#66
Post
by stumpjumper » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:52 pm
monotonehell, I'd like to respond to your correction of my post.
This isn't bricks and mortar, but it's intimately connected to the rationale of the new facilities.
I pride myself on very careful research. I have to research carefully because some of the claims I make would be actionable if they were not true.
I can say with complete confidence that The Club in 1980 was the last feature film produced by SAFC, and the television mini-series The Battlers in 1994 was the last production in which the SAFC acted as a producer. Since 1994, the role of the Corporation has changed to that of facilitating productions, rather than engaging in production itself. This is a very significant change in terms of capacity and the potential to earn a return on taxpayers' funds.
For the record, here is the SAFC's complete list of feature films:
Picnic at Hanging Rock 1975
Sunday Too Far Away 1975
Storm Boy 1976
Breaker Morant 1979
The Money Movers 1979
The Club 1980
A look at the last annual report, for 07-08, shows that for that year SAFC had an income of $1.123 million. The net cost of earning that income (ie the loss for the year) was $4.931 million, down from a loss of $5.054 million the previous year.
In 07-08, the government paid SAFC $5.261 million, creating a surplus of $331 million.
In 07-08 only 20% of SAFC's earnings came from films, and that was limited to commissions and royalties for previous work.
SAFC's earnings came from:
• Interest of $551,000 received on its cash reserve, built up since 1975 and at 07-08 totalling $7.222 million. This is over twice as much as it made from its film activities.
• Subletting the space it hires from the government earned the SAFC $278,000.
• It earned $224,000 from distribution returns (not just rights, from its own films, but including unspecified commissions paid for the distribution of other films).
The bottom line, though, is that on 07-08 SAFC cost the taxpayer about $100,000 per week to have around, yet its 24 employees are moving to a new $43 million home, again paid for by the taxpayer.
The Corporation seems indulgent as to its own costs, as the 'supplies and services' section of the accounts shows.
It paid $42,000 per year in cleaning expenses, which seems very high.
'Industry promotion and participation' is up from $109,000 in 07 to $575,000 in 08. I was not able to find out further details - it related to attendance at industry functions and holding them, but further details were 'commercial-in-confidence'. It sounds like an entertainment budget to me. It's about $500 per week per staff member.
'Other' expenditure under supplies and services was $213,000 - no note in the accounts, and 'commercial-in-confidence' anyway, I was told when I enquired as a taxpayer.
Having nothing better to do, I cross-referenced the recipients of the money dished out by the SAFC. Lo and behold, the SAFC's tenants figure strongly, as do the SAFC's own staff. The board even gave the retiring boss and her associates a few hundred thousand in grants to tide her over for her first year back in the real world.
This while Foley is cutting government costs to the bone. Remember, too, that the cost/benefit study by Connell Wagner (now Austecon) justifying the move is 'commercial in confidence' and not available.
As I said, every word I type here is supportable. PM me if you have any problems with my comments.
