The Screen Directors Guild of Ireland (SDGI) attended the 5th annual meeting of the International Affiliation of English-Speaking Directors' Organisations (IAESDO), where Donald Crombie (President of the Australian Screen Directors Association) gave the following report. We are printing this report in full, on the suggestion of SDGI, because of the similarities that exist for filmmakers in Ireland and Australia.

IAESDO Report by Donald Crombie, President of ASDA (Australian Screen Directors Association)

Since we last met in Auckland, ASDA (Australian Screen Directors Association) has enjoyed a fairly typical year for the small organization; too much to do, too few hands to do it. Despite this, we've managed some significant achievements.

The big issue this year has been directors' copyright. The legislation recognising for the first time that directors' have some share in the copyright of the films they make is presently before Parliament. I was hoping to announce at this conference that it has passed into law and the gain, albeit small but of symbolic significance is won, but we will wait in anticipation, something we are quite good at. As Richard has given a very comprehensive report of this campaign in his Secretariat report I'll move on to other matters.

The other big industry initiative that has emerged has been the development of the Australian Screen Council proposal. This emerged largely out of the fact that Australia's production levels continue to bump along at critically low levels. While the 03-04 levels reported at the Auckland meeting were at record lows, there does not seem to have been any significant upward movement in these figures since that time. So the Australian production industry is essentially flatlining.

The key findings of the Australian Film Comission are as follows:

• In total, feature film and TV drama productions spent $536 million in Australia in 2004/05 - 10 per cent down on last year's $595 million, but close to the 10-year average of $538 million.

• The number of local feature productions rose from 16 last year to 19 in 2004/05, but remained below the 10-year average of 24.

• The value of local feature production fell from $134 million to $61 million, not far above 2002/03's eight-year low of $49 million. Last year's figure was boosted by the high-budget animation Happy Feet.

• Contributions to local feature production from private investors increased significantly this year, but contributions from the Australian film/TV industry fell, with investment in features by commercial broadcasters (including pay TV) the lowest for nine years.

• Production spending in Australia by foreign features continues to be high, with nine titles spending $243 million here, similar to last year's $249 million and well above the 10-year average of $129 million.

• With the increase in foreign feature activity over the past 10 years, Australian films now account for a much smaller proportion of total spending by feature productions in Australia - just 18 per cent in 2004/05, down from 60 per cent in 1995/96.

• TV drama production has been trending downward for several years, with total expenditure in Australia falling from a peak of $393 million in 2000/01 to $205 million in 2004/05, well below the 10-year average of $297 million.

• Local TV drama hours have fallen from an average of 722 per year in the second half of the 1990s to 575 hours in 2004/05; production value was similar this year to last year - $195 million compared with $197 million - but remained below the 10-year average of $213 million.

• Production of Australian children's TV drama fell this year to its lowest level since 1998/99. Just 66 hours were produced (seven programs) with a total value of $40 million, compared to 107 hours worth $55 million last year and a 10-year average of 96 hours worth $58 million.

• Hours of Australian adult TV series/serials rose slightly from 456 hours last year to 489 hours this year, but this is still well below the 10-year average of 564 hours. Only 29 programs were made, compared to 36 last year and a 10-year average of 39.

• Spending by foreign and co- produced TV dramas has fallen from a high of $166 million in 1998/99 to $40 million last year and just $17 million in 2004/05.

At the Screen Producers Association Conference in August, the Producers - mindful of the state of the industry - voted in favour of joining the Australian Screen Council when it is inaugurated, possibly as early as next month. ASDA, represented by Richard Harris, has been on the working committee to set up this council, which will be an umbrella body representing the production industry and designed so the Industry will henceforth speak to Government with one voice. There is a successful precedent for this, the Australian Film Council that operated back in the late Sixties and early Seventies when the modern Australian film industry was established. The Film Council had great success dealing with the then Government and achieving a stable production industry. In recent times, the Industry has been represented to Government by a number of organisations, ASDA being one, that don't always sing from the same hymn sheet. This sometimes does not help our cause. A recent successful model for the Screen Council is the Australian Wine Industry's peak body. There are structural similarities between the wine and film industries; a collection of small and big, independent organizations, all trying for a place in the market and all trying to lobby Government. The success for the wine industry was in getting them together around the same table and then getting them to agree on common strategies for the good of the whole industry. The wine industry has been spectacularly successful as all of you who have enjoyed a drop of Australian wine can attest. The former CEO of the Wine Board has joined the Screen Council steering committee as an advisor.

ASDA has been very involved in monitoring and advising the Australian Film Finance Corporation, the Government film investment body in setting up a new evaluation system. Previously, the investment process was entirely market driven and this led to a certain sameness in our product. After a rather dry period for feature films, the FFC has now two doors, the market place door as before, and an evaluation door where films can seek investment that do not have any market place attachment. This allows for more individual and original projects, that if successful, get a "letter of intent" from the FFC to invest, after which they can go out and seek market place investment. It's too early to give you a report on how successful this new initiative will be, but on the evidence of about three films released that came through the evaluation door, the initiative looks promising. The film Look Both Ways which won the Best New Talent at the recent Toronto Film Festival is an example.

ASDA's concern is about how the new system beds in, and the extent to which the people who are now evaluating projects on a more holistic basis, rather than purely marketplace-driven basis, are accountable and open to a diverse range of proejcts (the FFC being basically the only show in town when it comes to film financing).

Just as important is the extent to which the "Evaluation Executives" are going to be involved in the production of the films that they choose. Under the previous system, FFC investment managers were expected to take a backward step once a film had been greenlit. This was because they were making decisions on a purely financial basis, rather than a creative one. The new evaluation managers, however, are expected to be involved in 'meaningful consultation' with the filmmakers all the way through production. What the term means, and how it is manifested in practice is a key issue for ASDA and directors. ASDA wrote a long submission to the FFC on the issue, who responded by saying that they did not have "approval" rights, and hence the consultation should not be seen as an issue. However, ASDA has made it clear that there is the scope for greater involvement by the Government agency representatives, and that this could be detrimental.

ASDA is currently taking a watching brief and is in touch with all directors who have projects approved to get a sense of their experience. So far, the process appears to have been constructive, but then that is often the way until something goes wrong.

ASDA has also been working with the major development body, the Australian Film Commission on ways to protect directors in development. It is possible for a director to be involved in the inception and development of a project, then for whatever reason, depart the project prior to production. Often these directors receive no remuneration for their creative input and can only watch from the sidelines as the film is made and released. ASDA would like to see some mechanism or formula put in place to see these directors recompensed in proportion to their creative involvement, not only as a development fee but also as a share of future earnings.

ASDA is also concerned, generally, about the view of the director's role in the development process. Certain elements seem to think that a film is best developed by a writer on their own, or by a writer and a producer, and that a director should come on and 'add the pictures'. This is view from those who think that the US-studio model is the best way forward. ASDA has had to argue that in while this may work in the US studio system, that the success rate of films is patchy where the director is, if not the writer, then not the 'driver' of the project. Australian successes over the past thirty years point pretty conclusively to the need for the director to be heavily involved early on.

On the industrial/creative rights front, ASDA has in place a Code in Practice for series and serials and a sub-committee is well on the way to producing a Code for telemovies and miniseries. These cover Creative Rights only as ASDA can't yet represent directors' economic rights as it is not registered as a union with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. ASDA intended to register this year, but the Government is in the process of changing the Industrial Relations landscape radically when Industrial Relations legislation is introduced into Parliament in November. This is likely to weaken unions' ability to bargain collectively on behalf of members and favour individual workplace contracts. Until we see this legislation and get advice on the implication for ASDA's ability to bargain with employers on behalf of the members we won't know if it worth proceeding with registration, which is an expensive and time consuming process.

Another issue that is troubling ASDA is the increasing number of foreign production companies that form co-production agreements with Australian producers and seek Australian finance through the FFC. Our difficulty is when the production company wants to use a non-Australian director. We believe that Australian taxpayers' money, funnelled into film production, should go to Australian films, directed by Australians, so you can understand our dilemma when a co-production approaches us for approval to use a foreign director. Do we oppose and jeopardise the employment of Australian technicians and actors on a matter of principle? Or should we be pragmatic and look at the wider economic and creative benefit? All we can do is look at each case on its merits. Recently we approved a Working Title production that has a UK director. Our decision was based on the production company's track record, its use of Australian directors on other projects (Philip Noyce is currently shooting a film for them in South Africa), and their stated intention of being a production presence in Australia in the future.

ASDA finds itself being drawn into the censorship debate in Australia. In common with other Western countries, the rise of the religious Right is causing those who believe in free expression some concern. We've had recent examples of right-wing parliamentarians complaining about the television show 'Big Brother', and then there is the almost annual arrival of the latest naughty French film (why are they always French?) and the knee-jerk reaction by the same people to have them banned. This should not be an issue for us, except the religious Right is growing in power and influence and conservative Governments are listening to them. Directors' organizations need to be on guard because it is only a small step to where the rights of directors to express themselves freely could be curtailed, and their completed work tampered with by zealots as has happened in the US.

ASDA's documentary membership has become increasingly active over the past twelve months. Documentary filmmakers are actually at the coal-face of the great bulk of anti-director practices and discourse, and are fighting hard to ensure that they can continue to have independence, creative rights, and their authorship respected. The worst offenders are not producers so much, but broadcasters and the Government documentary producer, Film Australia. On a broader level, the concern is also about generating and authoring works, as broadcasters are trying (it seems) to squeeze out the individual voice, and schedule more generic material, particularly series. At a time when heavily authored feature docs are breaking out worldwide, this is a rather perplexing trend.

ASDA has also found that in terms of individual disputes, documentary has been far and ahead of other filmmaking forms in recent years, which is an interesting but worrying development.

ASDA has begun to work with these filmmakers on the immediate coal-face issues, and has been working to introduce a similar code of practice to that developed for TV series and serials (the UK code of practice has been a great start). There is a great passion and concern among this membership about arresting the decline.

On a broader level, ASDA has been working through the joint documentary council that it formed with the Screen Producers, the SPAA/ASDA Documentary Council. This council lobbies on issues of policy specific to the business of documentary. This Council has commissioned a large strategy paper for the sector, and the work on this large document has occupied a lot of focus and energy.

Two weeks ago ASDA ran its annual conference. It was a sell out event, with Joel Schumacher the keynote speaker, courtesy of broadband from Los Angeles. Events like the conference are important to ASDA because they are a tangible benefit of membership. One of our perennial problems is attracting and keeping members. A director does not have to belong to ASDA to work in Australia. We don't offer a health plan. ASDA has around 600 members, and when you look at the amount of annual production in Australia, you can see that perhaps only 100 directors or so work, and many of them only sporadically. It's too often a choice between membership fees and cornflakes on the table and it's understandable why we have around 200 unfinancial members. We are always looking for new and creative ways of persuading people why they should join ASDA, and stay joined and I look forward to talking to those of you representing the smaller Guilds to see how you attract and retain membership.

Finally, my thanks to the DGC for hosting this conference and to the DGA and DGC for assisting Richard [Harris, Executive Director of the ASDA] and myself getting here.