Inquiry into arts and cultural philanthropy 

Philanthropy and private support are important financial inflows for Australia’s cultural and creative industries. Drawing on ANA research and analysis, our submission highlights that a systems approach and fit-for purpose government support can provide both motivation and accessibility for potential donors and investors, as well as create opportunities for governments to realise their arts and culture policy ambitions.

Submission to the Standing Committee on Communication, the Arts and Sport

Philanthropic and private support to the cultural sector

The most recently published dataset from the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) shows that of the 52,627 charities reported as generating $222 billion revenue in 2022-23, 1,805 (3.4%) belong to the ‘advancing culture’ subtype. Charities in this subtype generated $1.5 billion in revenue in 2022-23.

ACNC data also shows that in 2022-23 there were 7,866 arts and culture programs delivered across all charities, which amounts to 8.1% of all programs. This indicates that other charity sub-types are also likely recipients of philanthropic and private support that enables arts and culture programs that cut across philanthropic and charitable objectives.

Understanding the interplay and relationships between these different sources of revenue is important. ANA research shows that there are several overlaps and partnerships between private and public sources of finance. These include, for example, tax incentives encouraging philanthropic donations and government incentives increasing venture capital investment and rebates encouraging screen production and game development in specific locations. These interactions can affect the nature and levels of investment into the creative and cultural industries.

Describing and understanding the scope and operation of these different types of private finance in the arts, culture and creativity system, and how they overlap with public finance, is important in determining how to best utilise channels and mechanisms that can provide both motivation and accessibility for potential donors and investors.

It is also important to note that philanthropic and private support covers volunteering and in-kind support, which are likely to be driven by their own types of incentives and motivations.

Regarding international comparators of levels of philanthropic and private support, the recent NSW Art of Tax Reform consultation and summit, as well as the Productivity Commission’s Future Foundations for Giving Inquiry, suggest that Australia’s level of giving is “modest” by international standards. However, it is important to note that this headline comparison across jurisdictions does not account for often significant differences between Australia and other jurisdictions including, for example, the existence of different taxation settings (such as inheritance tax arrangements) as well as social attitudes and expectations regarding the role of philanthropy.

Grappling with these complexities, distinctions and interplay within the existing operation of the arts and culture philanthropy and support as well as potential international comparators is an important part of taking a systems approach. As our research recently highlighted:

Structure and mechanisms of philanthropy and private support

Taking a systems approach highlights how different channels and mechanisms can provide opportunities for Australian governments to realise their arts, culture and creativity policy ambitions. It is a useful approach when exploring emerging structures and mechanisms as it elucidates interdependencies, relationships and connections that help to understand how, why and when different approaches might be relevant to adopt (and when they may prove counterproductive). This approach provides a way to consider opportunities for reform within a framework that takes the whole system into consideration.

Some examples of structures and mechanisms for philanthropy and private support were canvassed as part of the recent Art of Tax Reform consultation and summit, as led by the NSW Government’s Department of Creative Industries, Tourism, Hospitality and Sport (DCITHS), including:

• Super deductions for donations
• Expand eligibility for DGR status
• Tax exempt non-cash donations
• Philanthropy education and support to strengthen sector practice
• Change Private Ancillary Fund (PAF) distribution requirements.

As ANA noted in our Art of Tax Reform submission, these legislative and regulatory reforms are a type of enabler uniquely available to government. But legislative reform is not an end in itself. Instead, it is one of many ways to see government arts and culture policy ambitions realised. Taking a systems approach to any reform means being clear about the objectives being pursued, and understanding how different approaches to reform can aid or hinder this work.

Effectiveness of government policies and programs

Several arts and culture specific giving vehicles currently exist in Australia.

One example is the Cultural Gifts Program. This program was first introduced in 1981 as the ‘Taxation Incentives for the Arts Scheme’ with the goal of broadening support for arts and culture beyond direct expenditure. The Cultural Gifts Program shows how government support can leverage philanthropy. For over 40 years this program has successfully enriched Australian public institutions by providing a tax deduction when donating works of cultural significance to public art galleries, museums and libraries. Programs such as the Cultural Gifts Program could be further promoted to build Australia’s cultural inheritance. It might also be appropriate to consider whether changes to better support cultural gifts made by estates would increase the level of giving.

Creative Australia operates vehicles that facilitate giving and investment in the cultural and creative industries, including:

• Australian Cultural Fund, which provides entities (including individual artists and artist groups) the opportunity to benefit from a special DGR status to fundraise towards a specific project.
• Matched funding programs, which provide fundraising skills development to participants and dollar-to-dollar matched funding (up to a cap) for amounts fundraised.
• AusArt Day, which “is designed to support artists and arts organisations to fundraise on one national day, and to increase the donor pool in support of Australian creativity whilst elevating the public value of the arts in the consciousness of everyday Australians.” The inaugural AusArt Day took place on 23 October 2025 with anecdotal and media reports of an unclear impact and mixed results.

It may be appropriate to consider how to best promote existing mechanisms and channels for philanthropic and private support.

For example, the Australian Cultural Fund allows for the direct charitable support of individual artists where there are no fees associated with the use of the platform – 100% of funds donated are received by the artist. Moreover, artists receive all the funds that are raised – whether or not they meet their fundraising target. This is in contrast to crowdfunding platforms that usually charge fees and only allow for payment of funds if a fundraising target is met.

Promoting existing platforms could include professional development and education for arts professionals with the aim to increase exposure to and knowledge of specific arrangements already available and how and when they can be utilised. It could also include considering how state and territory governments can best support structures that drive philanthropic giving for arts and cultural purposes in their jurisdiction.

Potential government initiatives and measures

Philanthropy and private support provide important financial inflows for Australia’s cultural and creative industries. Taking a systems approach highlights how different channels and mechanisms can provide opportunities for governments to enable and realise their arts and culture policy ambitions.