Click the Currency House logo to return to our home page

Click on Currency House to return to our home page Click here to find out how to subscribe to Platform Papers

Platform Papers > Issue 07: Does Australia Need a Cultural Policy?

Platform Papers Issue 6

Does Australia Need a Cultural Policy?

by David Throsby

Read the first three pages (PDF).

Subscribe now! Click here to download a subscription form.

Paperback. $13.95 rrp. Publication January 2006

ISBN 0-97573-013-4

Series ISSN 1449383-X

Culture, writes David Throsby, refers to beliefs and values that bind us together. And if we know what our culture is, why would we need a cultural policy? Prime Minister Howard has declared that ‘as a nation we’re over all that identity stuff… we know who we are.’ But do we? In this wide-ranging essay the author argues that radical cultural change has been brought about by deregulation, immigration, globalisation and the ‘war on terror’.

In this we are not alone. This year UNESCO invited 154 countries to assert their respect for fundamental human values by adopting a draft treaty on the protection of cultural diversity. An important part of its emphasis is on making creative work a ‘cultural exception’ to trade agreements. 148 countries voted in favour. Australia abstained. Why have we denied ourselves protection in this way? The vision of Australia from the top is one many citizens no longer share. A cultural policy would be a powerful tool with which to show what we really value about being Australian. A national debate, to define and assert our common values could well alleviate the fears at present dividing us.

David Throsby is Australia’s leading cultural economist. He is Professor of Economics at Macquarie University, has been a consultant to the World Bank, the OECD, FAO and UNESCO, and has chaired three Prime Minister’s Working Groups on sustainable development. He is President of the Association for Cultural Economics International.

This issue also includes responses to Keith Gallasch.

Platform Papers invites considered responses to David Throsby's argument for publication in the April edition.