By: ben.goldsmith

ben.goldsmith — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:06:56 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Michael. The basic reason that the higher level of tax breaks are not available to those films that employ Australians in the various ‘below the line’ roles you mention, but which do not employ (sufficient) Australians in heads of department or lead actor roles, is that they are considered to have insufficient ‘creative control’ or creative input by Australians. In other words, the below the line roles you cite are not considered ‘creative’.

By: Michael T

Michael T — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:34:10 +0000

Interesting read. I did not expect gaining tax breaks through film production in this country would be geared so exclusively towards just Australian writers and directors. What about gaffers, location recordists, costume designers, set designers, wardrobe assistants, camera operators, grips, sound designers, editors, runners, 1st assistant directors etc? It makes little sense to me to discourage filmmaking in this country from productions based outside of Australia. The more films shoot here, the more people are employed. These people who gain employment from foreign productions here spend their money here, they gain experience working with industry veterans. This experience is priceless. Our government should be legislating to encourage as many films to shoot here as possible, not giving Screen Australia a list of reasons to disqualify productions from tax incentives. The whole hypocrisy and ultimate pointlessness in Australian films required to have a measurable “Australian-ness”, as if I would give anyone the authority to decide how Australian me and my experiences are, but films do!, and who would have the audacity to decide they are qualified to judge that? Well, all that gaff is another topic, and I’m starting to babble, so I will stop.

Comments on: Knowing and Not Knowing: More Uncertainty in Australia Over Tax Incentives

By: ben.goldsmith

By: Michael T