us?  Why would we bother having a good arts policy?  A lot of these people aren't going to vote for us anyway, or the ones who do will be perhaps participating in the tier 1 organisations that will be guaranteed funding so we don't need to worry too much about thinking about a proper policy for funding down to some of the other organisations."  And I think the ‑ it's the old adage, though, I think of the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Coming back to the aviation example they knew the airlines had access to the national media and were able to come out and say, "Hey, the government is about to let us go under."  So I think out of fear of knowing that there were some well resourced players there who could have run quite a powerful campaign against the government, they supported them.  And I think one of the things that we need to get a handle on in arts and in arts advocacy in particular is, to be blunt, how to make politicians feel that they might suffer some electoral pain if they don't pay attention to the arts.  You know, to let you in on a trade secret politicians care about votes and they care about winning seats and care about losing seats.  And what the ‑ the others ‑ you know, the budget is of a certain size.  And there are some very loud voices demanding slices of that budget.  And what they do is they go to politicians and they say, "Look, if you don't give us a tax break or give us the funding or give us the support, then we're in a position to go and run campaigns to ensure you get less votes and potentially less seats and potentially lose or don't gain government."  And I think we've got to work out how ‑ it might not be a way of thinking that people are necessarily used to but I think we've got to work out what is the arts equivalent of that?  What is the arts equivalent of politicians ‑ getting politicians so terrified that they start thinking about the arts budget the way they think about the defence budget.  We would never cut it because we know we're going to lose votes and going to lose seats.  I think in that respect it's not always about, necessarily, explaining the economic benefit, although that is critical that they understand that.  I think it's often about making them feel like, "Oh, if I don't come up with a good arts policy, then there might be a bunch of people who live in my electorate who aren't going to vote for me" or the thing they really care about as politicians is around public image, and if there's a sense that there might all of a sudden be publicity campaign or an advertising campaign run against my party, that all of a sudden people are going to start seeing faces they've recognised from their theatre or TV screens, whatever, that's when I think they're potentially going to start paying attention.  So I think we need to think about how to turn the dial up and turn arts advocacy from as well as being advocacy like to actually being a form of campaigning in the way that the others do it.  

ESTHER:   I think ‑ it's such a crucial point.  You just mentioned a few different aspects.  You mentioned earlier about advocacy not in the traditional way but thinking about things differently.  Advocacy in terms of creating that feeling of terror that votes could be lost.  And then that sense of a clear public message that, you know, that makes it very clearly about electoral issues.  Have we just been kind of too nice, too distributed, too unfocused?  What are the kinds of arts conversations that people have when they come and meet with you and the kinds of, you know, how would you ‑ you know, be entirely blunt, how would you compare, I guess, the conversations and the approaches compared to when people from other industries approach you, knowing also that some of those other industries have paid lobbyists, that's what they do for a living.  How does that compare?  

ADAM:   Yeah.  It's a tricky comparison to make because, I mean, we feel like that part of our role as the Greens in Parliament is we're advocating for the public interest as opposed to particular vested interests.  And so ‑ I mean to take another example in the transport field everyone knows that public transport is the way to reduce congestion and a better way of doing it and building more roads but the roads lobby has got a lot of money behind it, whereas who's advocating for public transport.  It's people who want to do it.  It's academics who know it's the right thing and some users but there's not the same level of money behind it.  So there's the bigger question of how do you advocate for something that's in the public interest knowing ‑ like arts is ‑ how do you take something that's in the public interest knowing there's not going to be the big money behind it.  And I think the ‑ so it's hard to compare the two.  But I think one thing that's worth thinking about is what are the ‑ what are the strengths of the arts and creative community that the others don't have.  Yeah, the others might have money but that only takes you so far, right?  If the game is to ‑ or if the aim, rather, is to have a politician think, "Oh, if I don't do this thing that's being proposed, it might actually risk my seat", how does that happen?  I mean, again, one of the strengths in the arts and visual arts community in particular is the creativity, I think, right.  And you've got the capacity I think to generate things that can become front page news, that can become images that get refracted around the world, around the country and around the world.  And you've got access to people who are known faces that might be, you know, popping up on TV screens or ‑ or in other forms, or ‑ that are otherwise well known names and identities that would send terror down a marginal seat backbencher's spine if they thought oh my goodness are there going to be ads run that is put out there that suddenly captures public imagination and is shared widely on forms of social media.  That is the kind of thing that they will say, "Oh, well I would rather that campaign not be run against me" so if what you're asking for is a well funded arts policy, I will give you a well funded arts policy rather than have that kind of creative campaign run against me."  So I guess I would say to people you won't be able to match it on the spending side with the mining companies who come in and say give us a tax deduction otherwise we're going to turf you out of this particular seat in Queensland or Western Australia, or wherever it is, but you can probably better them on creativity.  And I think that's something that can capture attention and send shivers down their spine. 

ESTHER:   If we can't capture them on creativity, then something is wrong.  Now, we've got a question from the chat from Kimberley.  What is the best time to campaign and advocate for the arts in the Australian political calendar?  What do you think, Adam?  Is there a good time?  

ADAM:   Lead up to budgets and elections and bi elections as well, a lot of them come knocking.  That's a time politicians are at their most sensitive during elections.  And that's the classic time, I think.  If you said, "Hey, here's this ad or little clip that's about to run about you or your party because you've refused to come up with a good arts policy and we're running it in a week in the middle of an election where you might win or lose by a couple of hundred votes", it's at that time, makes a big difference.  And I would also say, just as a ‑ speaking from a bit of ‑ speaking from the perspective of being a politician we get a lot of communication into the office and a lot of people wanting our attention and wanting our time.  The thing that goes to the top of the pile is actually individual communications and correspondence from someone who lives in the area.  And especially, believe it or not, if it's handwritten, that goes right to the top of the pile because anyone can click a form email and bang it's gone in two seconds but when someone in your electorate is actually said to you, "Look, here is me in the electorate or here is the school I work at in the electorate or here is 50 of us who live in your electorate who all feel this passionately about it and we're personally contacting you", that kind of goes to the top of the pile.  Again, election times are a good time for that but that can be done at any time throughout the cycle. 

ESTHER:   These are two very good points you've made.  Firstly the timing leading up to election, people are sensitive, and the media are ready to hear a diverse range of stories so more eager to get stuff out there, not just the usually preelection stories, but also heading into the budget season and budget preparation season which is why Arts Day on the Hill is on 12 August which is typically the first sitting week after the winter break and that budget planning starts to happen.  But also this, yeah, that's some really good advice about how to approach a politician.  I was presenting a workshop some years ago now with former adviser to the former premier of Victoria and she talked about how they had a stamp in the office which would get stamped on correspondence as it came in, and if there was, you know back in the days of things being bulk, tangible as opposed to email, if there was something which was clearly a form letter petition, it would get the stamp, get the tick of, "Look, you know, don't bother", it would sit in a box for a while and then it would get thrown away.  This was just an insight for everyone in that workshop because people go to such lengths to write petitions and so on.  Whereas you don't know what personal thought and commitment someone has given to something which is a form letter, but when someone has taken the trouble to contact you in a personalised way, that's ‑ you know, I can see why that would go to the top of the pile.  That takes us to Yvonne's question who says, "Adam what do you hear all the time but are bored of hearing from artists?"  So is there something that ‑ are there things, you know, perhaps a way in which artists communicate that ‑ are there particular things that you hear quite often and that, you know, you kind of ‑ you're sick of hearing, you're bored of hearing and perhaps you want to be hearing something more helpful?  

ADAM:   Not really.  Nothing ‑ and I'm not just saying that to be kind but there's nothing I can immediately think of that I think is boring or is not worth hearing.  I guess I would just come back to my main point, that there's something that we can do, and we sometimes do this as the Greens as well when it comes to communicating our policies.  Sometimes some of us can have this tendency to think, especially with politicians, if only they had a bit more information or a bit more data they'd make a better decision.  And so there's often this attempt to persuade, "Well, let me tell you about the rationality of the argument, let me tell you about the facts and figures and amount of dollars", and so on.  And what I think is ‑ one of the things I think that that misses is that ‑ I mean, human beings don't always make decisions on the basis of rationality or facts.  That's, I think, something that the arts sector ‑ people who work in the arts and creative sector actually understand and understand really well and understand what motivates and what drives people and how ‑ you know, the importance of emotion, in particular, in the way that people are in the world, and the decisions that people make.  So I think ‑ and it comes back to my point ‑ and I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a stuck record ‑ but about making politicians feel like there's going to be a downside for them if they don't do something in particular, is that politicians ‑ like the decisions that I've seen made in Canberra, a lot of them you think where is the rationality of that?  Why did we just make that?  It's not an evidence‑based decision.  Not everything is an evidence‑based decision.  I think that who you ‑ the decisions politicians make, just like the decisions about who you vote for, aren't always head decisions, they're often heart decisions or soul decisions or decisions about affects.  Probably don't feel that you've always got to jump back into that box of thinking, well, I've got to give the politicians a bit more evidence and then they'll make a better decision.  Yes it's important, yes it's crucial, but there's also other ways to people's hearts including politicians. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  I think that issue of hearts and minds is something that John Alexander spoke about when he was our guest a couple of months ago now in this session talking about exactly that.  We know there's a world of great economic and other arguments but, you know, that's not, yeah, shifting those hearts and minds.  But tell us, though, one of the ‑ I think one of the reasons why colleagues are reluctant to engage in that way with politicians is because, you know, of the risk of coming across as though making a threat or risking damaging the relationship.  You would have had, you know, a range who come to your office exactly as you describe, you know, these are the consequences if this doesn't happen.  What's your advice about that?  How do we come across in a really clear, firm way without risking damaging relationships when we need to articulate what the consequences are of inaction. 

ADAM:   Good question.  That's where I think there's strength in numbers.  So I think that coming together to do particular things makes it a lot ‑ a lot easier.  I think at the end of the day, like, it's not always about saying we're going to necessarily say vote for a particular ‑ we're endorsing you as a particular party.  It's about saying, "This is the policy, this is the yardstick that we're going to measure all parties against", right, "And we're going to ‑ here are the things we want.  We're not saying this because we're pro liberal, Labor or pro Greens.  This is what we want and we're going to measure this against that yardstick.  Those who stack up we will tell our members and the public and those who don't we're going to campaign strongly.  You can do that ‑ that doesn't come across as a threat to a politician.  It's just like we are ‑ here is our asks, here is what we want and here is the campaign we're going to run to get them.  And we're going to run a really strong campaign and we'll back anyone who backs our demands and whatever party you come from, and we'll say to everyone who doesn't come from ‑ doesn't meet our demands you've got to do better, whichever party you come from.  If it's put in that way, then I think people respect that and people understand that.  And that's not seen as a threat;  that's just seen as part and parcel of politics.  I guess the second point I would make is that, coming back to that earlier point, the other people who are arguing for the parts of the pile don't feel that compunction.  They're much more prepared to jump in boots and all and say, "Hang on, you know, give us these three things or we're out to run a big campaign."  I'm not suggesting that's good behaviour to copy.  I'm just saying that is what people are up against.  So I think there's ‑ as long as it's seen ‑ what politicians don't want to think is that, well, look, no matter what I do you're not going to back me because you're just tied to one particular party.  If they think that, then that's when it becomes harder to be seen as independent.  But if you can go in there arguing independently just saying here is our policy asks, then I think people will respect that. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  For sure.  It's so frustrating that notion that in the eyes of some in the Coalition, the arts aren't a vote winner when we know there are a lot of artists, donors, sponsors, etcetera, who are committed to the Coalition and are also donors to the parties.  So, yeah, I think the clarity and firmness of that conversation is crucially important. 

ADAM:   I've seen a few people jump into the chat and saying are we being too polite.  Well, it's not about saying being too polite.  It might involve stepping out of the comfort zone a bit and doing things ‑ saying, "Yes, that campaign seems a bit hard‑hitting but actually in such a crowded time when so many people are trying to get your attention and there's so many calls on the money, you kind of have to do something that might make you feel uncomfortable and might be ratcheting it up a bit but that's the way to get attention. 

ESTHER:   Especially in a media scape that's decreasing in size and diversity.  It's more difficult to seize that front page.  Needing to be bold and creative is really important.  We've got a question ‑ a couple up there from are Anna about the Parliamentary Friendship Group of Contemporary Arts and Culture.  As a preface to that let's talk about working across the Parliament with colleagues who have shared interest among a number of different areas.  Tell us about how that works for you and for the Greens.  So Parliamentary Friendship Groups are one way of doing that and formalise put their names to things but how do you currently, you know, as a matter of course of doing that Parliamentary business, how do you engage across party lines to achieve things?  

ADAM:   Yeah.  There's a lot of informal conversations that go on, and people do talk often as backbenchers.  So people who don't have ministerial roles will be having the discussions about what might be a particular fix to a particular problem or a particular useful thing to take up next.  And those conversations are important because if you can work out a way of dealing with something that you know is going to sail through the Parliament because everyone has actually done the work of agreeing on it beforehand, then it becomes a much easier solution to put forward.  So those discussions take place.  And that's why things like Parliamentary Friendship Groups are really important.  There was a time, for example, where ‑ excuse me ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ESTHER:   It's thirsty work, all this talking. 

ADAM:   There was a time in one of ‑ there was a time when we didn't have a Minister for cities.  And the ‑ and the ‑ we had a Parliamentary Friendship Group for better cities.  And one of the things that the group wanted to do was get back a Minister and make sure that when the Minister came they had a bunch of policy prescriptions ready to go.  And it worked really, really well.  And we got back a Minister for cities.  And then the Parliamentary Friendship Group said, "Great, we've actually done a large part of our work."  So that stuff happens and it's important. 

ESTHER:   Great.  So the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Contemporary Arts and Culture we supported colleagues to form and launch at last year's Arts Day on the Hill, so it is still fairly new.  Unfortunately, Adam couldn't make it that evening so he wasn't at our launch event but still a committed part of the group.  So the group is still kind of, you know, getting going in terms of things to aim for but what has happened, of course, since that time is the restructure which disappeared, vanished the name of the arts from a ‑ from a portfolio.  What are the ways in which the Parliamentary Friendship Group could not just redress that but really start to look at those policy pros, because it's one of the larger friendship groups.  There are a lot of MPs in the group across all parties and some really committed people, I think. 

ADAM:   Yeah.  It's a good question.  And, again, like the cities example, shows it can actually be achieved.  You never know when there will be a reshuffle in cabinet.  Having the idea ready and pushing it and saying next ‑ basically you need to get the message to your government and the Prime Minister next time there's a reshuffle we have to put arts back in as a standalone.  We would ideally like it to be a separate Minister or a standalone portfolio, at least not just mentioned as a name.  The time to get ready for all of those things is now and the time to have those discussions is now.  And be clear about what it is that people are asking for so that when the opportunity comes, bang, you can lay it on the table and it might happen again.  And there was the cities example.  We also lost a Minister for science a while ago.  Under the Abbott government.  We sort of pushed and pushed and eventually got the Minister for science back as well.  So I think we do have a Minister but we don't have it in the department name but being able to say, "This is what we want.  This is part of re‑elevating it back to an important point in policy making."  It's good for people to know that so that people are ready when the opportunity arises. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  Absolutely.  Now, just asking everyone for more questions for Adam because we've got just under 20 minutes left with Adam and then we'll go into more of our workshop conversation.  Let's go back to the conversation about the media and securing that focus.  And also to continue the conversation from last week about the politicisation of Abdul Abdullah's work.  When MPs do that it can be very difficult for an artist to know how to respond.  In the chat we were having earlier before we flicked the big record switch, Adam and Leya and I were just realising that last week when we spoke about Abdul's work, I neglected to mention a key element of that story, which is that the politician George Christiansen and Martin Bella the local councillor choosing to politicise the response to Abdul's work they chose to do so on Remembrance Day, 11 November last year knowing that Abdul and certainly no one from the gallery or the arts was going to make any kind of response on Remembrance Day.  When you also look at the way that returned service people, their families and others, when you look at the way that ‑ you know, their emotional state on that day was exploited, it really strikes me as an incredibly callous thing to have done.  

How difficult is it, Adam, in a situation like that where to make a strong response around an issue that it's about ‑ about artists and war on a day like that ‑ how on earth do you respond as a politician when you know you've been wedged in a corner on something that is so crucial and requires a response?  

ADAM:   Yeah.  It's tricky.  There's a reason that they continue to mount those kind of attacks on that side of politics.  It's the same way that they get up ‑ you hear them late night in the chamber.  It's usually around the time ARC grants are awarded and they will get up and read out a mix of things and they will find half a dozen titles that they think are somehow extraordinary that this kind of research would be funded and they get out and they read the title out of context, and then they try and get a media story up in some of the sensationalist media about it, why are we funding this.  Worrying we saw the education Minister not that long ago step in and veto a few grants again kind of on the basis of the ‑ what they thought were the sensational nature of the titles but to me, someone who has been through that tertiary education and postgraduate study it's like, "Well, yes, you probably ‑ have you actually read the person's work?  Do you actually understand whether there's a gap in the field that that person is contributing to?  We might have the world expert in that particular area and you're just getting up and making a cheap shot."  And I think it's getting worse.  And I think that the ‑ it's the kind of thing that governments do when they think they're in trouble on other fronts, as they are at the moment with the economy tanking and in rescission if not in depression, I think we can potentially expect to see this kind of culture war dial being turned up even a bit further, which is a bit of a ‑ a bit of a concern.  I guess I would say two things.  When it happens, firstly know that there's advocates that you've got in Parliament who will speak out against it.  And so let us know, get in touch and say, "Hey, hang on, I've just been attacked for this.  And they've completely misconstrued my work or it's an unfair attack to make", and so on, so we know, so that we can get up and raise in response.  I guess the second thing I would say is we've got a particular unique opportunity at the moment where, you know, the mining boom having come to an end and the money starting to have run out, it seems that the Australian Government is being more willing to step up against ‑ and raise concerns, including human rights and democratic expression concerns in places like China and there's a focus on what's happening in Hong Kong and what's happening in China.  We've got now ‑ it's amazing how the people who get up and make these kind of attacks are also often the biggest worriers for so‑called free speech.  And I think we've got a really golden opportunity now to turn around and call them out for what they are and say, "Hang on, you're basically saying that it's the role of government to say that certain kinds of artistic practices should not be allowed because you disagree with them.  Didn't you just two breaths ago exactly condemn that in another government overseas?  And I think it's time for us to start calling them out for that ‑ what I think is rank hypocrisy.  I think that kind of attack might have a bit more purchase ‑ that counter attack might have a bit more purchase now. 

ESTHER:   That's a great approach.  Especially when we know that, you know, so we're jumping on something which is an issue, the media thinking about, you know, those structural frameworks for advocacy, it's about continuing a story, the media are always motivated to continue a story that is already in the news.  And the answer really dial that up is a good one.  Natalie says do you think there is a potential for the arts to team up with other industries to better lobby government.  And Michaela is adding to that saying she has always thought the arts versus sport argument was unproductive and a joint approach about the two sector societal benefits, the physical and mental well‑being, visit to economy, they're trying it locally in the UK but it's hard to get off the ground.  Michaela who is a former resident of Melbourne, I don't know if you've been following, Michaela, the approach of the Victorian government in their COVID‑19 package for the arts which they have called the visitor economy and it is about art, sport, culture, the whole kind of piece.  What do you think, Adam?  Who are the industries we should be teaming up with?  

ADAM:   Yeah, it's a really good question.  I think one of the things that ‑ I've made the point that ‑ before that when lobbying politicians, when making the case, we can't just focus on the economics side of it;  we have to focus on the other ‑ argue for its inherent worth as well because that's ‑ like that's a crucial way of defending the place.  But on the other hand, I guess I would complement that argument by saying ‑ making the point Michaela and others are making which is I think people probably ‑ people often have a misunderstanding of what the real economy and society actually looks like.  So if you ask people are there more people employed in the arts or in mining, you know, people have got an inflated idea because mining has been so good, for example ‑ and I'm just picking them out because they've been a very good self‑promoter ‑ creating this sense of how important they are to the economy.  And so I think, yes, like any project that actually says, "Here is how integral arts and creative sector is to the economy", and I feel that in Melbourne ‑ we've been having discussions about how does the ‑ how does the comedy festival ever happen again in this time of restrictions, you know.  There's these real questions, these things that are so important to our everyday activity and what's the flow‑on effect of that for tourism and for the shops.  We're starting to see that.  There is absolutely ‑ when you think about the real place of arts and creative sector in the economy and thinking about the others that hang off that, yeah, partnering with tourism was mentioned, partnering with those others that hang off it, again, sport, that suggests ‑ Victoria is the visitor economy.  Yeah, I think that's a really, really good idea.  I would also say have a think about other sectors like science as well.  Like, I think ‑ I've been the science spokesperson for us for a while.  I'm not any more but I have been for a long time.  To me, I noticed a lot of similarities between what I was hearing when scientists were coming in and lobbying me at the same time as artists.  And people in the creative sector.  There was this real sense of like we're doing our work ‑ I'm focused on a particular bit and a particular thing I'm interested in but it's part of a contribution to our general understanding of who we are in the world and what we're doing.  And I would prefer to be able to just spend my time getting on with my particular creative project but I understand that I've got to engage in this lobbying world, and so on.  But how do we get a better slice of the pie.  And some of the questions that have come out through this are exactly the same questions that are asked ‑ there's a science meets Parliament process that goes on as well every year.  And I go to that.  These are very, very similar questions that are coming out.  And scientists and researchers are saying, "I'm worried about my grant funding.  Should I step out and make, you know, stick my head above the parapet and so on."  I say to them what I say to you, which is that firstly there are others who are arguing louder for that particular slice of the pie, but secondly, I think one point that probably I haven't made enough during this conversation is that there is a, I think, notwithstanding what George Christiansen will say when he gets up in Parliament, I think there's a really strong residual and hard to budge affection in Australia for the arts.  And that might seem a bit counterintuitive but it's a bit like that for science as well.  People love the idea ‑ and maybe it's a version of what others have called cultural cringe, I don't know, but people love the idea that we're actually able ‑ we've got people who produce things that are valued by society and valued by the rest of the world.  Whether that's in science or the arts, I think there's a really strong sense that, hey, this is us being a smart, creative country.  And we've got to back it.  

And I think that it's a way ‑ if there's other sectors that we can tap into to say, "Hey, this is a version ‑ I'm pinching someone else's policy name but Australia is a creative nation" like that kind of creativity being at the core of what we do, I think it's something that the population really is ready to accept.  And I think there's a lot of potential partners for the arts in that project.  

ESTHER:   It's such a good point.  And it's something that we touched on a lot in the recent weeks is all the different competing cliches and stereotypes around the arts.  It's elitist, it's not me.  It is kind of ‑ it's everyday, it's everyday craft, community connection.  Oh, artists are, you know, fringe ‑ they should go and get a job.  Oh, no, artists are slackers, artists are rich, artists are poor.  There's so many different kind of cliches.  As Alex Marsden was pointing out a bit earlier that challenge of, you know, do you emphasise critical thinking and creativity when you're advocating or is that a turnoff.  But I think you're right, Adam, that, you know, we think about the CSIRO and the ABC, for example, critical cultural institutions and the way we spring to their defence.  But I think it's about how do we advocate for, how do we have a conversation around those critical intellectual creative and scientific pursuits without it sounding elite or inaccessible?  

ADAM:   I think those two institutions they're exactly the institutions I had in mind when talking about science, people love the CSIRO and people love to hear things that have been invented here or the work that's being done.  There's a really strong level of support just as there is for the ABC.  So I think questions about how to leverage of that are crucially important.  One another thing coming out of the coronavirus crisis and the economic crisis we're in at the moment is that, I mean, things on the jobs front weren't great for many people before coronavirus started. 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

ADAM:   We had three in 10 young people either ‑ in fact ‑ yeah, three in 10 either without a job or without enough hours of work, so under‑employed or insecure work.  That number has gone up to four out of 10.  It's potentially going to stay high for a while as a lot of these industries potentially can't restart in the same way or certainly can't restart for a long time.  And I think one of the things that's in our mind is you look back to the response from the US government 100 years ago with the ‑ around 100 years ago to the Great Depression when they had the new deal.  And there was yes out of that ‑ we've got a lot of people out of work, we've got a lot of thing the country needs.  Let's put two and two together and have a government‑led recovery that makes it happen.  They got transport infrastructure out of it, the National Parks Service out of it, all of which America still enjoys today.  But there was a huge artistic and cultural component to the new deal recovery as well that's off in, perhaps, not widely understood about how significant that was.  And I think we've got a bit of an opportunity here in Australia to do something similar.  So we're advocating, for example, a program of having artists in residence in schools as part of the recovery package where you would employ someone to go and spend some time in schools and use their time to learn from the students but also impart their skills on the students and engage in artistic practices together.  As well as the other bigger packages for telling our own stories and for supporting the arts and the creative sector more generally, I think there's now a real chance to jump in and say, "Well, what about some ‑ it's a way of ‑ I think it's probably a different way of talking about the economic benefits of it but in a way that perhaps grounds it a bit more.  It's like, "Oh, yeah, okay, let's have some" ‑ I think having an artist in my kid's school would be a good idea."  Or having something like let's use this as an opportunity to say we've got to reinvigorate grass roots organisations and grass roots practices.  Once we can start making that practical and saying this is going to be about getting some jobs for the people who are otherwise going to be unemployed potentially for a year or so as we head out of the coronavirus crisis that is a way of making it tangible and engaging, support people have for the arts and really localising it in terms of benefits to you immediately in your community or in your educational institutions. 

ESTHER:   God, yeah.  I mean, it's nation building.  It is clearly nation building stuff.  I think that's exactly ‑ that is exactly what's needed.  Now, I'm just looking at the time.  And I'm also looking at the chats.  There is one more question ‑ Adam, have you got time for one more question?  

ADAM:   One more, great.  Wonderful. 

ESTHER:   Kimberley is asking for advocacy for when we're talking about people who are in groups that tend to be targeted by the media and becoming more vulnerable when they do speak out.  So Kimberley says many people I try to advocate for feel they can't do so because they're typically targeted by the media such as former refugees, Sudanese community.  What can we do to fight for them for their Art Space practices without endanger of more targeting and trauma.  For those of us in Melbourne this is a very current question right now because we know that in those nine social housing communities there are not only a lot of artists but a lot of people in communities for whom a range of artistic and cultural expression is absolutely crucial to everyday life and that is being very constrained at the moment.  We'd love to be able to advocate for people without necessarily speaking on their behalf or purporting to but then we don't want to expose them to further attack.  I think that's a really important question, Kimberley.  Adam, what's your advice on that?  

ADAM:   It's a really ‑ it's a really good question.  And I think there's ‑ I think it depends who you're trying to convince.  I think on the one hand there are a group of people who want to ‑ want to hear those stories about what the practices that people are engaged in and the work that they're doing, including any challenges that they're having from funding cuts and so on.  People ‑ there's a group of people who really want to hear that because they know about the importance of the arts and are concerned so want to hear because they're concerned.  If you're talking to the ‑ a broader group of people who perhaps you might think aren't necessarily going to be sympathetic, this might turn into something that's targeting, and so on.  I mean, one of the things that I think is undeniable is the role of, I guess, community grass roots artistic practices and social cohesion.  And I just think ‑ like, I see it as a local member all the time.  Like, it's the fine ‑ people talk about Australia being a multicultural society and isn't it good that we don't have some of the tensions that other countries have and query whether we do or not because perhaps sometimes that's just being swept under the carpet.  But what you do see is that it's ‑ it's an enormously important way of people feeling like they're engaged, they're human beings and they belong.  And that fine grained work when we talk about multiculturalism that is what makes a multicultural society cohesive.  I would be stressing to others ‑ and you're going to have a lot of advocates here who ‑ whether or not they support a particular artistic grant being given out, want to see a socially cohesive community and so will, therefore, back projects if the evidence can show this is a really good way of keeping people engaged where the alternative is disengagement.  And I think that is something ‑ I see it every day.  I see the value of it every day but I think a lot of people don't.  And when you start saying if you pull these things out then how else are people going to spend their time, what are they going to do?  Isn't it great to have people here in a recording studio composing music or painting or sitting on a computer working out how to do animation.  Isn't that a really good thing?  Isn't that better than the alternative.  The answer has got to be yes.  That's how I would get that message out to some of the decision‑makers on that front. 

ESTHER:   That is such a good way of putting it.  Thank you, Adam.  Now, before we ‑ we all thank Adam in that strange chat way that we do.  I just want to recognise the important role Senator Sarah Hanson‑Young as the Greens spokesperson for the arts.  She has been going out of her way to stay connected with and hearing from the industry at this time.  I was in Canberra last week to speak at the Parliamentary inquiry into the Australian Government's COVID‑19 response and Senator Hanson‑Young had really interesting questions to ask of me and a range of us that whole afternoon.  And in general, as Adam was saying towards the beginning of our chat, the position that the Greens have been taking through this period, but also, you know, across all the years that you have been together on the arts has been clear and consistent, and is valued and appreciated by everyone, and certainly in the years we've known each other, Adam, I've always deeply appreciated our chats and your time very much today.  So everyone, please join me in thanking Adam.  We're going to stick around for another half hour for our workshop part.  Adam, thank you so, so much.  You've given us some great challenges and kicks in the bum there.  

ADAM:   Thanks, Esther and everyone.  Thanks for joining us.  Bye.  

ESTHER:   Thanks, Adam.  Bye.  Oh, such good questions and provocations, and I'm just going back on some of the questions that people have asked, so we can now address this and look at what we've just learnt from today but also getting into our advocacy lessons and plans heading into Arts Day on the Hill.  My first question for everyone is now we've just had three politicians speak to us.  We've had John Alexander from the Liberal Party, Maria Vamvakinou from Labor, and Adam Bandt from the Greens.  What are some of the different techniques that you have just seen in these three ‑ particularly those who have been here for all of those three sessions ‑ how have they just demonstrated to you their skill in being a politician?  In what ways have they engaged with us and how have they done that differently?  So in ‑ what have you just been learning in terms of the techniques that they've used to engage with us as politicians.  And while everyone is thinking of a response to that, I'm just going to back to Mary Findlay's question about do you think we should be working at a State level and lobbying our federal members.  Small regional art gallery, physically isolated and geographically.  Arts bring so much to the community, economically.  It's frustrating not to be recognised at a federal level when it's so important.  100 per cent, Mary.  I have to say your being physically or geographically isolated is, in fact, precisely the reason why engaging with your federal politicians is so important.  And Senators as well, not just your local member but all the Senators in your State.  They are always very, very eager to hear from regional communities and building that relationship for all the reasons we've been discussing throughout this program is super important.  So a relationship that you form, a conversation that you have around the issues for you and your community are then picked up when industry bodies such as mine or Alex Marsden who's on the chat with us, the national director of The Australian Museums and Galleries Association, when we go and meet with MPs and they're able to say to us, "Oh, actually, it's interesting you say that because Mary Findlay just got in touch with me recently and she shared this experience."  So that thing we all need to do to keep those conversations going.  

So the techniques that we have just been witnessing from politicians, and Louise says their knowledge regarding the arts is really different.  And, of course, we have Adam who was the Greens spokesperson for the arts and is also the Member For Melbourne.  So there's no way that Adam could have won his seat, let alone be successful as a local politician without being very engaged in the arts.  I think in terms of the other two politicians that we've heard from, what's instructive there is that it's a lot more typical of a typical MP.  So what's the language we need to use, you know, JA obviously is a former elite tennis player, was drawing on his experience in that area.  Maria has a social background very interested in social connections, cultural diversity and those aspects of the arts.  And so part of the purpose ‑ there has been a few questions about the Parliamentary Friendship Group and what did they do.  Part of it is ‑ so the way that Parliamentary Friendship Groups work is, as Adam was explaining, it connects people across the Parliament who have shared interests.  They are registered with the speaker of the house.  They're listed on the Australian Parliament website.  And they only exist for a single term of government.  And they can do things, they can request things, they can access resources, you know, that we can't access.  And if Arts Day on the Hill was going to go ahead in Canberra this year, which it of course is not possible, we would have had an event which they hosted and so on.  What we're doing at the moment is out of John Alexander's office we've developed that survey that we discussed some weeks ago to understand what their engagement is, what they know of the arts in their electorate, whose work is hanging on their walls so that we can then use that rich information to connect more effectively with them on Arts Day on the Hill but also to mobilise them as internal advocates across the whole Parliament.  

Anne Stafford says in the electorate of Indi the model of kitchen table conversations might be a way of engaging politicians, perhaps.  It's been very successful is a non‑threatening but extremely informative way of conveying information.  Anne, tell us more about the kitchen table conversations.  There have been so many different modes of meeting at this time because we can't meet face‑to‑face, but as many people have been saying, and also during our program, it makes a range of things more accessible.  You can ‑ you know, as an outcome of this it's going to become normal to be able to get in touch with your MP and ask for a video meeting without having to travel who knows how far it might be, especially if you're regionally, to get to their office.  We need to continue these ways of meeting, but also certainly gathering around a kitchen table is a very practical honest way of having a good conversation, which is why I've stressed as well inviting MPs to your studio, to your gallery, but in particular to the place where you make work.  People love it being explained to them how did you make this.  Here you go.  Those deep insights are so valuable for politicians.  And I have multiple stories of them hearing MPs tell others for years and years, "I was invited to this artist's studio.  I saw this.  And this is how they do that."  Nadia is saying Adam definitely seems to understand the arts and its needs more than John Alexander but both gave useful tips on how to actually get politicians' attention, for example, getting to know them, appealing to their interests JA said or the types of communication methods such as handwritten letters or developing campaigns around election time but it was great to hear them both speak and remember that politicians are actual people, which of course Nadia, one of the hidden agendas of this program is that so often ‑ and I know in conversations I have, not just with, you know, colleagues and artists professionally, but also with friends and neighbours, people feel intimidated about the idea of speaking with a politician or arranging to meet with them or sidling up at an event.  We elected them.  We're paying their salaries.  Their job is to listen to us.  We've really got to put that aside and build those relationships because they really are actual people like us.  Yeah, that's hugely, hugely important.  

And so those tips around how to get politicians' attention, the different tips that we've heard from each of those politicians is going to work ‑ they're going to work better for some politicians than others.  And that's why it's so important to do that homework and know who they are.  Anne Stafford is saying this is the way of those different multiple ways are ways of bringing people to the conversation particularly those who are unrepresented, gathering information that might not otherwise come forward.  Yeah, that's right.  I think those kitchen table style conversations are great.  You can have people who are there comfortably leading the conversation, and others who, again, might not always be in the room, might be less comfortable to speak up but are there, are present, and there's that sense of community that a politician is being welcomed into a community.  

Yvonne is saying that Adam appeared to recognise the gang of politics and analyse the techniques of persuasion.  It's not all about facts on which other parties pretend to argue, but also about the head, heart and affect.  Yeah.  I really appreciated that part of what he said.  And it's certainly something that, yeah, a lot of politicians have emphasised with me over the years.  There was a piece I wrote I think for Arts Hub, a few weeks ago ‑ maybe a month or more ago, actually, called the economic argument against the arts is over.  The government lost.  And I wrote that after it was exposed that $60 billion under‑spend in the Australian Government's overall response to COVID‑19.  And that was all about, you know, we can present all the economic arguments we like, and as John Daley was saying from the Grattan Institute, we can quantify the size of the arts' economy in so many different ways, but then ultimately it is that emotive argument ‑ thanks, Leya, for posting that article.  There you go.  It was the 26th of April.  So it was, yeah, a couple of months ago now.  Doesn't time just collapse?  I really ‑ yeah, that was like fairly recently in my mind but it was already that long ago, so there you go.  Yes.  Exactly.  Time has just vanished into who knows what.  

So, yeah.  But, of course, to be in a position where you can make a hearts and minds argument, you already need to have built up that relationship in the first place.  And so that's about all of us, you know, mobilising in different ways.  Can you imagine ‑ you know, Adam was saying the idea about a national campaign, and I think that is crucial and, really, if the industry can't get our act together to do that ahead of the next election, there's something wrong.  But if we also then look at the numbers of us, you know, there's 32 of us here right now but the numbers of us all over Australia, if we're all building those small relationships, you know, it absolutely, you know, adds up into something much, much bigger.  

Now, let's talk more about Arts Day on the Hill.  The role that you can play and how we're going to use this as a national day of advocacy focus that can secure some media impact, improve politicians' understanding, and really, you know, bring some momentum.  So Kate is saying I'm still not sure how best to be involved in all this advocacy as an individual artist.  Just me, not representing an artspace or anything.  And, yeah, that can be ‑ that can really be the most difficult thing, just thinking as an individual what can I do.  So let's now go to the handbook which details all of that and then lead towards focusing and harnessing all of that on Arts Day on the Hill.  Now, I've just shared the screen or opened the presentation.  Please tell me are you now seeing on the screen the cover of the weekly workshops ‑ yes, you are.  Okay.  Good.  

So let's recap where we've been so far.  We've talked about what our plan is that we want to foster confident, informed advocacy, not just in an emergency response but in an ongoing way to really build up our advocacy skills together.  We started a couple of months back looking at what's the state of the arts right now.  And then we add the coronavirus and the impacts of that.  It is a much less pretty picture.  We looked at different approaches to advocacy and how there's different kind of sectors, I guess, of the community, the economy, each other of the sector that can be activated in different ways to achieve different things.  So as citizens we want to activate people who are, you know, maybe not necessarily connected to the arts but who ‑ you know, we had the opportunity to inform their ‑ you know, we think of our everyday citizens as representing typically‑held beliefs but sometimes until they're motivated to act they can be maybe a little bit too connected to, you know, certain public institutions and not realising how they serve particular interests.  Then, of course, there are reformers who can really lead to and make change, people who work in policy, for example.  There's change agents to mobilise who might be, you know ‑ could be politicians, could be us, those visionary thinkers with an eye for the next level.  And then advocacy can mobilise rebels who want to change things up, who want to, you know, really significantly break down the way that current things happen and think about things very differently.  

And so with NAVA's approach we look at those in terms of the different things that motivate and focus advocacy for artists, the sector policy‑makers, politicians, the media and the public, and the different ways that we can reach them.  And there's different activities here along the way in our handbook.  

We've got one that's about nurturing local advocacy.  This is a great place to start thinking about, you know, how do you start to have those small conversations.  We talked about starting to look at an advocacy strategy if there was a small campaign or something you wanted to start to work on, thinking about what are the tools to hand, what's the language to use, what are the different ways from letters, to actions, to meetings, to much bigger kinds of things.  

We've looked a few times at ‑ and this requires some zooming in ‑ the workbook for our series.  It is available on our website for NAVA members.  The series, of course, is available free to everyone, but to make sure that we are focusing and prioritising on our members, this handbook is available for NAVA members only.  And, of course, NAVA membership starts at just 7.50 a month.  Thank you to Leya for posting that link so you can see it a lot more clearly.  And while we've been updating it monthly, I think the third one does capture all the first and second as well.  

So this one was my very, very brief history of arts policy in Australia.  A very useful primer for before you have any MP meeting.  Goes chronologically from 1912 to today.  And so it's a good highlight of what the trajectory is.  Thank you, Nadia.  It was one of the most difficult things I ever had to put together, you know, this challenge of trying to get it on to a page and I thought, "Yeah, that was misguided."  Then, of course, any time you have to write fewer things it's very focusing.  And it's been super useful to me personally, I have to say.  So I hope it's, yeah, useful to everyone else.  

We went into policy.  What is Australia's arts policy at the moment.  We don't have a documented one but we can deduce from the actions of government the values and principles that they apply.  We talked about the size and scale of the industry.  And we looked at the kinds of funding frameworks that currently exist but we also looked at international comparisons when Dr Jackie Bailey joined us and looked at different global comparisons in the COVID‑19 response to arts and culture.  We've got activities there about the difficulties of the arts making news.  Here's some great places to start as an individual advocate to do some of these activities around media analysis, around becoming a source or doing a group activity around how you would respond to a journalist.  You know, how you would, yeah, have your thinking challenge becoming a source, knowing the angle, reframing the question, as we discussed last week.  

So all of this ‑ all of our work and our focuses have been leading up to Arts Day on the Hill on the 12th of August.  And we discussed last week we're opening up applications for those of you who are interested in becoming media spokesperson or an advocate for Arts Day on the Hill.  We will then do an extra session of briefing and training for those who would like to do that.  And what's involved in doing that?  Well, we want to curate a diverse range of media spokes people from across the country who are going to be happy to speak to the media on that day on what you see as the key issues for the arts.  It could be from your local perspective, from the perspective of your practice, but to really, you know, one of the great challenges that NAVA faces as an organisation, even though we're the industry peak body and have been around for, you know, 35, nearly 40 years, is that often artists are reluctant to engage with the media because we haven't done this kind of approach and training before.  And so we're asking for people who are interested, and then a very, very simple application process, and then we'll do some extra ‑ an extra session ahead of Arts Day on the Hill.  Or perhaps you'd like to be an advocate for your region or your State which will be all about being a focus and encouraging others to contribute.  Tanita Byrne has asked have we invited industry captains to be part of our industry day?  Yes.  This is a collaboration of not just a whole bunch of organisations in the arts across the entire spectrum but something I'm constantly doing in my work is building those relationships with what we call third party advocates.  So it can often be one of the most powerful modes of advocacy when you are hearing from someone else, if you're a politician, you know, hearing from someone from a different industry to talk that up, as we were saying in the chat earlier about sport as well, because then it comes across to that politician as, "Yeah, this is clearly important.  It's not just this person trying to, you know, line their pockets with grant funding."  Which is, yeah, a bizarre perception that people have, that grant funding is something you can, you know, become lucrative on.  But when someone makes an approach which is clearly not a direct interest but it's about being a good citizen, that's hugely important, something that our advocates will do, is to encourage those other captains of industry but, you know, also other third party advocates as well.  

Now, I'm just going to scroll back and make sure that I didn't miss anything else that we were talking about and some of the questions that came up.  Nadia is saying that there was a lot of encouragement from Adam for us not to necessarily go down the path of arguing the economic impact of the arts perhaps because industries like mining do it better, but also I feel like arguing the inherent benefit of the arts can still feel wishy washy.  We love to explore strategies for arguing the inherent benefit of the arts but perhaps use some of the language and tactics of economic arguments.  That is a great ‑ a great question, Nadia, and is something that ‑ the way you've articulated that, that's something I try really, really hard to do through my writing and also through the way that I speak to politicians.  So to be able to draw on, you know, a statistic but then give it that, you know, that public example.  Nadia, you're very popular today.  Noting Michaela's comment there.  But also we're going to pick up on exactly these questions on our next three weeks because we've just had ‑ we've had our four‑week start on issues in the arts, what are we advocating for.  We then looked at four weeks on policy or lack thereof, and how does policy change actually happen in terms of that advocacy process.  We've just concluded four weeks on the media as a platform for advocacy;  how do we access the media, how do we understand the media, how do we work best with the media.  

Our next chapter is on political engagement.  So now we're going to really start to apply some of the things that we have been talking about.  And hearing from people whose job it is to engage politically in different ways.  So people who do exactly that, people who create those narratives or exploit those narratives or manipulate or drive them.  And people who have created policy and campaigns but from a political perspective.  So understanding the politics is our next section in the NAVA Advocacy Program.  Next week we're going to navigate some of those structures that either facilitate or prevent our access to politicians.  And our guest next week is Nicholas Pickard who is executive director of public affairs at APRA AMCOS.  He is also chair of Australian Society of Authors and he is a former adviser to State and federal Labor arts ministers.  Who knew that would be a tongue twister.  Nicholas has worked for Tony Burke, Simon Creen, Peter Garrett and numerous New South Wales Minister and he was also working federally when the national cultural policy was written.  Big consultations happened around that and also the release of that policy.  

But today Nicholas works as one of Australia's most successful professional arts lobbyists.  He has been successful at securing policy and funding successes from both sides of politics.  And he's a great explainer of these issues.  So that's next week.  The week after insights from the inside, past advocacy of the arts hasn't always been successful.  Often it's been quite the opposite.  Let's hear what the Liberal Party need to hear from... the week after next we will hear from Mark Textor, director of Crosby Textor, who have won numerous elections for the Liberal Party in Australia and the conservative party in the UK.  How to poll it, how to analyse it, how to understand it, how to address it and shape it as well.  That's going to be really interesting to hear from someone whose work is, you know, that kind of darker side of the machinations of politics and the political process.  After that how to plan a meeting with the politician.  By that point we will be just about ready to sit down with a politician.  Of course, on the day, you know, some of us will get to do that online but there will also be lots of social media and other kinds of engagement.  But on the 29th of July we're going to have a conversation with Helen O'Neill.  She is the chair of Performing Arts Connections Australia.  She's also a former adviser to Labor Arts Ministers also at the time of writing the arts policy creative nation.  Helen is CEO of British Council in Australia.  She was a founder of AMPAG, Australian Managed Performing Arts Group, had really kind of interesting high level impacts on the sector across her various roles.  And then the week after will be our week of preparation for Arts Day on the Hill, focusing our plans and our messages, and then collaborating on national impact.  

Now, we've got just a couple of minutes left.  I'm going to head over to the chat and see if there are any more questions.  Elizabeth Lee is asking is NAVA associated with the Arts Party at all?  No, NAVA is not associated with any political party.  The Arts Party is also not associated with the arts industry.  They're certainly arts people and they've given themselves a name the Arts Party but they are not an industry party and are not associated with, nor endorsed by the arts industry.  By some coincidence, one of the members of the ‑ founding members of the Arts Party, Barry Keldoulis, is a former chair of NAVA.  Was chair some time before I joined the organisation.  So, yeah, we do often get asked that question but, no, there is no association with the Arts Party or with any political party.  Who has got some more questions before we wrap up?  I am really hoping that everyone is going to be involved in some way with Arts Day on the Hill.  Whether it's, you know, a very active way as an advocate or as a media spokesperson, whether it's amplifying messages online, whether it's simply getting in touch with your MP in the ways we will discuss as we go, and in the next few weeks if there's people who you think should be part of our conversation, please invite them to come along to the advocacy program.  You've all got the links of where to connect up.  Just having a look there.  Carolyn Phillips is saying is there a contingency plan for Victorians to participate if we're still out cast due to virus.  Carolyn, I'm a Victorian, I'm not going anywhere.  None of us is going anywhere.  Arts Day on the Hill is going to happen online.  It will simply not be possible to plan a trip to Canberra this year.  And so it is going to be possible for all of us to participate, the maximum number for really, you know, a great intensity.  And that great critical mass.  

So it is time to wrap up.  Thank you so much everyone.  Such a great discussion today.  And really generous, I think, of Adam to just, yeah, cover those issues and just be so clear and direct and fantastic.  

Please stay safe everywhere that you are.  Those of us in Victoria, keep finding those ways to, you know, keep connected with each other.  People talk about social distancing.  Yet social cohesion is so important at this time.  Yes, we're physically distant but we're socially connected very, very importantly.  Janita is saying Parliament House is closed to the Parliament at the moment.  So there's that as well.  Anyway, we will talk more about this in next week and the weeks to come.  Thanks so much, everyone.  Thank you so much Leya.  Thank you Helen for captioning from Brisbane.  And see you all next week.  Good night, everyone.  Stay safe.  

(End)