Our submission takes an expansive view of the cultural life of the nation, moving it beyond the ‘arts sector’ framework. Culture is a core democratic infrastructure: a system through which Australians make meaning, negotiate difference, sustain belonging, imagine futures, transmit knowledge and exercise civic agency.
The pressures now shaping the 2020s and 2030s – democratic fragmentation, algorithmically-driven global media platforms, AI and automation, climate change and instability, geopolitical disruption, loneliness, inequality and declining social trust – suggest cultural policy may need to evolve from a focus on a specific sector through contributing to a broader policy architecture.
The next iteration of the NCP is an opportunity to achieve a stronger, networked national cultural ecosystem built around coordinated governance and cross-sector capability development.
Building on Revive
The logic underpinning Revive: Australia’s National Cultural Policy already points in this direction through its progressive emphasis on “a place for every story, a story for every place”, First Nations leadership, cultural infrastructure, creative work, and audience participation and co-production. At its heart it addresses and enables individual and community connection to the cultural life of our nation.
Our submission is a direct response to the opportunities opened by Revive. Its vision for ‘First Nations First’ recognised deep truths of First Nations life and culture and laid the foundation for a holistic view of cultural practice. This re-established the human value of a more expansive and connected view of culture, rather than the segmentation that has tended to silo arts, sciences and cultural fields – incorporating galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM) and heritage in ways that reinforce the long human practice of culture on this continent.
The next NCP must build on that foundation. We’ve identified three priorities.
1. Fix governance architecture
Australia’s cultural ecosystem is fragmented across arts, heritage, education, communications, and industry portfolios. The result: cultural production and discovery is uneven, Australian stories risk losing visibility in digital environments, and workforce systems aren’t aligned with culture and digital transformation.
We’re calling for:
- A national cultural coordination body for strategic leadership across portfolios. Creative Australia’s remit could be expanded to take on this role, or a new architecture established.
- A cultural heritage governance body to connect GLAM institutions and place-based heritage with the arts portfolio
- Stronger First Nations cultural governance — co-creation, shared authority, Indigenous-led storytelling, and benefit-sharing arrangements with cross-portfolio coordination with First Nations cultural programs (including languages).
2. Address the creative education crisis
The skills, knowledge and experience of those holding humanities and creative arts tertiary qualifications are indispensable to the Government’s ambitions to continue to grow the nation’s cultural and creative capability from its economic activity base in 2023-24 of $67.4 billion while employing over 591,000 people.
Yet research indicates clear signs of decline, spanning secondary school, vocational education and higher education.
- ATAR arts enrolments fell 21% between 2015 and 2023
- Creative arts enrolments declined 4.5% from 2018 to 2023
- 48 creative arts degrees were discontinued between 2018 and 2025
- Regional communities and institutions are particularly at risk of significant decline.
Underpinning this decline is the Morrison-era Job Ready Graduates (JRG) policy which increased humanities degree fees by 117% since 2021, with students bearing 93% of the cost.
The demand for humanities and creative skills is growing, not shrinking — more employers want to hire employees with the skills humanities graduates have.
But crucially, in regard to the National Cultural Policy, the JRG undermines the skills, knowledge and expertise needed within the creative economies.
The Academy has previously advocated for the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) to treat creative and cultural capability as a matter of national sovereign capability.
3. Invest in creative clusters and cultural R&D
The UK’s Creative Industries Clusters Program offers a compelling model for the investment in R&D.
The NCP Consultation Paper righty recognises that ‘culture drives prosperity and innovation’.
As part of our response to the Strategic Examination of R&D (SERD) and SERD Issues Papers we highlighted opportunities in the creative economy and ways to potentially scale creative clusters/precincts which have been successful overseas.
We pointed to the United Kingdom’s approach, including programming funded through UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and matched by industry partnerships under the Audience of the Future industrial strategy and the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Creative Industries Clusters Program. These initiatives provided seed investment to bring together universities, GLAM institutions, and industry partners within coordinated innovation ecosystems.
The results have been significant. In the United Kingdom, every £1 of government investment saw £5 returned. The broader £90 million program generated £277 million in return on investment, supported more than 10,000 jobs, and helped creative industries grow at 4.6% (2023-24)— compared to 1% for the broader UK economy.
The model works by anchoring each cluster around three partners: a major public or GLAM institution, a large private sector organisation, and a university.
Australia already has the building blocks in place — in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and regional centres.
We’re proposing a pilot national creative clusters program, coordinated federally, to bring together universities, GLAM institutions, and private sector partners, maximising co-investment and building a genuinely networked national cultural ecosystem.
