411 days ago, an upper house inquiry tabled a report to the Federal Government recommending eight things that Australia could do to better support the local games industry – not just for the health of the industry, but for its economic and social benefits to the country.
Did the Federal Government respond to that report? Of course they didn’t.
It’s been well documented on Kotaku and elsewhere just how successful federal funding has been for Australian video games in the past. Apart from the fact that the industry has continued to grow – more than films, which gets more federal support from video games – the Australian Interactive Games Fund was also successful financially.
[referenced url=”https://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/07/scott-ludlam-australian-government-is-missing-extraordinary-opportunity-with-games/” thumb=”https://www.kotaku.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/06/scott-ludlam-410×231.jpg” title=”Scott Ludlam: Australian Government Is Missing “Extraordinary Opportunity” With Games” excerpt=”When the Australian government ran a red line through the Interactive Games Fund it removed $20 million dollars from an industry that always paid back its investments and then some. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam is currently attempting to change the way the federal government thinks about video games. According to him, we’re missing out on an “extraordinary opportunity”.”]
That’s partially why the upper house inquiry put forward an unanimous report recommending federal support for the industry. But 411 days after that report was tabled, the government hasn’t filed a response. Procedure dictates that they’re required to, and the fact that they haven’t saw Greens Senator Scott Ludlam give the government a fairly solid whack in the upper house this week.
“What we saw in part through the Commonwealth contribution in kickstarting this projects are games like Framed, Bean Dreams, Gems of War, Submerged, Hand of Fate and Crossy Road,” the Greens co-deputy leader said. “Some of these things probably exist on some of the phones carried around by senators in this place, and they are some of the creative, outstanding and—if you are interested—lucrative games produced by the recipients of the first round of the council fund.”
“We look forward to getting more than just a letter in the mail from the minister saying, ‘We need more time.’”
As do we all, Senator. If you want to read the full transcript of Ludlam’s speech, you can do so here.
Comments
54 responses to “The Government Didn’t Respond To The Video Games Inquiry, And Scott Ludlum Isn’t Happy”
Maybe developers should try to find a way to make video games out of coal. This government would fall all over itself to fund that.
Yawn
They do, they would use a shit tonne of coal powered energy…. So you should probably boycott video games and go back to playing with sticks.
Oh here comes the down votes for stating the obvious…. Sorry guys keep huffing the unicorn farts.
ENOUGH!
It is irritating enough that such users down vote to censor but do you know what’s worse?
Actually baiting them like you are now!
Just take the down votes and leave them behind!
I blame coal
Poor widdle diddums, did the mean old nerds give you some nasty down-votes and hurt your fee-fees?
Neck up parrot, your giving the rest of us wannabe tough-guy trolls a bad name.
Now where’d I leave those Winnie Blues…
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that comment. You’re not wrong.
I’m looking forward to the next Coal of Duty.
Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Lung
Maybe Coalminecraft will be a hit…
Greens would be royally pissed then; the industry will be using a non-renewable source.
Shhhh…. Unicorn farts and pixie dust.
Like we have a choice. At my work we’re big advocates for renewable energy but we’ve barely got the funds to make video games let alone the ability to spend billions on generating our own electricity. That’s what governments are for. Luckily here in SA we’re pushing ahead with our own plans for renewable instead of waiting on the feds to do anything
Not to go to far off topic (and sorry in advance if I cross the personal line) but what is keeping you here?
Both government and industry has thumbed its nose in IT for decades.
What is stopping you (or even your co-workers) from taking overseas work where (I have to honestly say) they treat those in IT with respect and actually pay them what their worth?
Call me jaded but I lost faith in the local industry years ago. Even if they don’t need government support, they want our quality at call centre prices!
Except for all the power you steal from other states…. OTHER THAN THAT
Yes, other than that amount that we’re reducing on a regular basis as we generate more and more of our own clean energy. You nunks think you’re so clever pointing out that we use some dirty power. Transitioning to clean energy is a process that takes years and has a lot of upfront cost, cost that in more than makes up for later. Why not start that transition now before it’s too late?
I imagine you’ll be waiting until the feds lose the next election Mr Ludlam. I applaud you for trying to improve the opportunities available for Australians to be able to find employment in this field where so many people are passionate. A field that could provide many high paying, high skilled positions in this economy that are slightly more future proof than digging old compressed plant and animal matter our of the ground and burning it.
I wouldn’t bank on it even then, look at how the Rudd and Gillard governments responded to the Henry tax review!
I hear debate on the latest clean energy review has remained sane and sensible.
Hehehehe. Still yet to have surgery to take your tongue out of your cheek, Alex?
Governments rarely act on reviews and reports unless they think there is political mileage to be gained. Sad but true.
[Reads Ludlum’s speech]
Maybe if Ludlum laid off on the vitriol and name calling against Coalition MPs he’d get a response.
Just shows that the main road block in this is Ludlum himself. Even if one looks past his uninformed nature, he is not behaving in an acceptable manner.
Every step he managed to go forward in his speech, he has effective taken two back and weakened the (current) soap box he’s using.
He is a politician, first and foremost, wherever his sympathies lie regarding gaming 🙂
I know he’s a political but at the same time I’d like to see the controlled funding applied to gaming so it can be restarted on the path of self-sustainability.
That being said, it sickens me how he’s taken a viable issue and has sent it going at 100 kilometres per hour in neutral.
Like I said before, it’s almost as if he’s engineered this so he has something to continually complain about. If that is the case, I don’t think I’ll ever understand why he’s done that.
Aren’t you just describing every politician in particular Coalition MP’s. When was the last time you heard any them nicely talk about an opposing party’s policies?
Honestly at least Ludlum tries, it is better than letting someone like George Brandis get all the air time around policy surrounding technology.
Who in government is honestly more informed on technology? I look around and can’t see anyone.
There is Brandis and there is also Turnbull himself.
Contrary to popular belief, Ludlum has proven himself either uninformed or completely misinformed.
The two mentioned here are very educated towards IT. There actions though show they’d rather play games and avoid crediting Labor in anyway.
Brandis couldn’t even explain what metadata was and he was trying to push the law to store it.
Turnbull I have no doubt about, but the hidden powers have him by the balls so it can’t even do anything that involves projecting the image of having a spine or a brain. He is forced to tow the modern Liberal party line so he can’t appear to have any intellect.
You lost me here… I think if you put the three of them in a panel on current issues in technology (digital economy, encryption) Ludlum would come out on top in terms of understanding and policy.
No, he wouldn’t. He said anyone who uses the envelope analogy does not know what they are talking about.
There is at least 40 years of networking theory and course matter that says otherwise.
This is why it is a breeze for Brandis and Turnbull; their most vocal opposition has absolutely no idea and making them look like genius to those less in the know.
he has to speak like that to get any form of media attention, the sad truth is that the old people running the country view this as a non issue and see no benefit from it.
Even if it’s the wrong attention? This is the game guy who slapped anyone who has studied and/or worked in computer networks.
I don’t to entertain this possibility but Ludlum is starting to hint at being a person that is only happy when he has something to complain about. In this case, getting heard and the funding restored will royally piss him off because he no longer has a soap box to whine on.
I’m pretty sure he’d be jumping for joy if the government finally did something good, because he still has 100 other platforms he can hound the government about. Outside of games there’s still the NBN, Green Energy, Coal Mines, Public Services, Centrelink and dozens of other Green’s policy areas the government refuses to progress in.
Yes all those wonderful “FREE STUFF but we can’t tell you where the money is coming from” platforms of the Greens….
That would be a great insult except for the fact that The Greens are the only party that put forward FULLY COSTED policies forward at every election.
https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/AG_Costed%20Platform_A4_v2.pdf
I’d love to see how they can raise $2 Billion in 4 years by tackling sugar….
I see they want to smack high earners…. Nothing like 40% of Australians forking over 60% of their income to the barista crowd to keep the tattoos going…
Putting a price on pollution is going to raise $16 billion is it? Too bad every company is going to smack the population with that cost… but hey they’re NEVER going to have to live by this so whats it matter?
Cheers for the chuckle though.
Companies can respond to a Carbon “Tax” in two ways.
1. They can keep going as is and pass the cost onto their customers.
2. They can innovate, clean up their business and avoid paying it by being greener.
Which company will you buy from? The expensive dirty one? Or the cheaper, cleaner one?
;tldr – There are no instances in that speech where Coalition MPs get called any kind of names. There is vitriol, but it seems confined to Senator Brandis and the reasons are pretty clear. I personally, think the vitriol for Brandis’s decision to axe the AIGF and the changes made to arts funding while he was responsible for it are warranted.
Let’s examine the instances where Senator Ludlam addresses the Coalition shall we?
1. “…the kind of new economy Prime Minister Turnbull used to go on about so much” – Not sure it’s name calling, but for completeness’s sake i’m going to include all mentions. Turnbull has beaten the drum on the “Innovation” economy quite a bit over the last few years, so I don’t see how this isn’t fair.
2 “Senator McGrath, his voice dripping with his usual contempt, basically said: ‘We’re busy. We have to consult with a bunch of ministers. We’ll get back to you.’” – Was his voice not dripping with contempt when he said this? How is this name calling? It’s been 411 days – it’s not like this has been sprung on them at the last minute. It’s been a few weeks since Senator Ludlam pulled them up on this in estimates, and there’s been no word.
3 “We have a letter today from Senator Fifield—and I get that he is busy; he is dealing with the unfolding catastrophe of the NBN and the defunding of the ABC and SBS and the demands of the commercial media sector.” – Is he not dealing with these things? Are the ABC and SBS not being defunded? Calling the NBN a “catastrophe” could possibly be a bit hyperbolic, but personally, I don’t think it is.
4 “Senator Brandis is in here with us at the moment, because it was one of his more casual and destructive acts for the 2014 budget. He basically elbowed a sector in the face;…” – Can you tell me that he didn’t, without any kind of forethought just arbitrarily decide to cut this fund that – by all accounts – would have been self-sustaining, and in terms of the overall budget – actually been a net positive to the economy. It’s the opposition’s job to point out where someone in power has made a poor decision and to ask “Please explain?” – and the explanations haven’t made any kind of sense of the axing of the AIGF.
5 “Senator Brandis during his short and not-at-all-missed tenure as arts minister.” – I’m sure he’s not missed by many people in the industries represented by those portfolios as arts minister.
6 “Senator Fifield—who I think does bring a more technically and certainly artistically literate point of view to bear on this sector—has been considering the committee report” – I’m not sure how this is calling someone names, or even being derogatory or deprecating them at all?
7 “While Senator Fifield has been juggling his portfolios” – their own excuse about the lack of response has been that Senator Fifield has been getting up to speed and needs to consult people, i’m not sure how this is an unwarranted statement.
8 “I think the problem is that we have ministers and expenditure review committees who want to know: ‘How many tonnes of software does this industry export every year?’ There is a measure of illiteracy there.” – It’s a clear statement – if you look at the original Committee, at the beginning there was a lot of education on why this was important and how the economics worked – it’s different to a lot of exports australia does. There is education to be done.
9 “Senator Fifield has been off consulting his colleagues, the first round of recipients of the $10 million or thereabouts that Screen Australia was able to get out the door—before Senator Brandis kicked them in the face” – Senator Fifield has been off consulting his colleagues since the committee handed down their recommendations, and Senator Brandis did damage the industry in by cancelling the AIGF.
10 “These are people who have been able to stay in Australia and build a career rather than going to California, Europe or Asia. Surely that is what the Prime Minister is on about when he talks about agility and innovation.” – Isn’t that part of what the Innovation agenda is supposedly about? Using our graduates and stopping the brain drain overseas?
11 “some more questions for Senator Fifield to consider” – I think these questions are good ones to ask in the vein of “please explain why you cancelled this thing” – the Coalition runs on a platform of economic responsibility and these are core questions to ask about the economic costs of cancelling the AIGF.
12 “if Prime Minister Turnbull just looked up the meaning of some of the buzzwords that he spools out at every opportunity, he would realise there are people right here who actually want to give some substance to that vision.” I’m not sure that, given what projects funded by the original AIGF, or companies working in the space are actually producing how this statement is untrue.
13 “I suspect Senator Fifield is working on something. Maybe there is going to be something in the winds.” – Senator Fifield has said that they are consulting and will have a response at some point.
14 “to make right as Senator Fifield did with the disastrous catalyst imposition on the Australia Council funding. He fixed that, and it takes courage to fix stuff that your predecessors have buggered up” – This praises Senator Fifield for fixing what many said was a problem with the way Senator Brandis changed arts funding.
I’d also like to point out that in NONE of these instances does any “name calling” occur, the worse is being a little hyperbolic about Senator Brandis’ actions.
I will concede I went to far with the name calling claim (the Greens have acted as such so often describing them as such has sadly become an ingrained yet accurate habit).
My incorrect claim aside, let’s take a look at the claims again.
I think my post opening covers this so I’ll focus on everything else (outside my incorrect name calling claim).
Ludlum is using the classic demonisation tactic and is trying to make those in the Coalition worse than they appear. If Ludlum had any professionalism he would have focused on the lack of response and should have described it as artificially long and unexplained. Keeps the topic on the delay. Instead he had to play with words and tried to make it look as though he’s dealing with the devil.
Don’t know about SBS but in terms of the ABC they failed an efficiency review thus go what they deserved.
But then you look at the wording; Ludlum is being snide and sarcastic. A better way to put it would have been, “We have a letter today from Senator Fifield claiming to be busy. The same can be said for a in Australia with a job yet thus the response is both inadequate and unacceptable.”
Again, the focus should have been on the unnaturally long wait time and should have been free from my vitriolic political statements.
The removal of the funding is very short sighted, that cannot be denied. But to say Brandis elbowed the sector in the face implies that Brandis had something personal and/or was contemptuous. Again, this is an invention of Ludlum.
It would have been better if Ludlum left that out and instead ask why sustained sectors are getting a hand while an easily growing one did not.
The bold in the quote above is the point I wish to raise with the claim. He has tried to imply (like others in this thread have) that the Coalition are only interested in coal; software is measured in copies sold yet Ludlum has used a metric weight instead.
Again, rather than focus on the topic, he is making thinly veiled, snide comments about the Coalition.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the Coalition as much as the next guy. But we’re stuck with them until a better option comes up and no-body seems to want to for or even be that better option.
Again, there is the wording. To say “kicked in the face” implies something personal. Rather than use the inconsistency of funding allocations, Ludlum has made another failed attempt to demonise Brandis.
While not name calling, he is still trying to put Brandis in a worse light which is only see and unprofessional and immature.
When I used to review papers during my PhD days, one of the rules I learned is one must focus on the work and/or output and not the person.
Ludlum didn’t; he’s tried to make a fictional personal statement about Brandis rather than point out the illogical and inconsistent actions from Brandis and his staff.
Not to get too far off topic, even if the Government has a change of heart, it’s the sectors themselves that also have to change. I’ve long seen that they don’t care about the local workforce either. That’s why I offer my services overseas.
Good factors to consider but good luck if Ludlum’s going around saying he’s being treated with contempt. Ask and you shall receive as they say; ask for contempt and one will get it.
What I’m getting at is when it comes to matters like this, presentation is often more important that the content. And what Ludlum has done is rode a fictional platform of contempt and has now confined to matter to never being considered seriously because he has botched the presentation so bad.
Again, bold being the problem.
When it comes to any industry or sector, to call something a buzzword as actually more a derogatory term and for good reason. Buzzwords are often used as spin to imply something is new and innovative yet is really the same rubbish but in a new wrapper.
Thing is, Turnbull is not spinning buzzwords. What Ludlum is trying to do is make it looks as though Turnbull does not know what he’s talking about; the same tactic Ludlum tried at PAX years ago with Abbott’s envelope analogy.
Turnbull is the guy who beat the British Government and MI5 to get the book Spycatcher published so he does know what he’s talking about. And one day I Ludlum finally sees that this kind of rhetoric doesn’t work on the average Australia.
Sorry for the log post but at last the final quote.
And you’re right. I retract that part but won’t edit so everyone else gets the complete picture of my mistake.
But I wouldn’t say little hyperbolic. Ludlum is trying to put more emotion to the topic when no more is needed and unfortunately his actions are more destructive than constructive.
If Ludlum kept to what is out there as is instead of playing it up, it would have put more pressure on the Coalition. Instead he’s made it a vitriolic beat up of individual instead of their output and actions.
We needed this matter presented by someone level headed and professional thus making it very difficult to ignore. Ludlum has failed on that count repeatedly and it is no too late to have it considered seriously.
Anyhow, I hope this response clears any misconceptions about Ludlum’s speech I’ve accidentally created.
I’m going to focus in on the idea of them being actively spiteful – what do you call a sitting government cancelling a program without consulting anyone involved in the running of that program?
That’s how the AIGF got cancelled – one day we woke up to find that it was gone.
We were in the process of applying for AIGF to produce a console port of a game that would have delivered a return.
The Battlestar Galactica (BSG:Deadlock) game being produced in WA is a direct result of the AIGF. Incidentally – that studio is employing local WA artists, programmers and writers and always has – so i’m not sure about your “local talent” statements? I’m sure Black Lab would have gotten tactics out one way or another, but it’s arguable that they would have hooked up with Slytherine fast enough to get the BSG license.
Cancelling that program was indifferent at best, and spiteful at worst. I don’t agree with your statements on Brandis’ (and/or his party) actively being antagonistic.
The government should be giving a response regardless of whether he asks nicely or not. He shouldn’t need to ask at all – they’ve been given the report, the onus is on them to respond to it.
Even if their response is just to shrug disinterestedly and say “f*ck all that” (which it probably would be), they should at least provide said response.
He named the ministers in charge of the relevant portfolios whose job it is, to respond to this. They commissioned the report, the australian tax payer funded it, they have a responsibility to act or refute.
Culture has always been one of australia’s main exports for the last 30+ years. One side has a clear history of only funding their kind culture.
Good. The arts already get far too much government funding.
God forbid people have to be self reliant!
You can’t expect the Kotaku crowd to be self reliant….
You’re the only one in this thread, on either side, that has been consistently patronising and unpleasant. But no, the “Kotaku crowd” is the problem. Wake up to yourself.
It’s because of coal.
Go forbid you get to enjoy artistic works for the sake of enjoyment! Quite a lot of art is made without the expectation of financial gain. The government funds this kind of art not because it will make money, but because it has other net gains like improved happiness / education / awareness.
As for games most are commercial ventures, and they are funded because they provide jobs and a net benefit to the governments bottom line. They make back much more than the government grants ever cost, while keeping jobs and talent in Australia
If you want to pursue a career with little to no financial gain, that’s not my problem, it is not my responsibility to subsidise that.
But its my dreeeam!
There’s plenty of public sculptures and artworks around cities everywhere that people appreciate and help brighten their day. I have no problem throwing the minuscule amount of government funding such things needs. Compared to the billions of dollars the government waste in other area’s, such as subsidising the shrinking coal and fossil fuel industry or flying ministers to personal function in first class, I think the return on arts grants is an absolute steal.
@mypetmonkey I know right. Why should we have to subsidise this nonsense for someone that chooses to pursue a career with no financial gain. Disgusting that they feel we should be their rock. Entitlement at its finest. They’re entitled to my money, but I’m not.
Ok look. I can quite understand people objecting to my style and tone – this is getting beyond frustrating, and it’s hard to keep completely chill while watching this process stretch from months to years while talented people get kicked out of jobs or head overseas. Will work on my attitude. But seriously, if you think I’m just spinning this out because I’m enjoying the attention, please give me a break. We’re also working on a climate emergency, a nuclear weapons arms race, a global mass extinction event, creeping surveillance capitalism and staggering social inequality. Nothing would make me happier than settling this and moving on, and if you have any bright ideas for how we can make that happen, I’m genuinely interested.
I don’t really have any suggestions that would help, as I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s been going on, but as someone who used to work in the industry, we definitely benefit from some assistance from the govt. When I left my job many years ago, it was impossible to find more work doing the same thing, as after the studio closed its doors, there was a grand total of 1 company making games in my city. When I got in to the industry, there were 4-6 studios within 100km of me, and in the space of a few years, there were 2, and then just one.
Given how many people were employed by those studios, it’s obviously impossible for a single studio to be able to take on all the talent looking for work, so many people I know, either left the country if they could afford it, or like me, had no choice but to look for work in other industries. Initially, I was somewhat lucky, as I was able to work on a tv show doing animations, which was similar to the work I had been doing, but even that only lasted so long. Once the series ended, that was it. There was simply no more work around.
I think a lot of people have a very twisted view of making games, like it’s just a bunch of nerds sitting around at computers all day, so I think they don’t understand why it should be funded, or why it costs so much. I don’t want to work for peanuts though. There’s a hell of a lot of technical knowledge required to make games, even from an artists perspective, and as such, it’s nice to think that we can be paid a decent wage for what we do. That rarely happened back in my day though, as there just wasn’t funding to support it. I loved making games though, so I put up with the low wages. Since leaving the industry, i have consistently earned better money for the jobs I’ve done, despite the fact that the technical knowledge required to do those jobs is nowhere near the level of what I needed to make games.
Add to that the fact that because games and computers continue to evolve, you’re constantly having to learn new things, and upgrading software etc. just so you can actually put them in to practice, and the costs just blow out tremendously.
Having been out of the industry for so long now, I can’t even begin to pretend I know exactly how to fix it, but I hope they pay attention and get this shit sorted, because other wise there’s going to be a lot of wasted talent out there, with unattainable dreams, and with heads full of information that’s good for an extremely limited line of work.
Big fan of your work Scott. Keep up the good fight. Here at Mighty Kingdom in Adelaide we’re fighting to create a better industry for all, working with a group called GamePlus to create a co-working space similar to The Arcade in Melbourne. We’ve grown to over 30+ people with most of the hires in the last 2 years, so if you’re looking for a success story I’m sure my boss would be happy to help give this issue the exposure it deserves.
Of course they wouldn’t respond.
I doubt any of those politicians can work their own email system let alone understand how games/multimedia work hand in hand with the various fields in the creative industry.
Even the Communications manager in any Centrelink office will have trouble understanding how forums work, and the multiple ways it could be used to make things easier for in-house teams.
There’s a lot of positions filled by inept individuals in government positions and I don’t think it’s fair to keep them in the books just because they’re in some technicality/old contract situation. If they can’t do the job, then go back to school or bloody leave the positions to those that can.
Some house cleaning by a 3rd party would be nice, but ey, everyone’s got each others back up there.