Title: NAVA 3 June 2020

ESTHER:   I'm seeing the hellos coming in.  Hello everyone.  Our apologies.  We've had quite a fascinating set of technical problems which I must confess to you we have not quite solved.  And so in classic artist arts work way we have patched this together by being able to see each other ‑ so there's Mike Mrdak.  Hello, mike.  

MICHAEL:   Hello. 

ESTHER:   But in order to hear Mike we've got him on my phone which is connected to my little microphone here.  And so I'm very much hoping that you will all be able to hear him well.  Before we lead into the discussion with Mike, enormous welcome to everyone.  And thank you for your patience as we have been addressing those problems.  Welcome to the NAVA Advocacy Program for this week.  This is part of an extended program.  Where working together we are building the skills and the approaches we need to become really well connected, really successful advocates for the arts not just once‑off, not just in emergency but in an ongoing way that really, really counts and really makes a difference.  I'm Esther Anatolitis.  I'm the executive director of NAVA.  We also have Leya Reid who is on the chat.  Leya is our advocacy and communications manager.  We've also got Helen who is live captioning.  She is in Brisbane.  Hello, Helen.  And Leya has put the link to the live captioning just there at the top of the chat.  And thank you to everyone who as you've been joining, particularly those who have come in before, who have been letting us know where you are across Australia.  It's so fantastic to be able to scroll down the chat and see everyone as you come in.  That is really, really great.  

Now, as you know, with this program ‑ just having some greetings there from Mike's dog.  So we know that the audio is working.  Hello, Mike's dog.  Everyone particularly for NAVA members you will note that we have updated the toolkit for this program.  And that's available to NAVA members, which is part 2 of the program.  I'm just ‑ actually, I won't launch into that now because I'm suddenly very superstitious about the technical arrangements here so I won't share that screen to take us through the program.  But I will tell you that our program is split into four sections.  We've had the first few weeks on advocacy on arts advocacy most broadly looking at issues in the arts.  We've now been looking at policy.  We've looked at policy quite broadly with John Daley from the Grattan Institute looking at how art sits at the moment.  We had Dr Jackie Bailey last week looking at Australia's arts policy or unwritten arts and cultural policy in a global context.  And this week we are joined by Mike Mrdak who is the former Secretary of the former Department of Communications and the Arts.  Mike, welcome.  It's so fantastic to have you with us. 

MICHAEL:   Thank you so much.  It's lovely to join you.  Sorry about the technical difficulties.  I hope it all hangs together. 

ESTHER:   Look, no need for apology.  Technical difficulties exist on a plane of their own, really.  They really, really do.  And please, everyone, as we're speaking let me know how you're hearing my audio and also Mike's audio.  Adam is just saying he tried to download part 2 of the handbook and says it's gone to a 404 message.  Adam, I'm hoping you are a member and you are actually logged in as a member at the time.  So if you're logged in as a member, then you will be able to access it.  Okay, Adam.  And Leya has just put the link.  I see Zoe McKenzie who was a guest a few weeks ago.  Says all the folks have technical issues just hope you're not upside‑down which is what happened when Zoe joined us a few weeks ago.  I am here on the lands of the Kulin nation in here Melbourne.  And we know that today is Mabo Day, an incredibly important day, not just for Australia's First Nations and for the radical transformation Native Title made to our legal understanding of the very foundations of Australia, but also a day of once again recognising our powerful First Nations voices.  And as we look at tragedy unfolding across the US and, you know, we certainly can't be particularly proud of our record, particularly when we just said no to a First Nations voice ‑ or our government has said no to a First Nations voice in the constitution, I think it's a day for reflection but also for celebration and respect.  

Mike, what country are you on?  Where do we find you today?  

MICHAEL:   I'm here in Canberra.  So on the traditional lands here in the Canberra ACT region.  A wonderful indigenous community.  

ESTHER:   That it is.  Mike, of course, is the former Secretary of the former department.  I double stress that "former" because as we saw late last year there was an unexpected restructure which meant that the name of the arts became invisible to that portfolio.  But it also meant, unfortunately, that Mike unexpectedly lost his job.  We're going to talk about some of the highlights of Mike's career.  We're going to talk about the range ‑ the priorities that the Department of Communications and the Arts under Mike's leadership was looking at at around that time and some next steps.  We're going to talk about some broader policy issues and certainly now in our context of COVID‑19 and next steps, and there will be plenty of time for everyone to ask questions.  So please think of them as we go and add them to the chat.  

So, Mike, when we first met it was a really interesting talk that you had given for the McKell Institute.  You were talking about ‑ you were speaking about the future of work and the important role of arts and culture, of the sector, the industry, but also of skills in arts and creativity in driving the future of work.  Tell us a bit about that but also what were your priorities late last year when you were looking forward to this year and the kinds of things that you wanted the team to be working on.  

MICHAEL:   Thank you.  Well, firstly, thank you for the opportunity to meet with everyone.  It's lovely to be back and talking about the sector again.  Look, towards ‑ when we first met last year I was trying to get a strong message ‑ and which we built into our incoming government brief to whoever formed government in May last year around really the transition that had already largely happened around the digital transformation, the transition that was happening in the economy.  And where the jobs of the future would be and how important it was that the arts and creative sector was part of an economic portfolio and very closely tied to the communications sector.  Because at the end of the day, we're going through this massive transformation of technology.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, like today, but the one thing I think ‑ the two real lessons out of the terrible events of the last three or four months of COVID, one is what technology means for the future.  Technology has given us opportunities to continue to work, to stay together as a community in a way we couldn't have imagined even a year or two ago, and the increasing importance of that technology can change our lives to respond to COVID and the world that comes from hereon.  Also I think it's demonstrated how critical and how much we've missed the arts and creative sector during this period.  If it wasn't for some of the national institutions like the national broadcasters we wouldn't have access to a lot of the creative sector at the moment.  And I think that's been something that everyone in Australia has really missed.  

So when I came to the portfolio of communications and the arts, my background is in the infrastructure and transport sector, hence you can see behind me lots of mementos of planes and vehicles and all ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ESTHER:   I'm admiring those planes. 

MICHAEL:   My wife allowed me to bring a small collection home.  But the thing that really struck me was two things:  one is the pace of technological change and also the way arts and the creative sector has been able to take up that technology and come up with innovative ways.  One of the things that struck me the portfolio when I asked the bureau of economics ‑ the wonderful team inside the Parliament to actually give me some data on the ‑ on the sector, and what they came back with was really surprised me, that the arts and creative sector in its broadest is two to three times the size of the transport and infrastructure sector as a contribution to GDP.  It employs many more people than just about any other industry.  It employs multiples of people compared to sectors in which we in Australia regard as our economic drivers.  More importantly it's also the future of Australia as a services economy, ideas nation, creative nation, is actually where our future lies.  If you cut through a lot of the economic jargon about where we are and where we sit in the world, the creative edge is what's going to make the difference for much of our ability to maintain our lifestyle, standards of living and the like.  And those factors really came together in what we were trying to do in the department ‑ and I know this work is continuing under the Stephen Arnott and the wonderful team in the arts division of the department and all the comms team in the department is really to build that stronger base and understanding of just what an important contributor it is to the economy and the importance of the arts and creative sector being tied to the digital tender and technology.  That's where the future of the sector lies.  Those really struck me.  What the department was doing along with all the agencies in the portfolio was really building an agenda around those elements.  That is an important economic contributor, that it's a key part of our economic future, the way we work, the good jobs of the future, and thirdly that we can do things with technology in a way that will actually enhance the creative capacity of Australians, and Australians are really good at that.  We do stuff with technology today and I've recently just taken on a role with an international telecommunications technology firm which is really all about ‑ and their whole agenda is about creativity and a lot of that ‑ this is a multinational firm that I've just started doing some work with, they're really drawn on Australian creatives.  A lot of their technology base is indigenous to them, but their creative capacity is being sourced from Australia.  That again reinforced to me the importance of this agenda. 

ESTHER:   It's a very compelling argument, isn't it, that to look at the future, to imagine the next economy, the next iterations of that economy, to understand we're moving toward a service economy, these are trends that we can see, and then to look right now at exactly, as you say, if it wasn't for technology, even also, you know, the tin cans we've strung together to make this happen, but if it wasn't for a range of technologies and a range of arts and cultural experience that everyone has been craving at this time, I don't know how we would be getting through this.  But I don't know how we would even imagine a future for ourselves.  It's a compelling set of arguments.  And yet they don't ‑ they don't really seem to have that purchase across government.  It's really frustrating, isn't it?  

MICHAEL:   It is frustrating.  And I think it's one of the things that really struck all of us, I think, that people still see technology and the creative as two separate things. 

ESTHER:   Yes. 

MICHAEL:   The reality is they're one and the same.  The technology is a means, arts technology is for a mean ‑ is a means for the arts and technology sector to develop.  And we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a lot of technology over the previous century really gained momentum through the arts and creative sector taking on and utilising it as a means of creativity which was then taken into wider usage.  A lot of the digital technologies, for instance, started with some creative people working looking at what some of the technical people had built and doing some with it in terms of the communications capacity.  That's a creative use of technology and we shouldn't put them in two different buckets.  The thing that concerns me and I've exited now so I can say this, I'm really disappointed with the government's decision to abolish the arts and comms portfolio.  We're the only country in the world that doesn't have that portfolio.  And setting aside my personal circumstances, which is, you know, getting rid of me was fair enough but I think getting rid of the portfolio was a poor choice.  Particularly in an age where countries are going to be competing with each other on the basis of their creative capacity. 

ESTHER:   That's exactly right. 

MICHAEL:   And we still see industry structure as quite different to the way most of the world is seeing.  

ESTHER:   There is a couple of comments.  Debbie is saying creative and digital is definitely interlinked as a student completing a bachelor of digital media.  Ken Mackenzie is saying even the area of lighting can be extremely technical.  As you heard me say before as a Greek national I'm obliged at every opportunity to connect the origins of words to the Greek language.  It's hard‑wired into me techne, which comes from the word ... which is also where we get things like technique, skill, etcetera.  In Greek as is commonly known there is no word for art.  The word is techne.  Technique skill, technology.  Then we say...which is good skill, great skill and...is an artist.  Someone who has great skill.  When we look at that then and the connection between that really intrinsic connection between creativity and innovation, technology and, you know, general possibility for the economy, what are the opportunities for policy at the moment that are going to be, I guess, undermined given that change to the portfolio?  What are the conversations that are more difficult now because of that change, and, therefore, what are the policy connections?  What are the policy opportunities that are just that little bit more difficult now?  

MICHAEL:   Look, I think inside the departments and across the Australian public service and the State services, I think there is still a strong desire to make this work.  The one thing you've got to be to work in public policy is optimist.  The good thing is most people I think who work in the various departments and the authorities and agencies and all of the ‑ all of the entities around that are still ‑ will still continue to try and make those linkages work.  But I think we have to stop seeing the arts as something that is a nice to have. 

ESTHER:   Yes. 

MICHAEL:   Which is tangential to society.  The reality is what COVID has shown it is a must have.  Our creative capacity is actually a must have.  A lot of the medical advances are actually as a result of some very creative people joined from right across the creative spectrum who have come together to shake technology for a health response (shape).  In the same way we need to build that.  I think the agenda has to become a forward one.  It's not just about ‑ I think the agenda has to be more about just getting people back to the jobs they had. 

ESTHER:   Yes.  Yes.  

MICHAEL:   I think the reality is that the future is all about having exposed people much more broadly to technology and also I really believe that the few months away from each other will bring a different emphasis on how we work as a community, despite what the tragic events that are happening in some other parts of the world the Australian community does really see itself as just that, a community that can do tremendous things together on the whole.  I think the opportunity we will be talking about the arts and creative sector and the future agenda.  The worst thing we can do is bemoan the old agenda.  In a harsh way the worst thing we can talk about the way we have Australian traditional film industry of what happened in the 1970s or whatever, we've got to move beyond that.  We've got to talk about the facts that the arts and creative sector is more than just traditional media like film or TV.  It's about a whole multitude of platforms, a whole multitude of creative activities and it's what we're good at.  We've got to talk about the positives.  This is an area Australians excel.  Around the world our reputation is outstanding.  The only place we don't appreciate just how good we are is in Australian politics. 

ESTHER:   That is just such a brilliant way of putting it.  I'm just going to reinforce that point.  You've just said the arts is not a nice to have, it's a must have, that we are leaders in this field that we're renowned for this around the world and the one place that this is not emphasised and leading is in Australian public policy.  I think that is absolutely essential to hear and something that must spur us into action.  I've got a few more questions about this one.  I'm just having a quick look at the chat.  We've got a bit of reflection on the focus of digital and compared to the arts and crafts sector.  I then made the joke about digitals and digital and fingers and the hand of the maker but I also want to emphasise of course technology is not just about digital technology.  Technology is about tools, it's about craft, it's about the way we use our hands differently and therefore the way we open our minds differently.  

MICHAEL:   It really is.  And you can use various mediums to exchange ideas.  The really important thing is the arts and creative sector is an ideas sector.  It is one of the things that differentiates us and the community from lots of others, we're energetic ideas community or we certainly should be.  Whether it's a more traditional arts activity such as using the hands to create, that's similarly an ideas business and all the technology today does is enable the ideas to be exchanged in different ways. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  Yeah. 

MICHAEL:   And whereas once people exchanged patterns written on paper, today we exchange through video, we exchanged through watching, we watch people on YouTube.  And in the future we will have even more dynamic platforms which enable us to exchange ideas.  The forms of the arts and creative mind have changed essentially in these areas and they're wonderful skills to have.  But the world we live in enabled the impetus of the idea to be that much faster translated to others and new developments translated to others and that's the excitement that comes with the technology. 

ESTHER:   Completely agree.  Let's go back then to the policy and the machinery of government question.  Late last year I got a phone call from a journalist who said, "Look, they're doing this restructure and looks like arts' going to vanish into some other department but the other department is going to have regional, infrastructure, sounds interesting.  What's your comment?"  And I said, "Look, given Mike Mrdak's expertise and given he's come from infrastructure as well I think this is a really interesting move.  I am looking forward to what he heads up."  The journalist interrupted and said, "No no, there's also been five redundancies and one of those is Mike Mrdak."  I said, "Sorry, what?  They've done what?"  And for you to have heard that news through the media as well, you know, 5 o'clock the day before, however it all happened without that consultation to just have this top‑down, you know, this kind of approach that is antithetical to the depth and the detail of the expertise that you have offered over so many years, I just think is so disappointing.  And it must have been gut wrenching.  You had your plans, you had ‑ you know, you had the next year sorted.  

MICHAEL:   Well, I think the good thing is the people who are still there are the people who will make it happen.  I don't think there's any loss in that.  Look, personally disappointing and, you know, I can say I really do miss the people and the place.  But there was always going to be a point where the most important thing was to build the agenda, and it is there, I think this conversation is part of that.  The agenda is there.  And I think the challenge for all of us who have an interest in this and for all of us who have a great interest in public policy is to make that agenda happen.  As I said, it's no longer a case that the arts sit separately.  This is one of the things that is disappointing, that arts is apart from a couple of jurisdictions, arts remains a relatively minor portfolio, at the Commonwealth level it sits within an infrastructure portfolio ‑ a terrific portfolio but the positive of it sitting in the infrastructure portfolio arts does need to be linked to an economic portfolio or in my personal view, that's really important, because as I said the GDP figures, the employment figures and really, I think the controversy over the last few months about Job Keeper and the arts sector I think has really surprised everyone including policy makers at just how large the sector is.  I think for all of the pain this has caused the creative sector which is significant for a lot of people at these really tough times, if there's one positive out of this it's that people have recognised that the arts and creative sector is a much larger and diverse and different sector but without it we lose a lot of economic activity, let alone all the social cohesion and social activity that comes from it. 

ESTHER:   Absolutely.  I think on that point a lot of colleagues and I, as we've been putting together our various assessments of impact and giving all our patient briefings and so on, has very much been the realisation of just what an opportunity this has been to, I guess, expand that understanding beyond the arts portfolio for others to really get the sense exactly as you're saying at the outset, the size, the scale, the employment intensiveness, industry interdependencies.  There is the interview last week or the week before with Mathias Cormann where he was saying everyone in the arts can access Jobseeker ‑ or Job Keeper, rather, because they're sole traders.  They will just be able to access it that way.  Not understanding that no, not everyone is a sole trader.  There are many people who work at part‑timers or, indeed, casuals and that that is a mark of success to work as an expert across a few galleries, a few festivals, and so on.  After all, artists invented the term gig economy and portfolio career.  So even though those terms are in the vernacular, they still have not registered with some of these key decision‑makers. 

MICHAEL:   Exactly.  I think that's where a greater depth of understanding of the industry is important. 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

MICHAEL:   I think one of the things I ‑ as you know, I was keen to push for and I think it's something the industry needs to think about is pressing governments for something like a Productivity Commission Review of the sector, coming out of this, because just to ascertain as you say for a lot of people in the sector the employment arrangement has to be the way because of the way they need to be mobile around different employers and the way the performances take place.  So there's no choice but to operate the way we do.  So I think there needs to be ‑ and I think hopefully coming out of this I think one of the things the sector may want to think about is getting that baseline the bureau of communications and arts is terrific but it only goes so far.  There needs to be a depth of surveys of the arts and creative market ‑ labour market, how people are employed, how they operate so we can actually better understand it.  As we would do ‑ if we were talking about any other sector that was 7 or 8 or 9 per cent of the economy, there would be a wealth of analytical material around. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  

MICHAEL:   And that's just not there in the depth that it should be for something that is so important to our future economic prosperity.  So I think ‑ and if you get that platform of information around employment arrangements and structure of the sector then you can start to have much more of a better conversation around how you develop a sector and how you put in place the sorts of incentive structures and regulatory arrangement that will actually enable the sector to grow which we would do without being unkind if any other sector had the promise of holding 8 or 9 per cent of GDP, every government would be spending a lot of time investing in it. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  And I think the challenges of making our case and bringing all that together becoming very, very clear across the industry now that if we had had that broad ‑ not so much broad ‑ if we had those specifics and were able to describe in detail and across all art forms how that works, it would have been incredibly useful right now and it is something that we need to get better at as an industry.  

Let's look at how we then advance that agenda but also within the structures that now exist, so in some senses, you know, a name is a name and the name of the portfolio, you know, there are still good people in there doing work.  On the other hand, when they need to connect and reach across portfolio areas and the name of the department that they're coming from doesn't actually include them, I imagine it could be quite difficult to present to a colleague in other departments of government that you actually are speaking about a portfolio with an industry that's 7, 8, 9 per cent of GDP, particularly also when there isn't someone at Secretary level who has had your level of expertise across a range of portfolios.  

What happens now?  How does ‑ how do our senior public servant colleagues reach across different areas of government in order to develop or commission the approaches that you've just designed ‑ that you've just suggested, rather ‑ how do they reach across to articulate those policy and industry interdependencies so we can advance a policy discussion in a meaningful way?  

MICHAEL:   Well, I think the first thing there needs to be a recognition that this is ‑ needs to be an economic focus and coming out ‑ it needs to be one of the key sectors coming out of COVID.  And I would hope that the Coronavirus Commission headed by Nev Power and the commissioners and Peter Howes who is the CEO of the commission, I would hope that this is one of the sectors they will focus on.  And I know there's some interest in it because of some of the people that are involved.  I would hope that that would be given impetus that the Coronavirus Commission will actually draw attention to the fact that this is exactly the sort of industry sector Australia needs.  Now I know a lot of people would say why do you keep talking about it as an economic or industry sector.  The reality is in public policy Canberra is run by economists like I used to be, and you've got to be able ‑ to get attention particularly coming out of COVID you need to draw on the lessons that we've learnt out of this.  One is the absolute importance of the jobs that the creative sector creates and how important that is to our economic ‑ economy and also how important it is to our society to have these people employed in the creative sector.  I think that's the thing.  If the sector is able to get some support from the COVID ‑ Coronavirus Commission as a forward agenda.  In the same way there's been discussion around gas and energy, it is a leading policy driver, manufacturing.  If only we can see and hopefully ‑ others on this call may have more influence than me ‑ but talking about a sector that has multiples of employment that gas has, multiple GDP benefits that gas has, a driver for future prosperity as well as the nation we want to be and the community want to be.  I think the opportunity is there but we've got to talk about the sector as a future industry just in the same way that we want to talk about gas.  Some people will quibble gas is the future driver but the reality is that's where some in public culture will want to take it.  We've got to talk about the creative sector and we've got to talk about it as a future sector not just living in the past but talking about it as a viable and dynamic sector that encompasses a whole range of things from film to crochet through to architecture and the creative things that happen for which Australia is well known.  We've got to talk about the fact that in doing so the institutions that support the industry are important but just as important as we've learnt in the last three months the people who work in the sector are absolutely critical.  And one of the challenges will be ‑ and if the media is right ‑ and I have no insight ‑ but there is a support package ‑ I would hope governments around the country realise it's not just about the institutions or the traditional institutions of the sector, it's actually the people who operate at the various levels of the sector who you're going to have to support.  And I would hope you will start to hear a focus on that.  When you look at things for support for training and development around research, don't exclude ‑ don't just think about manufacturing.  Don't just think about building and construction.  Think about what you could be doing to provide the sort of training and development and R & D support for the creative sector.  And wouldn't that be an investment that would be worthwhile if we could reinvigorate both our tertiary and our TAFE sector to a creative agenda as well as construction, manufacture or mining agenda. 

ESTHER:   It makes so much sense.  

MICHAEL:   I think they're the sorts of things ‑ those of us who want to pursue good policy should be pressing for, is this is an industry with a big future, it's an area where Australia is not just competitive, we're world leading.  And it's an area where we can extract premium value which we can't out of a lot of other sectors which are being pursued as our economic future.  And the lesson ‑ the thing that really strikes me wherever you go in the world some of the most brilliant people that are driving creativity are Australians.  Some of them have come home in this crisis.  We shouldn't lose sight of the fact this is more than something we can be competitive in, we are actually world leaders.  We should be investing in it.  We need to get our language right that this is not just about simply supporting a sector, this is an investment for the future of the country in the same way we will invest in any other thing such as education or other areas where we know the pay‑off is going to be very large.  Hence again ‑ I know I go on about it ‑ but if not the COVID commission ‑ I hope something people will think about is macro‑analysis of an area like the arts and creative sector but having a baseline of information about ‑ which is generally well thought through analysis of not just the multipliers that are coming from employment now ‑ what the creative sector offers into the future will actually be an enormously valuable piece of work.  Off the back of that you can start to build training and research programs which actually underpin growth in this sector.  And finally my other thing that I think is really important is we've got to set aspirational goals.  We shouldn't be satisfied with the hundreds of thousands or half a million or so Australians who are working in the sector directly.  We should have aspirational goals to say we want to grow this at X ‑ ahead of GDP and ahead of population growth because these are the good jobs of the future.  We should have employment targets and we should have income targets and we should have participation targets in the creative sector as we would do for any other industry that government decided to support and promote.  And why don't we do that?  Why do we feel the need to say the creative sector is somehow separate to the rest of the economy when it quite fundamentally is actually a major driver of it. 

ESTHER:   This is exactly the kind of approach that we need.  Before I respond I'm just having a quick look at the chat.  And a very good idea from Angela Hughes who says maybe the government should give homeowners small grants to fill their houses with art in order to support the arts.  She says she's kidding but it has quite a remarkable strong response from everybody else.  I should point out one of the things ‑ also Rod says Mike for PM which would also be quite fantastic.  It's now a tie.  We have Wesley Enoch and also Mike Mrdak who our group is electing Prime Minister.  

MICHAEL:   I've got a bit of spare time at the moment, so ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ESTHER:   You do.  Excellent.  Get in there.  As part of the COVID income support packages that have come out, I hope everyone is aware that the instant asset write‑off means companies can use that to invest in art.  We have a resource on that on the NAVA website, I have received and had information confirmed from the tax office since the COVID disaster.  Yes that money can be used for companies to invest in art and get the instant write‑down benefit which is fantastic.  

Speaking of the future, something we did early on and we're trying to focus people on what is needed, arts policy and investment‑wise now, is a conversation around create Australia's future, some pieces a hashtag with millions of engagements, it's actually still going which is quite amazing.  When we look at what their decisions have been made that the government has been taken, it strikes me that it's a bit arse about compared with what Mike is suggesting.  So absolutely, arts ‑ the creative industries create the future.  Artists themselves create the future but the creation of a work of art is a vision of a future of itself, the experience of work of art puts us into that frame of contemplation, of reflection.  It draws on traditions that are sometimes thousands of years old and explodes them into new directions.  But of course right now when we're trying to imagine and invent and create a future beyond COVID‑19, you would think that, you know, the arts would be a top investment focus.  You would think that education and universities would be a top focus.  I think it's been terribly disappointing, the three times now deliberate exclusion of the university sector who employ a lot of artists and arts academics as casuals and sessionals, and as tendered academic and professional staff.  Australian universities are also, of course, the home of the finest art schools in Australia who are now all jeopardised.  And I've been really concerned to hear from colleagues in the academic sector, particularly in the arts and particularly at art schools, and of course local government has also been left out altogether and local government as we know are the biggest owners of galleries and their collections in Australia and also a major employer of artists.  

In a situation like this where COVID‑19 has been the biggest disruption to our cultural life, all the ways that we connect, create, engage with each other, you would think that in terms of creating that future these should have been the first ports of call for the government.  What choices have they made, Mike, instead, and what do you think this indicates?  We were saying last week that Australia doesn't have a written arts and cultural policy.  But it certainly has an unwritten one.  There are certain principles by which decisions are being made.  And there seems to be some consistency, you know, across the kinds of industries that are deliberately not being supported right now.  On what basis is government making those decisions right now about the economy and the community they want to see in the future?  

MICHAEL:   As I said I'm a little bit removed now since I finished up but watching from the outside I suppose there are two things that worry me.  One is that people are presuming the economy of February the 1st will just simply ‑ will simply be reopened and we will go back to that economy and that community of February the 1st.  The reality is that won't happen for a variety of reasons, not just our international borders remaining closed for a lot longer and the economic damage that has happened.  A lot of business models in the Australian economy and a lot of the way we operate will fundamentally change.  They already have.  So I worry that people just ‑ and the policy‑makers are presuming that everything will go back to the structures that we had.  The reality is ‑ and if you look at some of the evidence that Stephen Kennedy has given, the treasury Secretary in the last few weeks to the Senate inquiry, Stephen has been refreshing and frank to say not only is this most likely going to be protracted downturn but there will be a lot of businesses and ways of life that won't be replicated again to what they were.  So that ‑ I think I would hope that policy‑makers when they look at sectors and the ‑ they look at the way forward are not simply looking at bolstering or going back to what we had.  Again, I worry about that even when people talk about manufacturing and things they talk about manufacturing that existed years ago or certainly pre‑February.  We should talk about what manufacturing in a global economy that is going to remain restricted for a long time for a variety of reasons, and where trade policy is one ‑ we need to be thinking differently about where we are going to be putting our resources and where we see government effort being focused.  

The second thing that does worry me is that I would hate to think that policy‑makers are being driven by what they view as supporting those sectors that share their values. 

ESTHER:   Yes.  

MICHAEL:   I would hope that policy‑makers draw on the evidence to know that one of the underpinnings of a democracy, a free society and creative society is that you have a variety of views.  And it's only if you encourage that variety of views do you actually get not only a better society but you get a much more vibrant economy.  And there would be, I would hope that policy‑makers aren't looking at sectors that seem to, in their view for a variety of partisan and political reasons, share their views and values, because that really is a very limiting way to go.  You know, there's a living and breathing example of that happening in the ‑ in the United States as we speak, where people are being victimised, ostracised, and physically attacked for not sharing the values and views of the leadership.  That's a very dangerous development which goes to the heart of what we value as citizens of functioning democracies. 

ESTHER:   It's ‑ yeah, it's dangerous, it's unfortunate ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MICHAEL:   I think, you know, success and society ‑ I would hope both those things are being thought about in public policy. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  Yeah.  I mean, it's kind of ‑ I am just turning the volume up here ‑ there we go ‑ it's ‑ that's exactly right.  And that is certainly my worry as well, that for all the reasons that you've just outlined this evening, it's clear and compelling that a focus on arts culture, creativity and its various technologies was vital for our future and vital at this time.  The choice to not make that focus and not make that investment is a choice.  And it's a choice based on principles that don't stack up economically.  We saw in the first few weeks ‑ well, this is the third month already, can you believe, the 12th week of this situation ‑ we saw within the first four to six weeks the information that was coming out of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the analysis of the Grattan Institute, the Australia Institute and a range of others, showing not just all the ways in which our industry was hit and the size and the scale of it, but also the interdependencies and the impacts on the rest of the economy.  And, of course, I often reflect on that expression of the Prime Minister's about quiet Australians, and, of course, when we look at ‑ or when we imagine that it's a virtue of citizenship to be quiet, not complain about your rights, as he said in an interview, that is, of course, antithetical to what we understand of artists, arts audiences, arts lovers, and also universities and those environments.  

But when you put it in that way, Mike, that ‑ that broader issue of social futures, social cohesion, the situation in the US is deeply frightening, and when we implement policies that are divisive, those divisions only grow over time, and we're hoping we're going to see a package this week and it's not going to be for art forms in performing arts, for example, but it will address all of the sector.  But surely policies that aren't comprehensive right now, they are damaging in the long term.  Surely the government can see that?  

MICHAEL:   I would hope so.  And I think good governments will see that, that divisive short‑term policies are not in anyone's interests because the cost for that is very high in terms of community.  As I said we have a living and breathing example of that today in the US and elsewhere where the divisiveness of the last decade and short‑term policy thinking favoured certain groups over others, I think has led to really appalling outcomes which is weakening, you know, as you mentioned, a great democracy and great nation.  And that's where I think, you know, I really do believe that one of the things government should be investing in is supporting research and training and development of the creative sector and the arts as they would any other sector that they see. 

ESTHER:   Yes. 

MICHAEL:   It's one thing ‑ you know, I'm really passionate about the fact that it's one thing to be investing in STEM which is absolutely right but STEM without ‑ as people would say, it misses the point that a lot of nations invest in STEM but then can't translate a value to that technology because they haven't got the creative capacity to actually work out what you would actually use it for and how you can actually bring it to market.  The really interesting thing ‑ you only have to see how many Australians are working in creative design in the technology industries including manufacturing in a lot of places where the Australians and others are bringing creative capacity as to what the scientists or the engineers might develop they actually craft it into something which is useable by the community because they do the creative design.  They do the work on the uses of it and the innovations of it.  That's where I would say if a government is looking to the future you would be investing in research and development, training, you would be investing in a national strategy which grows the creative sector and you also would be utilising it not just ‑ and if there is going to be investment it can't just be in the institutions that is there now.  That's why I go back to training.  We're fortunate in this country we have some wonderful institutions, but if governments are just going to invest in the bricks and more tar in those institutions and that has to happen because some of them have been neglected but investing in the people is going to give you the returns.  Again, coming back to your point, Esther we just need to be thinking about the future not about recreating the past. 

ESTHER:   Yes. 

MICHAEL:   That's the future.  If there's one thing I would hope for all of us for the future is we actually start coming out of COVID, putting greater emphasis on a future ‑ and we acknowledge it will be different but it can be a better future. 

ESTHER:   Completely agree.  Now, we've got a question from Kimberley Summer which really sums up the focus and purpose of this entire program.  Kimberley says I would love to hear a suggestion from Mike on how artists while still social distancing or physical distancing as I prefer to call it, can make the biggest impact for policy change.  What's your advice, Mike?  What can artists be doing to make the impact ‑ biggest impact for policy change. 

MICHAEL:   I think the thing that drives policy‑makers ultimately is that people are talking to them about the issues.  We need to be ‑ artists need to be doing more ‑ getting it out there and they need to be talking to people about the people.  We need to talk to elected and non‑elected officials here we are.  We're not feeling bruised no one looked after us in the COVID crisis.  We want to talk to you about our art and we're going forward because we are the future.  There needs to be a confident conversation, not a blame one saying why didn't you do something earlier for the creative sector.  Just flood them.  Flood them with the fact this is a vibrant sector that has got a future.  We've got a great asset.  COVID has also shown that the federation can be an asset, there are multipoints of influence in Australia.  The one thing COVID has shown us is the way in which federation is one of our national strengths.  I spent a lot of my time in policy public policy trying to overcome ‑ the diversity that comes with federation and the competitive drive that comes from jurisdictions actually having ‑ not having a one size fits all but very small jurisdictions making modest investments can really drive change.  The reality is the arts wouldn't be on the agenda to some degree were it not for a number of State premiers and leaders who have been willing to put it on the agenda.  And that's important.  Because that leverage has been driven by that.  In many ways in Australia we love the competition between our jurisdictions because it drives us to be better at things.  A longwinded way of saying, Kimberley, let's not shy away from the fact we need to be out there, talking to policy makers, really hitting them with art and then we've got to be saying where are the leverage points, who can we be talking to, how do we make this part of recovery ‑ we've already had a number of premiers out there saying the creative sector is part of the recovery and we need more people saying that. 

ESTHER:   Completely, completely agree.  Again this is the focus of the entire NAVA Advocacy Program.  We've been talking about what is currently working in advocacy.  That was our first four weeks.  We're looking now at policy and what the issues are, what the gaps have been, what the future is.  In the next four‑week bracket we are going to have a look at the media and media engagement and being a media spokesperson and getting to know that side of public engagement.  And then the next four weeks we're going to look at political engagement, how do you have a meeting with an MP, how do lobbyists work, how does the political side of policy work.  And all of this is leading up to Arts Day on the Hill on the 12th of August ‑ still ages away.  I mean ages in the sense of the three months that we've just had seem like 10 years ‑ but not too far enough away that we can't plan for it.  On the 12th of August we want to have a critical mass of all of these conversations happening.  It's a sitting day of Parliament.  There's going to be online opportunities and others so we can really turn up that volume, but we do need to get there by building up our capacities to do that.  

And I think the way you've just put that, Mike, is so vital.  We've talked in the first few weeks of the Advocacy Program about advocacy being a set of constructive conversations, that it can be really tempting to just want to, you know, blot out how things have been awful, how we've been neglected and so on.  If we imagine politicians, especially if they're at Parliament House, their days are back to back 30 minute meetings with some expert lobbyists.  Someone is saying there's been discussion over the past few weeks why the arts don't have paid lobbyists like mining and construction has and what difference that could make.  She asks if Mike has free time could we crowd fund and pay him to be our official lobbyist.  Before Mike gives us an answer to that very attractive offer I will just say that those industries who have professional paid lobbyists also engage with the public in far more ambitious well resourced ways than we can.  There are ads on TV about mining, for example, when there was a concern that the mining sector had perhaps they weren't offering a human enough face.  There was ‑ when you look at, you know, a range of other industries who employ lobbyists, including technology, big data, agriculture, farmers, and so on, those lobbyists aren't the be and end all.  They are having a conversation with government that is based on and premised on ongoing conversations at the electorate level by local farmers, local, you know ‑ a whole range of ways.  So, Mike, how does the relationship between lobbyists and policy development work?  

MICHAEL:   Well, it's a mixed picture but the lobbyists tend to focus on the elected official.  They tend to focus on Ministers and Minister's officers.  Occasionally with senior officials but at the political office level.  Largely the best ones have well resourced research in terms of analysis, and they have linkages in terms of who they can talk to, that's their skill set.  They also have ‑ good lobbyists have the capacity to get an argument well honed into a series of small points that resonate.  Again, they try and capture both the rational but also the values. 

ESTHER:   Yes, tell us more about that. 

MICHAEL:   And that's really important.  That's not to say that we won't, you know, shy away from the diversity of opinion all of that which comes with the trade sector.  That's not what I'm saying.  But we need to be in tune with that in terms of building business.  My personal view is stop just talking to the arts Ministers.  We need to be talking to industry Ministers, treasurers, and Prime Ministers.  In fact, you know, what I reflect on we should have spent a lot more time talking to industry Ministers both at federal and State level about this as a sector for the future and talking to education Ministers about the sector, not in terms of individual programs, but in terms of the overall benefit of having a global agenda around strategy.  We spend a lot of time talking to arts Ministers around the jurisdictions who on the whole in some cases don't have a lot of leverage.  And for whom they don't see the economic agenda and also as we do talk to people at all three levels of government we shouldn't shy around from also talking to not just around the sector's employment, but also the local benefits it has.  The more local the message, the more it resonates.  If the treasurer has a local group coming to him from his own electorate which is linked to a local TAFE, local high school, they pay attention.  If it's a national association coming in and saying don't you understand how important the creative sector is, you don't get the same focus.  What the good lobbyists do is make it all local.  They make it all personal and they hit the values of the decision‑maker, and that's the really important thing that the sector needs to think about.  It's not just employing paid lobbyists.  In fact the sector has resources which most of the sectors which lobby government well could only dream of. 

ESTHER:   That's right.  That's exactly right.  Let's talk ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MICHAEL:   Community access. 

ESTHER:   Yes.  Let's talk more about that right now because that is exactly what we need to harness and again is what our program is all about.  It's a secret agenda.  We want to transform you all into great advocates, being confident, all across Australia to be in regular contact with people that we've elected to represent us because that's their job.  Their job is to hear from you, to hear from all of us.  And what Mike has just said I hear very often from colleagues who have worked at senior levels in government or have been parliamentarians before they look at our sector and they say that you've got what nobody else has.  You know, well distributed all over Australia.  There are artists, makers, crafts people and designers absolutely everywhere.  There are audiences everywhere.  And audiences who are all Australians, as you know, 98 and we're a percentage of Australians, and they're not just audiences in terms of the way we might describe customers for, you know, if we were making widgets, arts audiences know us, trust us, they put their emotions into our hands, the way that we create and share work with them.  They want to get to know you as an artist.  They want to get to know your organisations.  Audiences want to be engaged in more ways than they are.  And so it's just so important that we find those ways to think of politicians as well as not existing on a different plane but as being there ready to hear from us to be welcomed into our communities and to hear from us.  

So, Mike, what are some of the ways that everyone here this evening really should be engaging more with people who we or our neighbours have elected in our electorates or in our States. 

MICHAEL:   Yeah.  Look, I think that you're absolutely right.  The sector has access to a huge range of Australians.  It's important to recognise that some of the most passionate advocates for the creative sector in men sheds, right through to arts and crafts.  We've got the full spectrum.  So where we focus it, I think it's talking to local government representatives, State.  It's talking to economic and industry Ministers, it's talking to education Ministers and it's got to be in the way the local plays through.  You know, examples from their own electorates, examples ‑ mix of national and local.  But also importantly with a focus on the future.  This is really about the way in which our kids, our economy will develop is so much dependent on.  Put it into that future focus.  Make sure we talk about that key word which everyone wants to be part of, investing. 

ESTHER:   Yes. 

MICHAEL:   This is an investment.  And talk about it as investment in the future.  It's not just supporting the struggling artist today.  What you're really doing is investing in the future of the nation.  I know it sounds a bit corny but it really does resonate.  Particularly if you come with examples ‑ local examples, it really does work.  I think that's our best ‑ that's our best option at a time when, look, governments are going to be really tough choices in the future around where they spend that money.  And the community similarly is going to be facing those choices.  And the one thing you know in things of prosperity of times, the community is going to support something that means something to them, they can touch, they feel ‑ whether it's the men's shed or what's happening down at the CWA hall or the local town hall that matters more in tough times.  And the sector needs to build on that and say, "Well, we're actually part of the pathway of how we get out of tough times and a better future."  I think they're the sort of key messages I would be working on.  As I say, those are value statements which I think will resonate of whatever political persuasion the sector is trying to talk to. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  I think that is ‑ it's just so clear and powerful and compelling.  It's so, so important.  Especially now when we're so focused on what that future might be.  We are moving into the almost running out of time section of this week's advocacy program session.  I'm going to ask Mike one more question and then I will tell us about what's happening in up coming weeks.  But Mike as we look at all of that, orienting our work and our need for investment for the future, tell us about some of your team were working on either late last year or leading into that, some of the research we should be looking at and drawing upon.  There was some work on ‑ broader impact on the work of future of work.  What were some of the things on your desk right at the end that we should be drawing on and making the most of right now.  

MICHAEL:   Well, three key areas of analysis we were closing on.  One is there's going to be a huge debate around where are the jobs in the future going to be and how are they going to operate.  And the creative sector needs to be in the room really pointing out the figures like the bureau of economics report and others that really draws attention to the employment in the sector both direct and indirect.  Secondly there will be debate around what the education sector of the future looks like and what our emphasis needs to be and what are our industries of the future.  I think those are three areas as well as ‑ and all of those come back to what are we going to be doing, what will the future work, where will we earn our national dollars in the future.  I think those areas.  Finally I think the other thing is to say that where do we get the maximum benefit as a community from our investment.  And if the government ‑ if governments of any persuasion or right across the country at various levels are going to spend money some of the highest returns comes from supporting the creative.  I think that's the other area, which is again why I say that one of the things people might want to think about is getting the government to basically start to commission something like a Productivity Commission analysis of this over future industries.  I would also spend a bit of time and Peter Harris won't thank me for this but I would also spend a bit of time trying to contact the coronavirus commission and saying actually, while manufacturing and energy and all of those things are absolutely important let me tell you about a sector which is ‑ which has been growing contribution of national income pretty steadily for a long time but which doesn't get recognised.  Let's talk about the creative sector as a sector in which governments should invest.  I think those mechanisms will at least give the sector a pathway forward rather than just saying we simply are harping on about what hasn't happened. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  On the COVID commission, there is a Parliamentary friendship group for contemporary arts and culture which launched the night before Arts Day on the Hill last year.  I will be meeting with the co‑chairs this week and we will be writing to the COVID‑19 commission to propose the establishment of an arts and culture working group for exactly all of those reasons.  I think that needs to happen absolutely as a matter of urgency.  I think also it's terribly important ‑ everything you've just outlined is going to be of huge help to us but it's also important just going back to what you were saying about in response to the question about what can we do right now and who can we speak to, so important to be speaking to colleagues who are not the arts Minister.  The arts Minister, yes, sometimes they aren't the more influential, sometimes they've got other portfolios.  We know Mr Fletcher has communications.  And can you imagine what would be happening if we had no internet right now, the whole country would come in ‑ you know, that's when the economy would absolutely collapse.  So you know he's had, you know, other ‑ he's been a bit distracted with other priorities, very important priorities.  But also we've got to keep in mind the Minister for the Arts, they're already on side.  They are the Minister for the Arts.  They're highly motivated to have great outcomes and legacy in this area.  They need our help to connect across.  They need ‑ you know, when they're talking to the infrastructure, the education, the tourism Minister, they need that Minister to be able to say, "Yeah, good point because just the other day someone got in touch with me in my electorate ‑ you know their story was a perfect case study of what you're talking about."  This is exactly why those relationships are so, so important.  Hard enough for busy Ministers and their staff to be joining those dots but, yeah, we also need to be doing that and, yeah, in a very concerted way.  

A couple of comments there.  Yes, Adam tying in with JA's suggestion around connecting tourism and well‑being, extremely important.  Anna saying it might be a little bit cynical remember the tip we were given from John Daley, the power of seeing the arts as a status marker.  Vomit I know, she says.  But it does draw attention from politicians but a status marker ‑ that sounds ‑ you know, it does sound cynical.  But the way we engage and respond to work ‑ I mean, just think about the way that you classify your friends by, you know, the music they hate and the things you love to do together, and the way they responded to that exhibition that you loved.  Status means different things but it's also about culture, of course, arts and culture is about culture and the way that we express ourselves in different ways, and the links that we make.  Like I will have something in common with that person.  Sometimes even Arts Ministers are anxious about getting into a conversation about art or about an artwork because they're anxious as being made to look the fool.  "They know so much more about this than I, I'm going to get this wrong."  They're far more comfortable to have a conversation about economics, the local electorate about those things that have impact, and when we are empowering our Minister to talk about what they're confident in, then they're going to be able to have those conversations across government as well.  Like we were saying, in the early stage of the NAVA Advocacy Program, advocacy is sort of conversations that are compelling.  It's about telling your story from your point of view.  You can draw on data and so on.  That's fantastic.  But as I've often described it, advocacy can be as simple as you have a conversation with someone, you describe an issue from your point of view, and because it is from your point of view and it's so local, it's so true, you've put that in a way that's so compelling that that person is motivated to have that conversation again, whether they agree with you or not.  How do we make sure that with the creative skills that we have, we are contributing to these really well distributed passionate conversations all over Australia that involve the people who make political decisions?  Very, very important.  

MICHAEL:   Couldn't agree more. 

ESTHER:   Well, you too, Mike.  I mean the range of things you've just taken us through, the richness of your career so far is ‑ yeah, is a great, great asset to all of us.  And it's just been so fantastic to have you with us today.  I'm going to be playing this back and having a good listen quite a bit.  I think I did mention everyone of course our sessions are recorded and transcribed.  You've had that live captioning link.  It's great the audio has worked.  While we're wrapping up in the last few minutes, Marissa asked a quick question:  does the national arts and health framework still exist which was produced by the department of communications and the arts in 2014.  Arts and health framework.  I'm not familiar with that.  Do you know it?  

MICHAEL:   I think it does.  And obviously given the focus on mental health coming out of COVID. 

ESTHER:   Of course. 

MICHAEL:   ‑ ‑ ‑ I would be sending ‑ I think coming back to your point, another opportunity to ‑ when we are talking to policy‑makers and people who are ‑ don't ever miss the chance to give local examples of what an important thing it is to have the creative sector involved.  Whether it's mental health or education of our kids or a whole range of things, the arts and creative sector ‑ as I said we should be cognisant of the fact that all of us in the last three months of that creative interaction and we shouldn't shy away from telling policy‑makers just what a big hole it's left.  As well as what it could do for the future.  So thank you very much for the opportunity to chat.  And I hope ‑ look forward to staying in touch with all of you. 

ESTHER:   Likewise.  Thank you, Mike.  Now, before we wrap up, I am going to ‑ no, I'm not.  I was uploading something earlier which was not successful to show you.  Instead, I'm going to show you something else.  And I'm hoping that that is now coming up on the screen.  Please let me know in the chat if you can see this.  And we will look at the program that is coming up.  So this has been understanding policy section, policy development where do the arts sit with John Daley, our global comparisons with Jackie Bailey, achieving policy goals with Mike Mrdak.  And then in each of our four‑week sections we wrap up and reflect back on the three weeks that we've just discussed by having a Q&A with a politician, each of the three co‑chairs of the Parliamentary friendship group for contemporary arts and culture.  Next week we will hear from Maria Vamvakinou who is the member for Calwell.  We're so used to thinking of advocacy from our point of view.  We're going to be asking what do politicians need to hear from us.  But we're also going to be learning from Maria's many years as a politician looking at policy development from her point of view.  So just as we did in our first week speaking about advocacy ‑ arts advocacy, about revisiting last year's Arts Day on the Hill, talking about First Nations advocacy, and then we had great Q&A with JA and with Zoe McKenzie, who is here this evening, and Darren Rudd, we're going to wrap up next week's, so please be ready with questions from ‑ for Maria from across all of this period, and I very much hope that everyone has been doing their homework.  You've got ‑ the kit has been updated and there are new activities for you to do.  So if you are another member ‑ thank you to Larissa for posting the link to the arts and health framework.  Also to Maz McGahan who is a leader in this field.  Thank you both.  The handbook is available on our website for NAVA members.  Of course, this program, you know, all the four months of it is free and open to everyone, the handbook, so that we are being fair to our NAVA members, that is available for NAVA members only.  NAVA membership, of course, starts at just $7.50 a month and gives you a range of benefits, professional support, development, a range of our incredible resources and toolkits and our ongoing support as well as your connection with that broader network across Australia being a NAVA member is, of course, a really important commitment to your professional practice.  Have a look at those.  Thank you to Leya for posting those links.  So last week's homework was to look at making a submission to the COVID‑19 Parliamentary inquiry into the government's response to that.  Who put in a submission?  Let me see.  So NAVA, as you know, we had prepared our draft and made that available to everyone so you could cut and paste or ideally adapt it for your own use.  We also, of course, this week in particular knowing that the Prime Minister has taken a direct active interest in the development of a package for the arts, and we are likely going to see some kind of announcement on that this week, it's really essential that that package comprehensively addresses all of the arts, not just large organisations, as Mike was saying, and not just some of the performing arts but, in fact, all of the arts.  So right now is the time to get in touch with your local MP at that federal level ‑ thanks to Adam who put one in for the jazz sector.  That's fantastic.  Of course, yes.  So absolutely now is the time to get in touch with your federal MP and talk about why it's absolutely imperative that there is that package and that support for the arts and you will see all the information, the talking points that you need on our website as well.  

So be ready with your questions next week for Maria as we talk some more.  But for now, I very much hope that everyone is still healthy and safe through all of the COVID disaster, that you are looking forward to the future that we create together which we're going to be talking about a lot more over the next few weeks.  And please in the chat way with the strange awkwardness of textural clapping let's thank Mike.  It's been great. 

MICHAEL:   Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

ESTHER:   Thank you.  That is it from us.  We will see you next week.  Goodbye everyone. 

MICHAEL:   Bye bye. 

ESTHER:   Bye.  

(End)