Protecting the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia 2002+

National Film and Sound Archive, Canberra, 2 August 2022.

Abstract: One of Australia's premiere cultural heritage institutions is the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia (NFSA). It is noted that its governing board does not include professional archivists. Experts in the field - film and sound archivists, writers, actors, producers and content creators - should comprise the majority of Board members, but are largely, if not completely, absent. This issue needs to be addressed, as experts in the field can provide pertinent advise and community-based vision to the professionals who manage, and work in or with, the National Film and Sound Archive on a daily basis. The Board, and the institution, must also go beyond the obligation to simply PRESERVE and PROTECT the material in their collections, and actively PROMOTE the collections to the broader community. The National Film and Sound Archive needs to upgrade its visibility and accessibility so that present and future generations are not ham-strung by imposed barriers such as physical access, censorship and cost when seeking to engage with Australia's rich film and sound heritage. Community engagement is a priority, in order to shore up political and community support, thereby ensuring the organisation's sustainability.

Executive Summary - Recommendations

Arising out of the discussion below, the following changes are recommended to ensure the independence, de-politicization and sustainability of Australia's National Film and Sound Archive:

1) Appointment of professional, experienced and visionary film and sound archivists to the NFSA Advisory Committee / Board.

2) Appointment of professional experts in the field of Australian film and sound production and promotion to the  NFSA Advisory Committee / Board.

3) Enhanced engagement of the NFSA collections with the broader community through open access initiatives, such as:

- (i) appointment of staff to the NFSA with expertise in promotion and community and political engagement.

- (ii) placement of iconic Australian films and other audiovisual archival material on publically accessible (free and subscription) streaming services and open access databases such as YouTube, TROVE, NFSA Collection, etc.

- (iii) improvement of the NFSA Collection website and Search engine, to enhance visibility via Google and freely available content to support ongoing research and engagement.

- (iv) increasing the amount and quality of freely available digitised content available through the NFSA Collection website and Search engine.

- (v) ensuring the NFSA Collection is accessible through the National Library of Australia's TROVE open access search engine.  

4) Reinstating the NFSA commercial operations and reopening the Canberra retail outlet, alongside its online presence. Expansion of such outlets throughout Australia to actively promote Australia's film and sound heritage.

5) Ensuring the de-politicization of Australian cultural heritage institutions and cronyism of associated Boards through the setting up of an independent organisation at the Federal level whose role is to ensure that individuals with relevant skills and experience are appointed to such Boards, free of political interference, cronyism, corruption and incompetence. 

------------------------------

Introduction

The Australian National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA), headquartered in a grand, Art Deco building in Australia's national capital, Canberra, is a world-renown audiovisual archive. An outline of its stormy history can be found in the 2011 PhD thesis by internationally distinguished audiovisual archivist Dr. Ray Edmondson (Edmondson 2011) [1]. From that document we know that the origins of the NFSA hark back to 1935 and the National Historical Film and Speaking Record Library within the then Commonwealth National Library, later National Library of Australia (NLA). This was one of the world's first - if not the first - government supported film archives. By the early 1980s it was recognised that the substantial audiovisual collection and related ephemera warranted its own home, where the material could be properly conserved and made available to the public. Edmondson was responsible for management of the the NLA Film Archive between 1968-1984 and played a role in its eventual separation from the Library. On 3 October 1984, Prime Minister Bob Hawke officially opened the newly constituted National Film and Sound Archive's headquarters in Canberra.

Prime Minister Bob Hawke opening the NFSA, 3 October 1984. Duration: 4 minutes.

Since achieving 'independent' status in 1984 the road has been in many ways a rocky one. For one thing, its physical location in the relative isolation of Canberra, away from the populations and cultural centres of Melbourne and Sydney was unfortunate and would prove a limitation to its visibility and accessibility. Also, from the outset, the Hawke government failed to allocate the NFSA statutory independent status through its own Act of parliament, thereby opening it up to bureaucratic abuse in the years to come. For example, between June 1999 and December 2004 it was renamed ScreenSound Australia - The national collection of screen and sound / National screen and sound archive. To add insult to injury, on 1 July 2003 it lost its independence and became a division of the Australian Film Commission (AFC). This was due to backroom and misinformed machinations by the then Coalition (Liberal and Nationals) government. The AFC was, at its core, tasked in assisting the production and promotion of contemporary Australian film, not controlling a significant national archive and cultural heritage institution. This placement of the NFSA under the umbrella of the AFC was equivalent to handing management of the National Library of Australia over to a major commercial bookstore. It was not until 2007, following a campaign by supporters of the NFSA, the Friends of the NFSA group, politicians, and the general public that it regained its independent status - an independence which remains to the present day. But that was not the end of the problems facing the organisation. 

Advisory Committee Problems.....

Since 1984 the NFSA has been guided by an Advisory Committee and a variety of Directors of varying quality and archival management experience, ranging from zero to international expertise in the management of film and sound archives. In addition, over the intervening years it has faced significant budget cuts - recently under the lie that was referred to as "efficiency dividends", and was in fact the complete opposite, giving rise to vicious staff cuts and disabling of necessary programs. There were also senior management issues, mostly in the area of lack of relevant expertise and vision at the helm, and the politicisation of the NFSA Advisory Committee / Board, once again hampered by installment of individuals with lack of relevant skills and experience, tempered by an excess of political bias. To install a person on the Board simply because of their political affiliation, or membership of an elite Board of Directors organisation, does an incredible injustice to the institution, most especially if the Board is stacked with such individuals and, in turn, has few if any actual film and sound archivists, or even workers in the field with passion to bring to the table. It is for these reasons - which have long been in play - that a campaign to Protect the NFSA is just as relevant now as it was back in 2002 when the AFC takeover was first mooted. Some of the political efforts to protect and preserve the status and operational stance of the NFSA since then are outlined below. They include reference to the 2002-2007 campaign to restore the independence of the NFSA from control by the Australian Film Commission, and the more recent 2021-23 campaign to de-politicise and enhance the expertise of the Board, thereby converting majority control to relevant experts in the field of film and sound archival management and promotion. The neglected, though rich field of fandom is an additional untapped resource which could greatly enhance the operations of the Board, providing skills, expertise and much needed passion.

Parliamentary Efforts

2002-2007 - Fighting off the ScreenSound / AFC monster

During 2002-2004 the current author (Michael Organ) was the Australian Greens Federal Member for Cunningham in the federal parliament House of Representatives [2]. Organ was also a professional archivist. As a result, from early 2003 he worked closely with Ray Edmondson in opposing the incorporation of the NFSA within the AFC. Elements of this action included a meeting held in his parliamentary office with Kim Dalton, head of the AFC; a speech presented during the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill debate (text reproduced below); a meeting with the then responsible Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator Rodney Kemp; and a number of press releases issued which resulted in media interviews and further reporting on the topic. The text of many of these are reproduced below:

8 June 2003 - Press Release - Organ reveals Government ScreenSound blunder: A Sydney company is looking at legal action over the hijacking of its name by the Federal government, Cunningham MP Michael Organ revealed today. “The government has shamelessly hijacked the name Screensound, owned by Screensound Pty Ltd of Bourke Street in Surry Hills and given it to the re-badged National Film and Sound Archive”, Mr. Organ told Parliament during debate on the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill this afternoon. “Screensound Pty Ltd, a well-known audio production house owned by Peter Pagac and Veren Grigorov, has had its business disrupted since the government re-named the National Film and Sound Archive as ScreenSound Australia in 1999.” “The Surry Hills business continually receives email, Australia Post mail, and parcels containing film and sound recordings which confused senders have directed its way because of the government-initiated hijacking of its good name.” “This matter came to light when I was doing research into the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill, which will essentially collapse the Film and Sound Archive into the Commission, leaving nothing more than the trading name ScreenSound Australia.” “The Bill has the potential to imperil our national collecting institution, and is as ill-considered as the hijacking of a company name”, Mr. Organ concluded.

18 June 2003 - Parliamentary Speech - Mr ORGAN (Cunningham) (2.17 p.m.) — As part of the budget package, the government announced out of the blue that the Australian Film Commission and ScreenSound Australia - also known by its original, more descriptive and more appropriate name: the National Film and Sound Archive - will be integrated as of 1 July 2003, just seven weeks from the announcement of the implementation, which is rather hasty to say the least. The Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 2003, currently before the House, will provide the statutory framework for this integration. It is not, as the member for Fraser would have us believe, a relatively minor bill. Despite what the member for Moncrieff has just told us, the legislation will have an immediate impact upon the National Film and Sound Archive. The government's decision follows the completion of a secret nine-month review of cultural agencies - a cabinet-in-confidence document - the details of which are only known from information contained in the budget papers and press releases. Minister Kemp should release the report. 

One of the recommendations of the review was that ScreenSound, a cultural institution with approximately 200 staff, be incorporated into the Australian Film Commission, which has a staff of approximately 60. The announcement has caught many in the profession on the hop, and they are still awaiting the detail of the proposed merger before making comment. The current debate on this issue is just the start of what I believe will be widespread community comment over the coming year. 

ScreenSound, or the National Film and Sound Archive - which is how I will refer to it in this debate - is one of this country's and Canberra's major cultural institutions and tourist attractions. It stands beside the National Library of Australia, the Australian Museum, the National Archives and the National Gallery as a significant repository of the cultural heritage of this nation. The Australian Greens are concerned that the incorporation of the archive into the AFC has been rushed through without any public consultation process and without taking on board the concerns of the film and sound archive profession. 

There is concern that the reasons for the amalgamation given by the government do not tell the whole story. Not having access to the secret review is also cause for concern. It is possible that the bringing together of these two organisations is inappropriate and may prove unworkable. The archive, unfortunately, will most likely be the main victim of yet another rushed and ill-considered decision. Only time will tell. Personally, I am concerned about the government's direction at the moment. I hope it works and that it results in an improved financial position for the archive - but, as the member for Fraser has said, that is not likely in the medium term - and a more stable statutory environment along with better treatment, promotion and use of the invaluable film and sound collection. 

Having looked in detail at the bill, and the government's background to it, I see a number of deficiencies in the new regime that is being created to manage the archive's collection as part of the AFC. This bill, if passed, will turn the AFC into one of the aforementioned cultural institutions with responsibility for managing a section of this nation's cultural heritage. Does the AFC want this role? Can it adequately carry out its new responsibilities? 

As a result of my experience as a professional archivist since 1986, my recent dealings with the archive as a film researcher and the manner in which the National Film and Sound Archive has been dealt with and managed by government in recent times, I have some genuine concerns about this merger. When the amalgamation was announced in May as part of the budget, little detail was available. I understand that the head of the AFC and the head of ScreenSound were only told about the merger a week before the budget announcement. 

Media commentators gave it tentative support, though with the general rider that the devil would be in the detail, and that detail - the bill now before us - was yet to be revealed. The Friends of the National Film and Sound Archive gave tentative support to the merger. Why? I suppose because they saw that at last it gave the archive some statutory framework within which to exist. The Chief Executive of the AFC, Kim Dalton, stated at the time that, in his opinion, it made sense to have an archival body such as the National Film and Sound Archive working alongside the AFC, which funds and supports the creation of contemporary films. And there is the rub: will ScreenSound be working alongside the AFC or under it? The current bill indicates the latter. The archive will be subsumed within the AFC if this bill is passed, and it will most likely lose its identity. 

The question needs to be asked: can the AFC, an organisation whose primary goal is funding and supporting the creation of contemporary films, be responsible for the management of an archival cultural institution whose primary role is the preservation of the national film and sound collection? Personally, I do not think so. As a professional archivist with some knowledge of the complexities of dealing with film and sound archival material, I have read with interest the concerns expressed about this merger by the friends group. Those concerns are reasonable and legitimate, with many of the friends being professionals in the field and film buffs with a passion for the archive, its collection and the role it should play in Australian society. Over recent weeks I have also spoken with a number of my former archival colleagues on this matter. Their concerns focus on the haste with which the amalgamation has occurred and on the ultimate fate of the archive under this new regime, with regard to both the collection itself and the way the professional staff will be dealt with. 

While the friends 'cautiously welcomed' the 'surprise merger announcement' - to quote their words - they have expressed reservations about the possible effects such a merger will have on the ongoing treatment of the significant collections of the archive. As such, they have called for some merger safeguards. These safeguards include ensuring that those who represent the National Film and Sound Archive on the new Australian Film Commission board—if there are to be any such people—should at least have strong credentials in sound or film culture. Ideally, they should be professional film and sound archivists, experts in the field. The friends group have specifically requested that the archive have a long-term guarantee of a minimum of three such dedicated expert positions on the AFC board. 

The friends are also calling for a National Film and Sound Archive advisory committee to be put in place, similar to the one which I understand currently exists. It is essential that the archive's needs and responsibilities are managed and monitored by people with appropriate credentials in the field - experts - consistent with the management of the nation's other leading cultural institutions. We have professional librarians managing the National Library of Australia, professional museum curators managing the Australian Museum, professional archivists in charge of the National Archives of Australia, and, likewise, experts running the National Gallery. When bureaucrats and the Sir Humphreys of this world have been put in charge of our cultural institutions, we have seen, and we can expect to see, real personnel and collection management problems. 

The National Film and Sound Archive suffered such problems in the past, run by bureaucrats rather than experts in the field. Hopefully this government will remove this blight and allow experts to run the archive in an appropriate and professional manner, for the good of this nation, and with minimal political interference. The friends have warned that experiences in other countries have shown that mergers of cultural institutions need to be more than just skin deep. They cite the merger of the British Film Institute - a body similar to our AFC - and the National Film and Television Archive in 1998. This merger proved not to work and, as a result, was reversed after four years. 

Our National Film and Sound Archive's identity needs to be restored after its ill-considered so-called rebranding as ScreenSound Australia in 1999. A possible outcome of the current merger is that the title of the National Film and Sound Archive will be restored. Just as the name change to ScreenSound in 1999 was devised in secret without consultation and was sprung unexpectedly on a public and constituency that did not want a change, so the amalgamation of ScreenSound with the AFC has come out of the blue. The name change to ScreenSound defied world best practice for significant cultural institutions. We would not consider calling the National Library of Australia the book bank, for example, but here we are calling the National Film and Sound Archive ScreenSound. `Screen sound' is actually a technical term in the industry - it means soundtracks; it does not mean the National Film and Sound Archive - and is therefore totally inappropriate. The decision to introduce the name was not only silly but most probably illegal. 

As the government might be aware, in 1998 a private company called Screensound Pty Ltd was registered as a business. It is a post-production audio facility. Also at the time, the Australian Screen Sound Guild existed. Since the introduction of the ScreenSound name for the archive in 1999, the owner of Screensound Pty Ltd has suffered financially. He receives emails meant for the archive, his own business inquiries go astray, and he receives film and other material meant for the archive. He has written to ScreenSound asking them to cease using the registered name, and I understand that he is currently in the process of seeking a Federal Court injunction against the government in this regard. 

This whole name change for the archive was an ill-considered move and is just one aspect of the whole shemozzle that is government management of this important cultural institution - not only by this government but by the previous government as well. It is happening again. Here we have an unexpected decision arising out of a secret government inquiry into the archive and other cultural institutions. It is a radical step without persuasive rationale. We are now confronted with some quick and dirty legislation, devised without professional input or stakeholder consultation to cement this arrangement. Would we treat our other national collecting institutions, such as the National Library and the National Gallery, in such a cavalier fashion? I think not. 

Our film and sound heritage deserves careful and deliberate crafting of its legislative base, allowing for consultation and expert professional input. In 1985, following the creation of the National Film and Sound Archive in the previous year, an expert committee handed down the Time in our hands report, which recommended proper parameters for a charter and statutory authority legislation for the archives. An appendix of the report actually had a draft legislation bill for setting up the archives. At the time it was the clear intent of government to adopt this legislation, but it never was adopted and it still has not been adopted. The current government has ignored that path of giving the National Film and Sound Archive its own legislation. Instead of the independent legislative basis that it needs and that would best suit it, the archive will now be subject to a legislative basis which is supposedly better than the current situation of nothing but goes a long way short of the preferred option. 

Community concern about the situation and management of the National Film and Sound Archive has been growing steadily in recent years. There are now two advocacy groups: the Friends of the National Film and Sound Archive and the Archive Forum. Both encourage serious public discussion on a range of issues bearing on the well-being of the institution: the shape of the legislation, the archive's governance, identity, staff training, scholarships, research, international best practice and policies, such as collection management policies. The concerns and efforts of these groups, in the national interest, are being ignored by this government, just as continuing complaints about the name change have been ignored. 

The bill before us is quite vague with regard to the future of the archive. How will the needs and concerns of the archive be heard under the new AFC regime? How will the film and sound archive profession have a say in the ongoing management and direction of the institution? The amended AFC Act will not recognise and protect the archive as an entity. Under section 5, 'Functions of Commission', this bill will pass over responsibility for the so-called national collection to the AFC. It will give the AFC the power to develop, maintain and preserve the collection, to exhibit it and to make items in the collection available to the wider community. This is the role of the archive. 

 We have been told by the government that part of the rationale for the merger was to give the archive access to the promotional resources of the AFC, yet the archive already has a close working relationship with the AFC in this regard. We have also been told that one of the reasons for the merger was to make the archive collection more accessible to the general public, and I support that. It has also been done to assist in raising the profile of Australia's screen and sound heritage. That is a laudable motive which is easily supportable. Archival collections are, by their nature, maintained for this very reason - so that the community can have access to these unique records both now and into the future. The question is: can the AFC carry out this role? I understand that a working party of AFC and archive staff has been hurriedly convened to work out how to put into place the 1 July amalgamation deadline. Such a working party should have been allowed to consider the amalgamation for an extensive period, with widespread community consultation prior to the introduction of the changes to the AFC Act. The current bill is flawed in a number of other ways. For example, its definition of  'national collection' is limiting and ambiguous. It defines 'national collection' as: 

(a) the programs that are owned by, or are in the possession of, the Commission from time to time; and 

(b) all material associated with programs that is owned by, or is in the possession of, the Commission from time to time. 

What does 'from time to time' mean? What kind of certainty does that give to the requirements of the archive - and now the AFC - to be responsible for the long-term preservation and protection of Australia's film and sound heritage? I feel the use of the words 'from time to time' in the bill are cause for concern. It is only within the transitional provisions part of the bill that any reference is made to ScreenSound and the National Film and Sound Archive. This bill, which supposedly gives the archive a solid statutory base, makes no reference to it as an ongoing, unique entity. This bill, once passed, will allow for the dissolution and disappearance of the archive. It will turn it into an arm of the AFC and nothing more. The AFC will have the power, the CEO and the numbers on the board, and there are no guarantees that the archive will have any representation at all on the board. The AFC will now acquire control of the archive collection and make what use of it that it likes. The question is: what will the AFC do with the archive collection? 

The AFC is, according to its own vision statement, 'the primary development agency for the Australian film, television and interactive media production industry'. Its role is to assist the Australian film industry and help to develop it. I would suggest that this is very different from the role of the archive. The archive will most likely lose a great deal of its independence as a result of the amalgamation. Who will account to parliamentary committees now on behalf of the archive? Will there be an advisory committee specific to the archive to cater for its needs and represent its constituency and stakeholders? There is a danger of a predatory hiving off of functions to become separate units of the AFC, as has happened in comparable situations overseas. What will stop the AFC doing this? 

And what of executive and professional independence? Who will the real boss of the National Film and Sound Archive be? Where will the real power lie? What will the culture of the new AFC be like? Will the archive be a mere subset of a funding and promotional body, or will it essentially be an archive with added funding and promotional functions? Will there be a de facto line around the archive, defining it organisationally and physically, or will it be blurred, with staff forced to take on tasks and responsibilities with both institutions? Will the AFC be able to accommodate the two distinct cultures: film-makers versus audiovisual archivists? Will it be able to keep them separate and honour them? How far will the AFC board and senior staff be able to understand and relate to the culture of archives and collecting institutions? Is there an unresolvable conflict of interest underlying the amalgamation? Who will publicly represent the archive, both here and overseas? To the problem of the archive's name, which remains unresolved, is added the problem of what is branded `archive' and what is branded `Australian Film Commission'. 

In summary, since its creation in 1984 as a separate entity the National Film and Sound Archive has pioneered for the rest of the world the concept of the modern audiovisual archive, embracing all forms of moving image and recorded sound media. It has in many important respects, ranging from policy development and preservation practice to technical breakthroughs and software development, become and been admired as a world leader. It has been a beacon for the audiovisual archiving movement in the whole of the South-East Asian and Pacific region and has attracted Australian practitioners who are among the world's leading professionals. Yet it has never had from government the affirmation of legislation and statutory authority status so obviously intended by its creation. This bill does not provide such an affirmation. It has only ever been headed by career bureaucrats; professional audiovisual archivists have never been allowed to lead it. ScreenSound syndrome, as it is now called, is studied internationally as a lesson in how not to manage a national cultural institution. This House is now confronted by yet another example of ScreenSound syndrome—the announcement of an unexpected change of ownership, which may or may not prove beneficial, arising out of a secret inquiry and defined by legislation hurriedly devised and introduced without stakeholder consultation and clearly inadequate for the need at hand. 

Why the unseemly haste? There are lots of questions with precious few answers. The National Film and Sound Archive deserves better treatment by government. This legislation is not good enough, and we are being asked to rely on the Australian Film Commission management to do the right thing by the archive. I call on the government to listen to the profession, to the experts in the field, to the audiovisual archivists and to the friends groups in deciding the future of this important cultural institution. I also seek an assurance from the minister that the archive will continue to maintain a unique identity.

5 December 2003 - Press release - The Government's hollow promises on Screensound restructure revealed: Moves to restructure the National Film and Sound Archive, ScreenSound, resulting in the loss of dozens of jobs, directly contradicts assurances given by the government earlier this year Cunningham MP Michael Organ said today. “After I spoke against the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill, which provided the basis to amalgamate the two bodies, in June the Minister for Science Peter McGauran gave a categorical undertaking that there would be no jobs lost as a result.” “His statement to the House of Representatives that ‘...on the minister’s behalf I am able to say that the AFC has given public assurances that there will be no job losses as part of the new arrangements’ has been revealed as a worthless piece of political flim-flam.” “Arts Minister Rod Kemp made a similar undertaking in the Senate saying ‘First of all, staff will not be disadvantaged. There are protections in this bill, and the truth is that we have thought very carefully about that’, an undertaking now shown to be similarly worthless.” “To add insult to injury, the Stage 2 Directions paper on the amalgamation which was issued last Friday is internally contradictory and allowing five weeks for comment over the festive season is simply ridiculous, so I’m calling on the Arts Minister to extend the deadline of 23 January 2004 until at least the end of February and ensure that no decisions are taken until full consultation has been undertaken”, Mr. Organ said.

5 January 2004 - Press release - Organ welcomes Screensound fightback: Cunningham MP Michael Organ has added his voice to calls for the National Film and Screen Archive to remain a separate institution. “The reasons behind the move to incorporate Screensound, as the Archive is known, into the Australian Film Commission are so shrouded in secrecy that I was unable to discover them even in a personal briefing from Arts Minister Senator Rod Kemp's staff”, Mr. Organ said today. “As a professional archivist before entering parliament I know just how important the work of the Archive is, and the Archive Forum is right to maintain in its report ‘Cinderella betrayed’ that it should remain a separate institution. I told parliament when the relevant legislation was being debated in June 2003 that it is essential that the Archive’s needs and responsibilities are managed and monitored by people with appropriate credentials in the field – experts – consistent with the management of the nation’s other leading cultural institutions. I wholeheartedly endorse the view that the professional independence of the Archive must be maintained. To do otherwise threatens our nation’s heritage of film, TV and sound recordings”, Mr. Organ said.

These efforts came to fruition with action taken by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) at the end of 2004 in committing to restoring the independence of the NFSA. This eventually took place in 2007 after the ALP had won government and redressed the actions of the previous Coalition government. The National Film and Sound Archive Act was passed in 2008.

2021-2023 - Where's the expertise, the passion?!!

Questions regarding the NFSA Board, funding and staffing levels were raised in parliament during October 2021 by Zali Steggall, Independent Member for Warringah (Steggall 2022). The Questions, and Answers provided by Minister Fletcher in January 2022, were as follows:

Question No.678

Zali Steggall asked the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, in writing, on 18 October 2021:

1. In respect of the two vacancies, including the chair, currently on the National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) board, will the Minister: (a) ensure that the new appointees satisfy one or more of the following criteria: (i) background in the management of memory institutions, especially audiovisual archives, and their relevant professional disciplines; (ii) academic standing in the history disciplines, especially the history of the screen and sound media; and (iii) active professional connection with the screen and sound industries; and (b) seek an amendment to the National Film and Sound Archive Act 2008 to specify that future appointments to the board should satisfy the above criteria.

2. Given that, in real terms, the budget allocation for the NFSA from the Government has declined about 20 per cent over the past decade, and that to restore it to the actual level of a decade ago will require a permanent increase of $6 million per annum in base funding; will the Government commit to such a restoration.

3. As the NFSA is required by its Act to work to the ‘highest curatorial standards’, and given that in 2010-11 the NFSA’s approved staffing level (ASL) was 220, while its current ASL is 164, will the Government commit to restoring its ASL back to 2010-11 levels.

4. Given that the Government has provided an emergency allocation of $5.5 million over 4 years to enable basic-standard digitisation of at-risk magnetic tape audio and video recordings to be completed before 2025, will the Government apply an additional, ongoing increment of this size to the NFSA’s budget allocation beyond 2025.

-------------------

Mr Fletcher – The answer to the honourable Member’s question is as follows [?January 2022]:

1. The National Film and Sound Archive of Australia Act 2008 (the Act) does not specify criteria which must be satisfied by persons appointed by the Minister to the Board. The Government has no intention to amend the Act to establish such criteria. Prior to appointing a person, the Minister gives regard to the skills and experience that person can contribute to the NFSA and its Board.

The Act provides that the Board is responsible for ensuring the proper and efficient performance of the NFSA’s functions. The Board has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its duties.

For the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), the Board is the accountable authority for the NFSA. It has responsibility for leading, governing and setting the strategic direction for the NFSA, including:

• promoting the proper (efficient, effective, economical and ethical) use and management of public resources;
• promoting the achievement of the purposes of the NFSA;
• promoting the financial sustainability of the NFSA; and
• establishing appropriate systems of risk management and internal control, including measures directed at ensuring officials comply with the finance law.

All National Collecting Institution Boards and Councils benefit from having members drawn from various sectors.

In relation to NFSA Board vacancies, I have recently appointed Ms Caroline Elliott as Chair of the Board and Mrs Lucinda Brogden AM as a Member, each for a term of three years.

Many of the staff engaged by the NFSA would satisfy one or more of the criteria suggested.

2. In 2021-22, the National Collecting Institutions within the Arts portfolio are collectively receiving over $300 million in funding from the Australian Government. This is a strong reflection of the importance this Government gives to the National Collecting Institutions in preserving and making accessible Australia’s culture and history.

Since 2017-18, the Australian Government has announced additional funding to the NFSA of almost $60 million, for digitisation, capital works, financial sustainability and COVID-19 support. This includes $41.9 million over four years from 2021-22 to preserve and store 240,000 at-risk audio-visual items, which was announced by the Government on 3 December 2021.

3. The NFSA’s average staffing level will increase over the period 2021-22 to 2024-25 by 21.5 to support the digitisation and storage of at-risk audio-visual collection material.

4. As noted in response to question 2, the Government announced on 3 December 2021 that it would provide the NFSA with an additional $41.9 million over four years from 2021-22 to digitally preserve and store 240,000 at-risk audio-visual items held by the NFSA and seven other National Collecting Institutions. Around 220,000 of the items to be preserved are held by the NFSA. The NFSA will also receive $6.5 million per annum from 2025-26 to meet the ongoing storage costs for the preserved material.

This funding will protect important elements of Australia’s audio-visual history from being permanently lost due to material deterioration as well as the risks posed by obsolete playback equipment and the loss of skills needed to maintain it.

---------------------

In July 2022 the Grattan Institute issued a report on corruption of the parliamentary appointments process by politicisation of committee and board memberships (Wood et al. 2022). In response, on 18 July it was proposed by Dr. Sophie Scamps, Independent MP for Mackellar, that a Bill be put to the parliament which would place appointments to such committees and boards at arms length from government and ministers (Scamp 2022). Scamps' press release is reproduced below:

Such a process operates successfully in many countries outside of Australia and sees appointment based on experience and relevance. It is hoped that such a process will result in the NFSA Board containing experts in the field of audiovisual archive management, alongside others with a passion for the work of the NFSA, and not mere professional board directors who lack both the relevant experience and the passion for the work of the organisation.

* 3 March 2023

From: Minister Tony Burke 

To: Senator David Pocock

Senator for the Australian Capital Territory Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600 

Thank you for your correspondence of 23February 2023 on behalf of the Friends of the National Film and Sound Archive (the Archive) regarding the appointment process for Members of the Archive Board. As with the governing bodies of similar National Collecting Institutions, the Archive Board is responsible for setting the strategic direction for the Archive and for ensuring the proper and efficient performance of the Archive's functions. It is essential the boards of our cultural institutions reflect the skills and experience that are essential for them to do their job. Wherever possible, the Australian Government will look for opportunities to make appointments to the governing boards of institutions that enhance diversity, including First Nations representation, and better reflect the nature of the relevant institution's work. For your information, there are no current vacancies on the Archive Board. The next vacancy is due to arise in August 2023. My process involves the Department for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts developing a skills matrix and advising what skills are missing each time a occurs. This then confirms any proposed candidate is appropriate before I proceed. 

Thank you for your support for the Government's focus on rebuilding the long−term capability of the National Collecting Institutions. The Australian creative sector, including the National Collecting Institutions such as the Archive, plays a fundamental role in shaping our national identity, social and community cohesion and economy. As Minister for the Arts, after extensive engagement and with the of the Australian creative sector, I was pleased to release Revive: a place for a story for place — Australia's cultural policy for the next five years, with the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP on 30 2023. This new policy is shaped around the goals of Creative Australia, established when the Hon Julia Gillard was Prime Minister. I enclose a copy of Revive, which is available at Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600. One of the five pillars of the policy emphasise the importance of strong cultural and the provision of support across the spectrum of institutions which sustain our arts, culture and heritage. The Government's consideration of future sector support will be informed by this policy. As I mentioned in my speech at the Woodford Folk Festival, there is justified outcry about the future of the National Collecting Institutions. The Government will consider the long−term funding needs of these Institutions as part of the 2023−24 Budget. It is my intention that each of the National Collecting Institutions should be able to operate sustainably with resources to deliver their mandated for the benefit of Australia. My speech is available online at minister.infrastructure.gov.au/speech/woodford-folk-festival. Thank you again for writing and your engagement in this process. I look forward to working together to deliver a better outcome for Australia's creative sector. 

Yours sincerely Tony Burke MP

------------------

Comments

The Australian National Film and Sound Archive is a audiovisual archive. The best people to run the NFSA is professional A/V archivists and support staff. Their role as an organisation is to Preserve, Protect and Promote their collections. Workers in the field, those with an abiding interest, such as fans and collectors, researchers, students and the A/V community in general also have a role to play in the management and promotion of the NFSA, as such groups do in regard to any archival collection. In the opinion of this author, the NFSA is, in part, blighted by the fact that Canberra - its home - is a public service / servants town. Public servants serve the public good. That is their role. They do this most often dispassionately and apolitically. Yet passion is a vital ingredient in the operation and survival of any archive, for it is passion that has led to the creation of the material that ends up in the archive; it is passion which has in many instances saved the material in the archive from destruction; and it is passion which is best used to promote the use of the archival material - to breathe life back into it. Archives exist to be used, not to be hidden away and forgotten. Sure, the issue of preservation is important - vital, actually. But usage is perhaps more important - not destructive usage, but usage which is mindful of the physical state of the item, and is also able to present it is some sort of context. That usage is a tool which promotes the organisation to the wider community and can give rise to appropriate economic and political support to enable ongoing sustainability. Again, archival material can also be used artistically in a retro, reborn form. But in all these cases it is about usage and interpretation, or reinterpretation. The best way to achieve this is through exhibition - real or virtual - and open access, once again real or virtual. All that is possible in the modern era. The NFSA promotes that it has 3 million items. In one of the above references the relevant minister stated that funding would be provided to digitise 220,000 items during 2022-2024. This sounds like a lot of material, but it is less than 7.4% of the total collection. Not good enough! 

The state of public engagement by the NFSA is highlighted by the closure of its Canberra retail outlet and the fact that the greatest Australian film of the silent era - For the Term of His Natural Life (1927) - was reconstructed and restored in 1981 but is not publically available anywhere, to purchase or on a streaming service! In the view of the author, the icons of Australia's film and sound heritage should be freely available on open access streaming services such as SBS, ABC, Netflix and YouTube, for use by the wider community and the education sector. The fact that they are not is regrettable. Whilst this author is not critical of the professionals working within the institution, he is critical of its direction, both internally and at the Advisory Committee / Board level. The latter reveals lack of passion, lack of commitment, lack of expertise and lack of ability to do their job, which is to serve the people of Australia in protecting, preserving and promoting its film and sound cultural heritage. IT'S TIME for a change, as Gough Whitlam and the ALP proclaimed back in 1972. 

It's Time (TV jingle), Australian Labor Party, 1972, duration: 2 minutes. A restored version, with an unfortunate and intrusive Australian Screen watermark, can be found here.

-------------------------

Notes

[1] Ray Edmondson OAM was Deputy Director of the National Film and Sound Archive from its establishment in 1984 until 2001, and prior to that was responsible for the Film Archive within the National Library from 1968 to 1984. He now heads his own consultancy company, Archive Associates, which is an affiliate of FIAF (International Federation of Film Archives) and SEAPAVAA. He writes, speaks and teaches widely within the international archiving community. His latest monograph, Audiovisual Archiving: Philosophy and Principles has just been published by UNESCO. He holds several committee/board posts within the profession, in Australia and abroad. He was the recipient of the 2003 Silver Light Award for career achievement from the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA). Source: Senses of Cinema. 

[2] Michael Organ is a professional archivist. He worked at the University of New South Wales Archives (1985-7) and at the University of Wollongong as an archivist and research assistant between 1988-2002 and 2004-2020. He was the Federal member for Cunningham between October 2002 and October 2004. Following his work in parliament, he returned to his role at an archivist at the University of Wollongong, managing the open access digital repository through until November 2020, working closely with the University Archives in the digitisation of materials and their exposure through exhibitions and community engagement. He has published and presented widely on aspects of archival management and open access.

-------------------

References

Edmondson, Ray, Publications [webpage], Researchgate [website], 1974+. List of published works, with some access to full text.

-----, The end of newsreels [video], National Film and Sound Archive, Canberra, 2005. Duration: 2.02 minutes.

-----, National Film and Sound Archive: the quest for identity. Factors shaping the uneven development of a cultural institution, PhD thesis, University of Canberra, 2011, 480p.

-----, Time for another visionary moment at the NFSA, Inside Story [Blog], 23 July 2021.

Friends of the National Film and Sound Archive [website], Canberra, 2022.  

National Film and Sound Archive, Annual Report 2020-21, Canberra, 8 October 2021. 

Scamp, Sophie, Independent MP pushes for laws to stamp out 'jobs for mates' among politicians, The Australian, 18 July 2022.

Shirley, Graham, Ray Edmondson and Audiovisual Archiving Archiving in Australia, Australian Media Oral History Group [website], 28 July 2021.

Steggall, Zali, Zali Steggall gets some answers...., Film Alert 101 [Blog], 23 February 2022.

Wood, Danielle, Griffiths, Kate and Stobart, Anika, New Politics: A better process for public appointments [pdf], Grattan Institute, July 2022, 38p.

------------------

Last updated: 24 May 2023

Michael Organ