If you’re an arts worker residing outside ‘the big two’ cities – Melbourne or Sydney – you will know the feeling of being out of sight and out of mind all too well.
With the largest funding agencies based in either of these hubs, some arts companies outside of this bubble feel like their supposedly ‘remote’ locations are the roadblocks in the way of the government funding they feel they deserve.
But if you are a top-tier ballet company located outside of Melbourne or Sydney, the idea of a government funding deficit based on your location is backed up by some hard data showing there are indeed funding inequities when these major performing arts companies are compared to their counterparts on a like-for-like basis.
Ballet company leaders reveal funding disparities
The most obvious example of a performing arts company that has worked tirelessly over the past decade or so to dramatically diversify its revenue streams, and make an impressive mark on the international stage, is Queensland Ballet (QB).
While the company has been in the headlines recently due to the short tenure and swift departure of its former Artistic Director Leanne Benjamin, its Executive Director Dilshani Weerasinghe and previous Artistic Director Li Cunxin AO were busy managing other company pressures for a long time before that.
As Weerasinghe explains, these challenges weighed heavy and ultimately took a toll on Li Cunxin’s health, forcing him to step away from the company at the end of 2023 (earlier than he intended).
“The relentless pressures of pursuing philanthropic and sponsorship funding to cover the company’s operating costs in the absence of government funding parity, eventually wore him out in body and spirit,” she tells ArtsHub. “Li was very clear that his greatest disappointment was that the government didn’t journey with us as we grew, and as we showed increased relevance to our audiences and artists,” she continues.
Read: Arts Wellbeing Collective abruptly shut down
“Li’s vision, which he articulated clearly from day one, was about building a long-term legacy in the arts and in Queensland, and we were all focused on creating a ballet company that could stand up on the international stage, attract talent to our Academy, and inspire our community, donors and corporate partners to support a Queensland success story.
“But, sadly, that vision has not been endorsed by government, and although they have made ad hoc funding adjustments to companies around the country, they have not yet aligned with the ambition to have a world-stage ballet company in Queensland,” Weerasinghe says.
After Li Cunxin joined Queensland Ballet in 2012, he and QB’s executive team transformed the company from one that had a $6 million annual turnover, to one that now turns over upwards of $30 million a year.
“We have raised considerable private and corporate support for our various projects, including our capital projects, but it is not possible to sustain our operations as costs of doing business grow, and without fair investment from our Federal Government,” says Weerasinghe.
“We feel as though we have done our job in working hard to leverage government funding to nurture audiences, encourage enrolments to our Academy, engage participants in our community programs, inspire sponsors and donors to support our varied endeavours, and show a strong return on government investment, including in enhancing government-owned infrastructure.”
“We are also trying to be better employers for our artists and artists,” she continues.
“Our working conditions are now better than they have ever been as we aim to meet the market, value our people and address rising costs of living. But those better standards mean we’re needing our revenue mix to work harder and harder and, again, this is causing a [funding] imbalance that is unsustainable.”
Weerasinghe also draws on some figures that point to clear Federal Government funding disparities to which her company has been subjected.
“If you compare the Federal funding we receive with dance companies around Australia, the lack of parity is astounding and we never thought it would go on for this long,” she says.
“A major Sydney-based dance company that is smaller than Queensland Ballet received $2.8 million from the Federal Government, and QB received $800,000 in 2024.
“Ultimately, we are still too heavily weighted in our self-generated revenue, especially when you compare our size and operations to others on a like-for-like basis.”
Production cost increases not in line with government funding
On the other side of country, and at an even greater distance from the Melbourne-Sydney focus, West Australian Ballet’s (WAB) Executive Director Lauren Major, expresses similar concerns to Weerasinghe about her company’s level of support from government.
As Major tells ArtsHub, “Over the past decade WAB’s ticket sales have increased by more than 40%, and we are now pushing the limits of the venues we perform in. Our philanthropic community has also continued to grow their support exponentially. Yet over that same 10-year period – most noticeably since COVID – WAB has experienced steep cost increases.”
Read: Ballet review: The Wild Between Stars: Ballet at the Quarry, Perth Festival
She continues, “Our cost of production has increased by 47%, inclusive of theatre and theatre labour costs over which we have little control and which are subject to a 35% loading. Creative wages have risen by 28% over the same period, on a like-for-like basis.
“However, our State Government funding has remained static over that time – increasing by only 1%.”
Major adds that the Federal Government funding WAB receives has also remained static over time. However, this Federal funding makes up a smaller portion of the company’s overall revenue compared to its funding from the State Government (WA Department of Culture of Arts).
Either way, Major feels WAB’s current government funding levels do not match the financial value WAB’s activities generate for the community and for the arts sector at large.
“There seems to be a misapprehension of the value returned to the community by the local performing arts sector, both quantitatively and qualitatively,” she notes.
“In quantitative terms, for every $1 the government invests, the WA Ballet returns a direct value to the City of Perth of $4.73,” adds Major, drawing on the company’s Return on Investment (ROI) calculations, which are based on the company’s Culture Counts survey data and tell the company how much business – in areas like hospitality, hotel bookings and retail – is generated by WAB’s activities throughout the year.
“Further to that, if you calculate the company’s multiplied Return on Investment, which extends the return amount to include the contribution WAB makes to the economy via our employment of artists and arts workers, that figure becomes $13.22 for every dollar invested by government.”
In light of these returns, Major expresses dismay at the State Government’s most recent funding ‘top-up’ payments to the company, which it has guaranteed only for the next two years.
“We are very grateful [for this ‘top-up’ payment], but it does not cover the CPI [consumer price indexation/ inflation increase] gap for those years.
“It also doesn’t address further cost increases, and is not guaranteed beyond mid-2026,” Major says.
Ultimately, Major and Weerasinghe are clear in their view that both companies have been subject to unequal government funding for some time, but within the current cost crisis this is now posing unprecedented threats to their bottom lines.
As Weerasinghe notes, “The costs of standing still have gone up, while the indexation of government funding grants, both Federal and State have not kept up, which means they have actually decreased.
“But we are not asking for a handout. We know we are already delivering a very good return on investment.
“We are just asking for funding parity with that of our peers to prevent us from having to go backwards in artistic vibrancy, the size of artistic ensemble and our touring, and so we don’t lose the incredible talent and momentum we have built,” she concludes.
