{
  "entity_id": "O-000810",
  "folder": "Screen-Australia",
  "name": "Screen Australia",
  "type": "Corporate Commonwealth Entity",
  "jurisdiction": "Commonwealth",
  "portfolio": "Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, \r\nCommunications, Sport and the Arts",
  "website": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/",
  "data_status": "partial",
  "completeness": {
    "has_strategy_brief": false,
    "has_strategy_structured": true,
    "has_vision": false,
    "has_kpi_targets": false,
    "has_kpi_results": false,
    "has_strategy_overview": true,
    "has_legislation_text": true,
    "has_legislation_structured": false,
    "has_global_initiatives_text": true,
    "has_ideas": true,
    "has_artifacts": true,
    "n_ideas": 12,
    "n_legislation": 0,
    "n_artifacts": 8,
    "n_kpi_targets": 0,
    "n_kpi_results": 0,
    "n_outcomes": 0,
    "verified_own_data": true
  },
  "strategy_profile": {
    "status": "needs_review",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "summary": "",
    "official_site_url": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/",
    "source_documents": [
      {
        "type": "strategie",
        "title": "Download File : Screen Currency 2 – Methods Discussion Paper",
        "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989",
        "period": "2026",
        "confidence": "medium"
      },
      {
        "type": "annual_report",
        "title": "Annual Report",
        "url": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/annual-report",
        "period": "recent",
        "confidence": "high"
      },
      {
        "type": "corporate_plan",
        "title": "Corporate Plan",
        "url": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/corporate-plan",
        "period": "recent",
        "confidence": "high"
      }
    ],
    "purpose": null,
    "vision": null,
    "strategic_priorities": [],
    "values": [],
    "outcomes": [],
    "performance_measures": [],
    "document_alignment_terms": {
      "must_support": [],
      "watch_terms": [],
      "avoid_claiming_without_evidence": []
    },
    "review_note": "Structured strategy exists but is incomplete."
  },
  "strategy_brief_md": null,
  "strategy_overview_evidence_md": null,
  "internal_strategy_evidence_md": "# Screen Australia - Strategy, Performance, and Operating Profile\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T22:01:36.145279+00:00\n**Entity ID**: O-000810\n**Entity type**: Corporate Commonwealth Entity\n**Jurisdiction**: Commonwealth\n**Portfolio**: Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, \n\nCommunications, Sport and the Arts\n**Website**: http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/\n\n> Draft generated from scraped source material. Treat this as an evidence pack for editorial review, not a final judgement.\n\n## Source Coverage\n\n| Source type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| global-intelligence | 3 |\n| other-pdfs | 5 |\n| pages | 5 |\n| strategies | 1 |\n\n## Executive Readout\n\n### Purpose\n\n- [Page 22]\nSCREEN CURRENCY 2025\nBeyond the issue created assuming that responsibility for outcomes lies with cultural or\ncreative producers of creative work, which is seen by some as adding another heavy burden\nto the sector, John Holden cautions about the impacts of relying too heavily on instrumental\nforms of value, as it:\n• can have a ‘sunflower effect’ – distorting activity to measures;\n• can lead to greater bureaucratisation generated by measurement frameworks;\n• rewards consistency / ‘sameness’, leading to risk aversion and less innovation;\n• can de-emphasise creative engagement between funders and practitioners;\n• tends to mean evidence is used primarily for advocacy rather than learning (and is\ntherefore less objective); and\n• can tend to encourage funders to become more prescriptive.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [Page 11]\nSCREEN CURRENCY 2025\nCreative Economy Framework: Culture as a driver of innovation\nCreative Economy models tend to emphasise the role of creative industries in terms of\ninnovation: the generation of new ideas, new IP and new practices:\n… the creative economy is, at its essence, driven by the recognition that business-as-usual is\nover, that massive change is necessary, that innovation must sit at the heart of our purpose,\nand that human creativity is the essential driver of this orientation.30\nHasan Bakshi, Ian Hargreaves and Juan Mateos-Garcia’s April 2013 Manifesto for the\nCreative Economy was instrumental in this thinking, claiming:\nIt is widely recognised that innovation – at its simplest, “new ideas, successfully applied” – is\nthe driver of long–run economic growth.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- Positioning wellbeing within a creative placemaking framework may widen\nthe understanding of wellbeing beyond an individual outcome to include an awareness of\nwellbeing as a community outcome that supports First Nations peoples’, Māori, and Pacific\npeoples’ worldviews.29\n27 https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/measuring-what-matters\n28 https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/measuring-what-matters\n29 Creative Australia (2019) Op cit.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- It’s a risk that must\nbe taken.38\n35 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p.3\n36 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p3\n37 Reset Arts and Culture Submission to the National Cultural Policy consultation August 2022 Dr Tully\nBarnett (Flinders University), Jennifer Mills (author and activist), Professor Justin O’Connor (University of\nSouth Australia), and Emma Webb OAM (Arts Industry Council SA and Vitalstatistix).\nhttps://resetartsandculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reset-NCP-submission.pdf p.2\n38 https://theconversation.com/the-limits-of-advocacy-arts-sector-told-to-stop-worrying-and-be-happy-\n162860\n12\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n\n### Role and Functions\n\n- [Page 20]\n20\nModel 3: Job-Sharing\nTable 6: Job-Sharing Budget Findings by Section\nBudget Control Job-Sharing Budget Budget\nComponent Budget Budget Variation ($) Variation (%)\nAbove the Line $3,014,376 $3,014,376 - -\nCosts\nCrew Fees $5,401,287 $5,453,480 +$52,193 +1%\nCast Fees $1,384,135 $1,384,135 - -\nProduction Costs $3,965,458 $3,965,458 - -\nPost Costs $1,174,765 $1,175,928 +$1,163 +<1%\nIn this job-sharing model, roles were identified to be shared by two individuals, with job-sharing\npairs spliing the time allocated for the role.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n- The role of culture can be addressed both as a driver that contributes directly\nto bringing about economic and social benefits, and also as an enabler that contributes to the\neffectiveness of development interventions.7\n6 https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-thematic-indicators-culture-2030-\nagenda#:~:text=The%20UNESCO%20Thematic%20Indicators%20for,of%20the%202030%20Agenda%20for p.17\n7 Ibid p12\n4\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [Page 11]\nSCREEN CURRENCY 2025\nCreative Economy Framework: Culture as a driver of innovation\nCreative Economy models tend to emphasise the role of creative industries in terms of\ninnovation: the generation of new ideas, new IP and new practices:\n… the creative economy is, at its essence, driven by the recognition that business-as-usual is\nover, that massive change is necessary, that innovation must sit at the heart of our purpose,\nand that human creativity is the essential driver of this orientation.30\nHasan Bakshi, Ian Hargreaves and Juan Mateos-Garcia’s April 2013 Manifesto for the\nCreative Economy was instrumental in this thinking, claiming:\nIt is widely recognised that innovation – at its simplest, “new ideas, successfully applied” – is\nthe driver of long–run economic growth.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- By analogy\ncultural policy now needs to start making the same transition… Innovation funding in the arts and\ncultural domain is still about picking winners; it needs to shift towards providing enabling\nconditions i.e. a healthy creative ecosystem.33\nCritical to thriving within an innovation paradigm… is the capacity to function not as a sector, but\nas a system. “The key emphasis here is the relational unit, the network, the collaboration…You\nthink about national statistical institutes, most of the data is on the firm, the family, the individual,\nor the household, not the relational unit.”34\n30 David Maggs, 2021 Art and the Work After This. p28\n31 https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/a-manifesto-for-the-creative-economy-april13.pdf p.51\n32 Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska. “Understanding the value of arts & culture.” AHRC, 2016.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [pages 11,12]\nin is still about picking winners; it needs to shift towards providing enabling\nconditions i.e. a healthy creative ecosystem.33\nCritical to thriving within an innovation paradigm… is the capacity to function not as a sector, but\nas a system. “The key emphasis here is the relational unit, the network, the collaboration…You\nthink about national statistical institutes, most of the data is on the firm, the family, the individual,\nor the household, not the relational unit.”34\n30 David Maggs, 2021 Art and the Work After This. p28\n31 https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/a-manifesto-for-the-creative-economy-april13.pdf p.51\n32 Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska. “Understanding the value of arts & culture.” AHRC, 2016.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- From consultation to collaboration 87\nThe role of writers 90\nFrom colour‑blind to identity‑conscious casting 91\nEmerging casting considerations 93\nGrowing and retaining the acting talent pool 93\nTalent development and escalation pipeline 96\nBuilding formal and informal networks 97\nAttachment programs 98\nNavigating the conversation 99\nThe tools: guidelines and policies 99\nPart 3: International context 100\nFirst Nations 102\nCultural diversity 103\nDisability 105\nGender 106\nAge 108\nInternational responses 108\nPart 4: Tools and resources 110\nToolkits and resources 111\nGuidelines, commitments and strategies 114\nRelated research 115\nScreen Australia’s Authentic Storytelling series 116\nAppendix A: Key terms and definitions 117\nAppendix B: List of titles 124\nAppendix C: List of consultation and interview participants 136\nPage 5\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n\n### Strategic Priorities\n\n- 15 August 2025\nProposals assessed (including: area of focus, proposed 18 -29 August 2025\nscope, proposed methodology, deliverables, quality\nassurance, potential intersections, team and roles, budget\nand timeframe) and ranked against evaluation criteria by\nEvaluation Panel (see panel membership below).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Screen-Australia-SCREEN-CURRENCY-Request-for-Proposals.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Australia-SCREEN-CURRENCY-Request-for-Proposals.pdf?v=1777435433)`\n- It’s a risk that must\nbe taken.38\n35 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p.3\n36 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p3\n37 Reset Arts and Culture Submission to the National Cultural Policy consultation August 2022 Dr Tully\nBarnett (Flinders University), Jennifer Mills (author and activist), Professor Justin O’Connor (University of\nSouth Australia), and Emma Webb OAM (Arts Industry Council SA and Vitalstatistix).\nhttps://resetartsandculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reset-NCP-submission.pdf p.2\n38 https://theconversation.com/the-limits-of-advocacy-arts-sector-told-to-stop-worrying-and-be-happy-\n162860\n12\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- Resource Library\nResource Finder\nResource Category\nAll categories\nCo-productions\nCorporate documents\nCredits and Logos\nData and Insights\nFestivals and Markets\nFunding Programs\nMarketing and Distribution\nProducer Offset\nSales Agents\nResource Type\nAll types\nAnnual Report\nCorporate Plan\nDirectory\nDisclosures\nFiles Created\nGuidelines\nGuides\nMOU\nPublications/reports\nSubmissions\nTools and Templates\nTreaty\nResource Subject\nAll subjects\nApplication Paperwork\nBudget Template\nCo-production\nContracting\nDevelopment\nDocumentary\nFinance Plan\nFirst Nations\nGames\nGender Matters\nIndustry Development\nInternational\nLogo\nMarket & Audience\nNarrative Content\nProduction\nScene Change\nScreen Currency\nShort Film\nResource Format\nAll formats\nExcel\nPDF\nWord\nZip\nClear Search\nFilter Resources\nShowing 1–12 of 26\nSort By\nNewest to Oldest\nOldest to Newest\nA-Z (alphabetical)\nZ-A (reverse alphabetical)\nData and Insights\n  Source: `pages/publications-index.html (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/resource-library/?filter_resource_category=data-and-insights&filter_resource_type=publications-reports&filter_resource_subject=0&filter_resource_format=0)`\n- 16\nMeasuring and understanding diversity in Australian TV drama 18\nMethod and scope 19\nPart 1: On‑screen diversity 22\nHow we measured on‑screen diversity 24\nFirst Nations 27\nCultural background (non‑First Nations) 33\nDisability 40\nGender identity and sexual orientation 47\nOccupational and social status 52\nAge 54\nDiversity in children’s drama and comedy 56\nRegional and remote Australia 61\nDiversity of actors 62\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities 70\nThe context: an industry raising the bar 72\nLived experience and authentic storytelling 73\nWhen lived experience is undervalued: carrying the burden and reputational risk 74\nFirst Nations perspectives: rebalancing the scale 75\nThe need for diverse leadership 76\nCommissioning and financial risk 77\nSpotlight on disability 78\nPage 4\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- This positive result represents the ongoing support and advocacy for and by First Nations people in the\nscreen industry, including the strong track record of First Nations media organisations, Screen Australia’s\nFirst Nations department and other screen agencies.27\nFigure 2: First Nations representation among main characters compared to the\nAustralian population, 2016 results and current study\n7.2\n4.8\n3.8\nCurrent study 2016 study Australian\npopulation 2021\nPage 28\ntnec\nreP\nBased on 3,072 characters across 361 TV dramas broadcast 2016 to 2021 in the current study and 1,961 characters across 199 TV dramas\nbroadcast 2011 to 2015 in the 2016 study.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [Page 63]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nComedy – laughing ‘with’ difference\nHighlights\n● Comedy titles feature higher rates of First Nations and non‑European representation among\nmain characters than non‑comedy titles, which could reflect a greater appetite for risk in\ncommissioning comedy.\n● This cultural diversity in comedy has increased since the 2016 study, including a doubling of\nFirst Nations representation among main characters (from 4% to 8.3%).\n● The level of non‑European representation among main characters in comedy (20%) is\nsubstantially higher than in non‑comedy titles (14%).\n● Disability representation is lower among characters in the comedy genre (3.6%) compared to in\nnon‑comedy titles (8.8%).\n● LGBTIQ+ representation is also lower in comedy (6.7%) than in non‑comedy titles (7.9%).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [pages 116,117,118]\nange of topics, including what children and\n● Screen Australia’s Gender Matters 2021–22\nfamilies are watching, and representation of\nresearch (2022)\nMuslim women and women over 50\n● The Screen Actors Guild and American\n● The Center for the Study of Women in Television\nFederation of Television and Radio Artists\nand Film’s annual reports about women in the\n(SAG‑AFTRA)’s Intimacy Coordinator\nUS screen industry\nResources (US)\n● The Women in Film and Television Canada\n● Women in View, Telefilm Canada, Canada Media\nCoalition’s Deciding on Diversity: COVID‑19, risk\nFund and Ontario Media Creates’ MediaPLUS+\nand intersectional inequality in the Canadian film\nDiversity Toolkit helps industry practitioners\nand television industry (2021)\nmake more inclusive choices on and off\nscreen (Canada)\nPage 112\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [pages 1,2,3,4]\n[Page 1]\nGender Maers Taskforce April 2026\nScene Change:\nModelling Innovative\nPractices for Screen\nWorkforce Sustainability\nPrepared by\nRacheal Rauch\nBudget Modelling by\nYvonne Collins\nEdited by\nZaina Ahmed\nCommissioned by\nRosie Lourde\nChair of the Screen Australia Gender Maers Taskforce\n1\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n- 12\nMethodology 14\nThe Control Scenario 14\nModel 1: 8 Hour Day 15\nModel 2: 9 Day Fortnight 15\nModel 3: Job-Sharing 16\nPost-Production 16\nDisclaimer 16\nFindings 17\nDiscussion 18\nModel 1: 8 Hour Day 18\nModel 2: 9 Day Fortnight 19\nModel 3: Job-Sharing 20\nConclusion & Recommendations 21\nConsiderations 22\nFinal Thoughts 23\nReferences 24\nAppendices 26\nAppendix A – Evidence of shorter work days internationally 26\nAppendix B – Budget Scenario Models 27\nAppendix C – List of roles included in the job-sharing model 37\nAppendix D – Two Approaches to the 8 Hour Day 38\nGender Maers Taskforce Table of Contents\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n- Our investigation found that implementing these alternative production models had less than a 2.5%\nimpact on the budget; with job-sharing across identified roles as having the least financial impact:\nVariation in cost on a scripted TV series budget\nfollowing the implementation of three alternative production models\nProduction Model Variation in Cost (%)\nStrict 8 hour days (8HD) (for all crew) +2.30%\n9 day fortnight (9DFN) (for all crew) +1.23%\nJob-sharing across identified roles (19% of crew) +0.34%\nThis report provides a brief summary of the increasing calls from within the industry for a solution to\npractitioners’ long working hours, and outlines existing research and initiatives in Australia and overseas.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n\n## KPIs, Targets, and Where They Are At\n\n- This positive result represents the ongoing support and advocacy for and by First Nations people in the\nscreen industry, including the strong track record of First Nations media organisations, Screen Australia’s\nFirst Nations department and other screen agencies.27\nFigure 2: First Nations representation among main characters compared to the\nAustralian population, 2016 results and current study\n7.2\n4.8\n3.8\nCurrent study 2016 study Australian\npopulation 2021\nPage 28\ntnec\nreP\nBased on 3,072 characters across 361 TV dramas broadcast 2016 to 2021 in the current study and 1,961 characters across 199 TV dramas\nbroadcast 2011 to 2015 in the 2016 study.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [Page 19]\n19\nModel 2: 9 Day Fortnight (9DFN) (for all Crew)\nTable 5: 9DFN Budget Findings by Section\nBudget Control 9DFN Day Budget Budget\nComponent Budget Budget Variation ($) Variation (%)\nAbove the Line $3,014,376 $3,021,179 +$6,803 +<1%\nCosts\nCrew Fees $5,401,287 $5,405,470 +$4,183 +<1%\nCast Fees $1,384,135 $1,388,814 +$4,679 +<1%\nProduction Costs $3,965,458 $4,137,296 +$171,838 +4.33%\nPost Costs $1,174,765 $1,180,383 +$5,619 +<1%\nThe budget for the 9DFN option showed marginal increases across the board as a result of\nextending the number of weeks scheduled.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n- [Page 32]\nSCREEN CURRENCY 2025\nReferences\nGrey Literature / Reports\n• A New Approach (2020) Australia’s Cultural And Creative Economy A 21st Century Guide\nhttps://newapproach.org.au/insight-reports/australias-cultural-and-creative-economy-a-21st-\ncentury-guide/\n• ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020) Output indicator method in the national accounts\nhttps://www.abs.gov.au/articles/output-indicator-method-national-accounts\n• AFTRS (2018) Biometrics: An Applied Innovation Research Project\nhttps://www.aftrs.edu.au/about/research-and-innovation/biometrics/\n• AHRC (2021) Understanding the Value of Arts: Cultural Value Project Report\nhttps://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AHRC-291121\n• Australian Screen Association Olsberg SPI (2018) Impact of Film and TV Incentives in\nAustralia https://www.o-spi.com/news/spi-australian-film-television-incentives-economic-\nimpact-published\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- We have used analysis\nstory, as these numbers do not provide insights of occupational and social status as one way\nabout the nature or quality of representation. to measure how stereotyping might manifest\nOur interviews with diverse screen practitioners (see Cultural background and occupational and\nfor Seeing Ourselves 2 highlighted concerns around social status).\ninauthentic or stereotypical portrayals of cultural\nFigure 6: Deeper dive into European and non‑European representation among main\ncharacters compared to the Australian population, allowing for multiple ancestries\n12\n7.3 7.0 6.5\n5.3\n4.3 4.6\n2.8 3.3 3.3 2.7\n0.6 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.0\nSouthern and North-West Southern and North-East South-East North African Oceanian Sub-Saharan Peoples of\nEastern European Central Asian Asian Asian and Middle African the Americas\nEuropean Eastern\nAll main characters Australian population 2021\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- SWIG advise caution on the limits of these approaches)20\nOther measures that are sometimes included in Economic Impact studies include\n• Supporting training and skill building (reducing loss of talent “brain drain”) 21\n• Supporting employment in broader arts and culture sectors22\nSome attempts to measure economic impact also engage with more extended models such as the\nRIOM Regional Input Output Model – a closed model that applies the ABS transaction tables with\nemployment and demand data to model the impact of changes in demand on regional economies,\nestimating changes in output, product and Gross State product.23\nMany of these indirect impact measures are used alongside the direct economic measures to\ncalculate total Return on Investment (ROI) or multipliers (as in, every $1 spent in a given area\ngenerates $XX in Economic Impact).\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [pages 9,10,11]\napproach helps to answer\nhow and why the observed results have been achieved.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- It’s a risk that must\nbe taken.38\n35 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p.3\n36 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p3\n37 Reset Arts and Culture Submission to the National Cultural Policy consultation August 2022 Dr Tully\nBarnett (Flinders University), Jennifer Mills (author and activist), Professor Justin O’Connor (University of\nSouth Australia), and Emma Webb OAM (Arts Industry Council SA and Vitalstatistix).\nhttps://resetartsandculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reset-NCP-submission.pdf p.2\n38 https://theconversation.com/the-limits-of-advocacy-arts-sector-told-to-stop-worrying-and-be-happy-\n162860\n12\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- The updated framework allows\ncomponents 1 and 2 to be directly comparable and also avoids the risk of double-counting\nthat was possible in the previous framework.43\nThis new approach was intended to offer a pragmatic approach to create a ‘consistent and\ntransparent’ decision-making framework, through a narrowed scope of activity (excluding, for\nexample, computer systems design and related activity, clothing and footwear\nmanufacturing, wholesaling and retailing) to ensure that the cultural and creative sector\ncould ‘see itself’ in the new measure.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- Resource Library\nResource Finder\nResource Category\nAll categories\nCo-productions\nCorporate documents\nCredits and Logos\nData and Insights\nFestivals and Markets\nFunding Programs\nMarketing and Distribution\nProducer Offset\nSales Agents\nResource Type\nAll types\nAnnual Report\nCorporate Plan\nDirectory\nDisclosures\nFiles Created\nGuidelines\nGuides\nMOU\nPublications/reports\nSubmissions\nTools and Templates\nTreaty\nResource Subject\nAll subjects\nApplication Paperwork\nBudget Template\nCo-production\nContracting\nDevelopment\nDocumentary\nFinance Plan\nFirst Nations\nGames\nGender Matters\nIndustry Development\nInternational\nLogo\nMarket & Audience\nNarrative Content\nProduction\nScene Change\nScreen Currency\nShort Film\nResource Format\nAll formats\nExcel\nPDF\nWord\nZip\nClear Search\nFilter Resources\nShowing 1–12 of 26\nSort By\nNewest to Oldest\nOldest to Newest\nA-Z (alphabetical)\nZ-A (reverse alphabetical)\nData and Insights\n  Source: `pages/publications-index.html (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/resource-library/?filter_resource_category=data-and-insights&filter_resource_type=publications-reports&filter_resource_subject=0&filter_resource_format=0)`\n- 16\nMeasuring and understanding diversity in Australian TV drama 18\nMethod and scope 19\nPart 1: On‑screen diversity 22\nHow we measured on‑screen diversity 24\nFirst Nations 27\nCultural background (non‑First Nations) 33\nDisability 40\nGender identity and sexual orientation 47\nOccupational and social status 52\nAge 54\nDiversity in children’s drama and comedy 56\nRegional and remote Australia 61\nDiversity of actors 62\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities 70\nThe context: an industry raising the bar 72\nLived experience and authentic storytelling 73\nWhen lived experience is undervalued: carrying the burden and reputational risk 74\nFirst Nations perspectives: rebalancing the scale 75\nThe need for diverse leadership 76\nCommissioning and financial risk 77\nSpotlight on disability 78\nPage 4\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [Page 63]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nComedy – laughing ‘with’ difference\nHighlights\n● Comedy titles feature higher rates of First Nations and non‑European representation among\nmain characters than non‑comedy titles, which could reflect a greater appetite for risk in\ncommissioning comedy.\n● This cultural diversity in comedy has increased since the 2016 study, including a doubling of\nFirst Nations representation among main characters (from 4% to 8.3%).\n● The level of non‑European representation among main characters in comedy (20%) is\nsubstantially higher than in non‑comedy titles (14%).\n● Disability representation is lower among characters in the comedy genre (3.6%) compared to in\nnon‑comedy titles (8.8%).\n● LGBTIQ+ representation is also lower in comedy (6.7%) than in non‑comedy titles (7.9%).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- We brought\non an additional script editor who was able to work specifically with the more emerging\ntalent in the craft principles and bringing their scripts along.’\nThe end result is a series that has provided in‑roads for creatives, and was critically lauded, with\nreviewers saying it ‘proves that diversity done right is not just tokenism, but makes for genuinely\nbetter TV’,111 and calling it ‘the Aussie soap opera you should absolutely be watching’.112 It was\nnominated for the AACTA Award for Best Drama Series, as well as nominations from the\nSPA Awards, ADG Awards and ASSG Awards, and it won the AWGIE Award in 2020 for writing\nin a TV serial.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [pages 100,101,102]\nrtfolio, gain on‑the‑job\nabout how hard it is to come from\nskills, and advance into new and ongoing roles as\na low‑socioeconomic background\npart of their career progression.\nand try and work in this industry.’\n(Writer)\nInterviewees called for a coordinated, strategic,\nwhole‑of‑sector approach to target and develop\nhistorically excluded and under‑represented\nInterviewees highlighted that people from talent across the industry and through career\nunder‑represented groups are concentrated in pathways; and highlighted the loss of not‑for‑profit,\nthe ‘entry‑level free‑labour’ career stage, most community training organisations such as\nfrequently seen as attachments rather than paid Metro Screen (NSW) and Open Channel (VIC).\nroles on productions (see Attachment programs\nfor more on this).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [pages 116,117,118]\nange of topics, including what children and\n● Screen Australia’s Gender Matters 2021–22\nfamilies are watching, and representation of\nresearch (2022)\nMuslim women and women over 50\n● The Screen Actors Guild and American\n● The Center for the Study of Women in Television\nFederation of Television and Radio Artists\nand Film’s annual reports about women in the\n(SAG‑AFTRA)’s Intimacy Coordinator\nUS screen industry\nResources (US)\n● The Women in Film and Television Canada\n● Women in View, Telefilm Canada, Canada Media\nCoalition’s Deciding on Diversity: COVID‑19, risk\nFund and Ontario Media Creates’ MediaPLUS+\nand intersectional inequality in the Canadian film\nDiversity Toolkit helps industry practitioners\nand television industry (2021)\nmake more inclusive choices on and off\nscreen (Canada)\nPage 112\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n\n## Key Metrics\n\n| Values found | Evidence | Source |\n|---|---|---|\n| $3.6 million, $5.1 million, 3.6 million, 5.1 million | Conversely, the average budget per hour rose 44% from $3.6 million last year\nto $5.1 million this year. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $1, 5 million | Historically, the number of titles within each budget range remains relatively consistent\nyear on year, with the main concentration in the $1-5 million range – 14 of the 34 – two\ndown on last year. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $17,229,435 | Table 1: Base Budget Parameters\nBudget $17,229,435\nProduction Format 6 x 1 hour drama series\nShooting Days Per Episode 10 x 10 hour days per episode\nPre-Production Length 8 Weeks\nShoot Length 12 Weeks / 60 Days\nPost-Production Length 16 Weeks\nLocation Shot exclusively on metropolitan location (in\nthis instance, Victoria), with no regional away\ndays\nGender Maers Taskforce Methodology | `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)` |\n| $17,229,435 , $17,626,236 , $396,801 , $17,441,671 , $212,236 , $17,288,260 | Table 2: Budget Findings\nProduction Model Total Budget Budget Variation ($) Budget Variation (%)\nControl scenario $17,229,435 ---- ----\n8 hour day\n$17,626,236 $396,801 +2.3%\n(for all crew)\n9 day fortnight\n$17,441,671 $212,236 +1.23%\n(for all crew)\nJob-sharing\n$17,288,260 $58,825 +0.34%\n(for all crew)\nTable 3: Schedule Findings\nProduction Model Pre-Production Shoot Post Schedule Variation\nControl scenario 8 weeks 12 weeks 16 weeks ----\n8 hour day | `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)` |\n| $3,014,376 , $2,961,045 , $53,331 , $5,401,287 , $5,387,969 , $13,318 | [Page 18]\n18\nDiscussion\nModel 1: 8 Hour Day (for all Crew)\nTable 4: 8HD Budget Findings by Section\nBudget Control 8HD Budget Budget\nComponent Budget Budget Variation ($) Variation (%)\nAbove the Line\n$3,014,376 $2,961,045 -$53,331 -1.77%\nCosts\nCrew Fees $5,401,287 $5,387,969 -$13,318 -<1%\nCast Fees $1,384,135 $1,331,215 -$52,920 -3.82%\nProduction Costs $3,965,458 $4,449,474 +$484,016 +12.21%\nPost Costs $1,174,765 $1,165,390 -$9,375 -<1%\nOf the thr | `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)` |\n| $3,014,376 , $3,021,179 , $6,803 , $5,401,287 , $5,405,470 , $4,183 | [Page 19]\n19\nModel 2: 9 Day Fortnight (9DFN) (for all Crew)\nTable 5: 9DFN Budget Findings by Section\nBudget Control 9DFN Day Budget Budget\nComponent Budget Budget Variation ($) Variation (%)\nAbove the Line $3,014,376 $3,021,179 +$6,803 +<1%\nCosts\nCrew Fees $5,401,287 $5,405,470 +$4,183 +<1%\nCast Fees $1,384,135 $1,388,814 +$4,679 +<1%\nProduction Costs $3,965,458 $4,137,296 +$171,838 +4.33%\nPost Costs $1,174,765 $1,180,383 +$5,619 +<1%\nThe budget | `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)` |\n| $3,014,376 , $5,401,287 , $5,453,480 , $52,193 , $1,384,135 | [Page 20]\n20\nModel 3: Job-Sharing\nTable 6: Job-Sharing Budget Findings by Section\nBudget Control Job-Sharing Budget Budget\nComponent Budget Budget Variation ($) Variation (%)\nAbove the Line $3,014,376 $3,014,376 - -\nCosts\nCrew Fees $5,401,287 $5,453,480 +$52,193 +1%\nCast Fees $1,384,135 $1,384,135 - -\nProduction Costs $3,965,458 $3,965,458 - -\nPost Costs $1,174,765 $1,175,928 +$1,163 +<1%\nIn this job-sharing model, roles were identified to be sha | `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)` |\n| $165,500 , $0\n, $100,000 | [Page 29]\nBase Budget Model\nAccount Description Original Total Variance\nW01 MUSIC $165,500 $165,500 $0\nX01 PUBLICITY & STILLS $100,000 $100,000 $0\nTotal Fringes $93,985 $93,985 $0\nTOTAL POST COSTS $1,174,765 $1,174,765 $0\nY01 LEGAL & BUSINESS $699,500 $699,500 $0\nY03 OVERHEADS $300,000 $300,000 $0\nTotal Fringes $0 $0 $0\nTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $999,500 $999,500 $0\nZ01 SPA Levy: : 0.25% ($999,500.00 excluded) $37,350 $37,350 $0\nZ02 Contingency : 10% | `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)` |\n| $2.7 billion, $678 million, 2.7 billion, 678 million | [Page 2]\nDrama Report 2024/25: Key Findings\nOverview\nIn 2024/25, drama production in Australia amounted to a record $2.7 billion in expenditure,\nan increase of 43% from 2023/24 with a $678 million uplift in international production. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $1.1 billion, 1.1 billion | There were 174 titles in total, with $1.1 billion expenditure coming from 71 Australian titles,\na 14% increase in expenditure from 2023/24. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $458 million, $1.0 billion, $379 million, $215 million, $492 million, $471 million | The 2024/25 Drama Report highlights the following:\n• A significant increase in expenditure from international TV/VOD, amounting to\n$458 million, more than four times the spend in 2023/24.\n• A record spend of $1.0 billion from 20 international shoot features.\n• Australian titles accounted for 40% of overall expenditure in 2024/25, down from\n50% last year.\n• A $379 million spend on 34 Australian theatrical features, up from $215 million on\n38 title | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $1.1 billion, 1.1 billion | Higher cost-per-hour in\nthe subscription TV and SVOD category was indicative of ongoing demand for premium\nproduction and an increase in related high-end TV budgets.\n• Total expenditure was 14% up on last year.\n• $1.1 billion of total expenditure came from 71 Australian titles — in particular,\nsubscription TV and SVOD titles (46%) and theatrical features (35%). | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $379 million, 379 million | Australian Theatrical Features\nDespite a decrease in the number of titles (38 last year to 34 this year), total expenditure\non Australian theatrical features rose 76% to $379 million in 2024/25. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $50 million, 50 million | This result was\ndriven by a limited number of high-budget films over $50 million. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $10, $5, 20 million, 10 million | Fewer\ntitles were made in the $10-20 million range (five compared to last year’s eight) and the\n$5-10 million range increased from seven last year to eight in 2024/25. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $189 million, $162 million, 189 million, 162 million | The FTA TV category experienced a 14% decline in spend, dropping from $189 million in\n2023/24 to $162 million in 2024/25. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $654 million, $162 million, $492 million, $471 million, 654 million, 162 million | [Page 5]\nDrama Report 2024/25: Key Findings\n• $654 million on 32 Australian general TV/VOD drama titles — 1% down on the previous\nyear’s expenditure:\nº $162 million on 14 Australian FTA TV titles, representing a 14% decrease on last\nyear’s expenditure (on 16 titles).\nº $492 million on 18 Australian subscription TV and SVOD titles — up 5% from last\nyear’s $471 million across 28 titles. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $34 million, 34 million | [Page 6]\nDrama Report 2024/25: Key Findings\n• $34 million in expenditure on Australian children’s TV/VOD titles — 41% below last year.\n• The number of children’s titles reduced from seven to five this year, and hours produced\ndeclined by 38% to 21 hours. | `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)` |\n| $3,014,376 , $3,021,179 , $6,803 , $5,401,287 , $5,405,470 , $4,183 | [Page 19]\n19\nModel 2: 9 Day Fortnight (9DFN) (for all Crew)\nTable 5: 9DFN Budget Findings by Section\nBudget Control 9DFN Day Budget Budget\nComponent Budget Budget Variation ($) Variation (%)\nAbove the Line $3,014,376 $3,021,179 +$6,803 +<1%\nCosts\nCrew Fees $5,401,287 $5,405,470 +$4,183 +<1%\nCast Fees $1,384,135 $1,388,814 +$4,679 +<1%\nProduction Costs $3,965,458 $4,137,296 +$171,838 +4.33%\nPost Costs $1,174,765 $1,180,383 +$5,619 +<1%\nThe budget | `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)` |\n| $1 | SWIG advise caution on the limits of these approaches)20\nOther measures that are sometimes included in Economic Impact studies include\n• Supporting training and skill building (reducing loss of talent “brain drain”) 21\n• Supporting employment in broader arts and culture sectors22\nSome attempts to measure economic impact also engage with more extended models such as the\nRIOM Regional Input Output Model – a closed model that applies the ABS transac | `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)` |\n\n## Key Achievements\n\n- [Page 63]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nComedy – laughing ‘with’ difference\nHighlights\n● Comedy titles feature higher rates of First Nations and non‑European representation among\nmain characters than non‑comedy titles, which could reflect a greater appetite for risk in\ncommissioning comedy.\n● This cultural diversity in comedy has increased since the 2016 study, including a doubling of\nFirst Nations representation among main characters (from 4% to 8.3%).\n● The level of non‑European representation among main characters in comedy (20%) is\nsubstantially higher than in non‑comedy titles (14%).\n● Disability representation is lower among characters in the comedy genre (3.6%) compared to in\nnon‑comedy titles (8.8%).\n● LGBTIQ+ representation is also lower in comedy (6.7%) than in non‑comedy titles (7.9%).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- 42\n39 Justin O’Conner (2022) Culture in Crisis https://resetartsandculture.com/wp-\ncontent/uploads/2022/02/CP3-Working-Paper-Art-Culture-and-the-Foundational-Economy-2022.pdf\np10\n40 Bakshi, (2012) Keynote speech delivered at Culture Count: Measuring Cultural Value\nForum, Customs House, Sydney, Australia, Tuesday 20th March. p2\n41 Ibid. p2\n42 Ibid cit. p1\n13\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- London,\nRoutledge\n• Bakshi, (2012) Keynote speech delivered at Culture Count: Measuring Cultural Value\nCustoms House, Sydney, Australia, Tuesday 20th March.\n• Bruns, Axl (2008) From Prosumption to Produsage.\nhttps://snurb.info/files/2014/From%20Prosumption%20to%20Produsage.pdf\n• Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska (2016) Understanding the value of arts & culture.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- The 2024/25 Drama Report highlights the following:\n• A significant increase in expenditure from international TV/VOD, amounting to\n$458 million, more than four times the spend in 2023/24.\n• A record spend of $1.0 billion from 20 international shoot features.\n• Australian titles accounted for 40% of overall expenditure in 2024/25, down from\n50% last year.\n• A $379 million spend on 34 Australian theatrical features, up from $215 million on\n38 titles in the prior year.\n• A $492 million spend on 18 Australian general subscription TV and SVOD titles, up from\n$471 million, on 28 titles in 2023/24.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520)`\n- [Page 31]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nFirst Nations\nBlack Comedy series 3\nHighlights\n● The level of First Nations representation on screen is strong and growing, increasing from 4.8%\nof main characters in the previous study to 7.2%, compared to the population benchmark of 3.8%.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [Page 51]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nGender identity and sexual orientation\nHighlights\n● Apart from non‑binary characters, main characters are split evenly between women and men.\n● There were 18 trans and/or gender diverse main characters in TV drama between 2016 and 2021\n(0.6% of characters), including five trans men, eight trans women and five non‑binary characters.\n● The overall rate of LGBTIQ+ representation among main characters has increased (from 4.5% to\n7.4%), though it remains below the 11% population benchmark.\n● 69% of titles have no LGBTIQ+ main characters, down from 73% in the 2016 study.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [Page 58]\nPart 1: On-screen diversity\nAge\nHighlights\n● There is a bias in Australian TV drama towards centring stories on characters aged 18–44.\n● There is under‑representation of main characters aged under 12 or 60 and over.\n● Under‑representation of children and older people means audiences have limited opportunities\nto gain insights into their perspectives and life experiences through TV drama.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- However, the report highlights that\nUCLA’s Hollywood Diversity Report found ‘people for Black audiences, parity is not enough, with\nof colour’ to be under‑represented in scripted leads Black viewers twice as likely to seek out content\nin the 2020–21 TV season, comprising 27–40% where they are represented.141 ‘Asian and Pacific\ndepending on the broadcast platform, compared Islander’ communities were under‑represented\nto 43% of the population.136 ‘Black’ and ‘multiracial’ at 2.9–5.5%; and while ‘East Asian’ people had\nleads exceeded proportionate representation on the highest share of screen among this group\ncable scripted shows (23% and 11% respectively) (1.4–2.8%), ‘South Asian’ and ‘South‑East Asian’\nand digital platforms (16% and 12% respectively), on‑screen representation was low (0.5–1.5%\nbut not on broadcast (11% and 5.7% respectively). and 0.2–0.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- The Nielsen report highlights that the\nabsent from broadcast and under‑represented on full diversity of Asian Americans is not represented\ncable (0.9%) but were over‑represented on digital and that stereotypes remain a concern.142\nplatforms in 2020–21 (2.2%). ‘Latinx’ and ‘Asian’\nleads were under‑represented across platforms\n134 Broadcast programs: 73%; cable: 60%; digital: 62%.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [Page 109]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nDisability\nIn our current study of Australian TV drama, only The UK’s Diamond project found ‘disabled people’\n6.6% of main characters were identified as disabled comprised 8.1% of lead actors in scripted TV\n– well below the population benchmark (18%). programmed in 2020–21; and 7% of all on‑screen\nDisabled character representation was lower still roles in drama; 5.9% in comedy; and 12% in\nin comedy (3.6%) and children’s programs (3.8%). children’s.160 While these results are higher\nSignificant under‑representation of disabled people than the Seeing Ourselves 2 results for disabled\non screen and in the industry is also a common actors playing main roles (3.9%), the findings\nfinding across international reports. are not comparable as the Diamond project is\nbased on a confidential survey of screen industry\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [pages 118,119,120]\nration’s practice guidelines for recruitment and selection\nDiversity and Inclusion Strategy 2022–2032,\n● The Seven and Nine Networks have diversity\nFirst Nations Screen Strategy 2020–2025\npolicies covering employees, contractors and\nand 2022 Disability Screen Strategy\nother stakeholders,211 while Ten and Paramount+\n● The Western Australian Screen Industry work under the ‘No Diversity, No Commission’\nDiversity and Inclusion Roadmap 2017–2023 policy implemented by Paramount212\n● VicScreen’s Gender Equality, Diversity and\nInclusiveness Statement\n211 Seven West Media 2015, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy; and Nine Entertainment Co.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- It’s a risk that must\nbe taken.38\n35 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p.3\n36 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p3\n37 Reset Arts and Culture Submission to the National Cultural Policy consultation August 2022 Dr Tully\nBarnett (Flinders University), Jennifer Mills (author and activist), Professor Justin O’Connor (University of\nSouth Australia), and Emma Webb OAM (Arts Industry Council SA and Vitalstatistix).\nhttps://resetartsandculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reset-NCP-submission.pdf p.2\n38 https://theconversation.com/the-limits-of-advocacy-arts-sector-told-to-stop-worrying-and-be-happy-\n162860\n12\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n\n## Key Issues, Risks, and Recommendations\n\n- 16\nMeasuring and understanding diversity in Australian TV drama 18\nMethod and scope 19\nPart 1: On‑screen diversity 22\nHow we measured on‑screen diversity 24\nFirst Nations 27\nCultural background (non‑First Nations) 33\nDisability 40\nGender identity and sexual orientation 47\nOccupational and social status 52\nAge 54\nDiversity in children’s drama and comedy 56\nRegional and remote Australia 61\nDiversity of actors 62\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities 70\nThe context: an industry raising the bar 72\nLived experience and authentic storytelling 73\nWhen lived experience is undervalued: carrying the burden and reputational risk 74\nFirst Nations perspectives: rebalancing the scale 75\nThe need for diverse leadership 76\nCommissioning and financial risk 77\nSpotlight on disability 78\nPage 4\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- It’s a risk that must\nbe taken.38\n35 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p.3\n36 John Daley (2021) Performing arts advocacy in Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-\nfiles/2021-04/apo-nid312235.pdf p3\n37 Reset Arts and Culture Submission to the National Cultural Policy consultation August 2022 Dr Tully\nBarnett (Flinders University), Jennifer Mills (author and activist), Professor Justin O’Connor (University of\nSouth Australia), and Emma Webb OAM (Arts Industry Council SA and Vitalstatistix).\nhttps://resetartsandculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reset-NCP-submission.pdf p.2\n38 https://theconversation.com/the-limits-of-advocacy-arts-sector-told-to-stop-worrying-and-be-happy-\n162860\n12\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [Page 63]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nComedy – laughing ‘with’ difference\nHighlights\n● Comedy titles feature higher rates of First Nations and non‑European representation among\nmain characters than non‑comedy titles, which could reflect a greater appetite for risk in\ncommissioning comedy.\n● This cultural diversity in comedy has increased since the 2016 study, including a doubling of\nFirst Nations representation among main characters (from 4% to 8.3%).\n● The level of non‑European representation among main characters in comedy (20%) is\nsubstantially higher than in non‑comedy titles (14%).\n● Disability representation is lower among characters in the comedy genre (3.6%) compared to in\nnon‑comedy titles (8.8%).\n● LGBTIQ+ representation is also lower in comedy (6.7%) than in non‑comedy titles (7.9%).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [pages 116,117,118]\nange of topics, including what children and\n● Screen Australia’s Gender Matters 2021–22\nfamilies are watching, and representation of\nresearch (2022)\nMuslim women and women over 50\n● The Screen Actors Guild and American\n● The Center for the Study of Women in Television\nFederation of Television and Radio Artists\nand Film’s annual reports about women in the\n(SAG‑AFTRA)’s Intimacy Coordinator\nUS screen industry\nResources (US)\n● The Women in Film and Television Canada\n● Women in View, Telefilm Canada, Canada Media\nCoalition’s Deciding on Diversity: COVID‑19, risk\nFund and Ontario Media Creates’ MediaPLUS+\nand intersectional inequality in the Canadian film\nDiversity Toolkit helps industry practitioners\nand television industry (2021)\nmake more inclusive choices on and off\nscreen (Canada)\nPage 112\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- 12\nMethodology 14\nThe Control Scenario 14\nModel 1: 8 Hour Day 15\nModel 2: 9 Day Fortnight 15\nModel 3: Job-Sharing 16\nPost-Production 16\nDisclaimer 16\nFindings 17\nDiscussion 18\nModel 1: 8 Hour Day 18\nModel 2: 9 Day Fortnight 19\nModel 3: Job-Sharing 20\nConclusion & Recommendations 21\nConsiderations 22\nFinal Thoughts 23\nReferences 24\nAppendices 26\nAppendix A – Evidence of shorter work days internationally 26\nAppendix B – Budget Scenario Models 27\nAppendix C – List of roles included in the job-sharing model 37\nAppendix D – Two Approaches to the 8 Hour Day 38\nGender Maers Taskforce Table of Contents\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n- [Page 22]\nSCREEN CURRENCY 2025\nBeyond the issue created assuming that responsibility for outcomes lies with cultural or\ncreative producers of creative work, which is seen by some as adding another heavy burden\nto the sector, John Holden cautions about the impacts of relying too heavily on instrumental\nforms of value, as it:\n• can have a ‘sunflower effect’ – distorting activity to measures;\n• can lead to greater bureaucratisation generated by measurement frameworks;\n• rewards consistency / ‘sameness’, leading to risk aversion and less innovation;\n• can de-emphasise creative engagement between funders and practitioners;\n• tends to mean evidence is used primarily for advocacy rather than learning (and is\ntherefore less objective); and\n• can tend to encourage funders to become more prescriptive.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [Page 78]\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities\nWhen lived experience is undervalued: carrying the burden and reputational risk\nInterviewees highlighted that currently, the responsibility for the authenticity of a project is often\ncarried by individual practitioners on sets who have lived experience of historical exclusion, or\nwho are perceived to know about the culture or community (either by association or having an\n‘adjacent’ cultural background).\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- The work of the Doc Society\nin the UK in producing the Impact Field Guide65 was foundational to work in this area in\nAustralia, applied in their own model by the Documentary Australia Foundation,66 who seek\nsocial change by exploring social issues in high-impact documentary and outreach\ncampaigns and the work of the social impact and outreach teams at the ABC67 and SBS.68\nThe Impact Field Guide describes the impact of screen content through the lens of social\nchange:\n• Changing minds • Building communities\n• Changing behaviours • Changing structures\nThese are measured via a range of methods, including digital analytics, focus groups and\nother qualitative data along with:\n• Screening exit surveys, engagement (digital insights) to track attitudinal change\n• Web traffic, hashtag tracking, social insights to track public awareness\n• Polls, Social media metrics to track public opinion\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [Page 8]\nContents\nExecutive summary 6\nIntroduction 6\nPart 1: On‑screen diversity 7\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities 10\nPart 3: International context 13\nPart 4: Tools and resources 14\nIntroduction: Setting the scene 15\nWhat has changed since the last report?\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- [Page 25]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities\n● Findings from:\n○ consultations with 35 participants across 23 industry organisations\n○ in‑depth interviews with 28 key stakeholders including decision makers and diverse\nscreen practitioners\nPart 3: International context\n● Scan of related research findings and activity in the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand\nPart 4: Tools and resources\n● A compilation of publicly available resources\nFor more on the method and scope see:\n● How we measured on‑screen diversity\n● Appendix A: Key terms and definitions\n● Appendix B: List of titles\n● Appendix C: List of consultation and interview participants\nSafe Harbour\nPage 21\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- 116 Vancouver Asian Film Festival 2022, Diversity on Screen: Audit report of Canadian broadcasters 2022 looks at Asian and BPOC\nrepresentation in the main cast of scripted and unscripted programs broadcast April 11 to April 17 2021 by the top four national\nbroadcasters in Canada and one provincial.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- Experiences of parents and carers in\nthe Australian screen industry (2018)\n● Paramount ANZ’s Reflecting Me:\nGlobal representation on screen (2022) ● AFTRS and The Gist’s Inclusive Pathways\nFramework: For Screen Storytelling\nTalent (2016)\nInternational\n● Creative Diversity Network’s annual ● Canada’s Black Screen Office’s Being Seen:\nDiamond Reports (UK) Directives for Creating Authentic and Inclusive\nContent (2022) provides guidance to the\n● Vancouver Asian Film Festival’s Diversity\nCanadian screen sector and aims to reduce\non Screen: Audit report of Canadian\nthe burden of difficult conversations\nbroadcasters 2022\n● The UK communications regulator Ofcom\n● GLAAD’s annual Where We Are on TV reports (US)\nreports on equity, diversity and inclusion\n● Nielsen’s Being seen on screen reports (US) among TV and radio broadcasters’ workforces\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)`\n- When the UK’s ScreenSkills\n2021 survey asked, “over the next five years, what are the most significant changes that you think will\naect the screen industries?”, 47% of respondents chose “more emphasis on work-life balance” while\n40% selected “new working paerns e.g., staggered shifts or flexible working”. [14] A 2022 report by Film &\nTV Charity (UK) emphasised that “the retention problem arises from long hours of work, high pressure and\nthe diiculty of combining film and TV work with family life and work-life balance”. [15] In the same year, the\nBritish Film Institute (BFI) Skills Review included a key finding that the “adoption of flexible ways of\nworking, such as job-sharing, could help improve inclusivity, increase the talent pool, and retain skilled\ncrew”. [16]\nWith respect to flexible work for caregivers, a 2021 report from Raising Films UK found that “aspects of the\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n- [Page 21]\n21\nConclusion & Recommendations\nThe findings of this report are comparable to similar analysis undertaken in the UK by Timewise and\nBECTU, which found a production increase of 4% for the 8 hour day model, compared to the 2.3% found\nfor the 8 hour day model in this exercise. [20] Despite there being no comparable research for the other\ntwo models - 9DFN and job-sharing - at the time of writing, this modelling provides promising evidence\nthat alternative production models need not necessarily lead to significant increases in production\nbudgets or schedules.\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852)`\n\n## Corporate Values and Operating Culture\n\n- By analogy\ncultural policy now needs to start making the same transition… Innovation funding in the arts and\ncultural domain is still about picking winners; it needs to shift towards providing enabling\nconditions i.e. a healthy creative ecosystem.33\nCritical to thriving within an innovation paradigm… is the capacity to function not as a sector, but\nas a system. “The key emphasis here is the relational unit, the network, the collaboration…You\nthink about national statistical institutes, most of the data is on the firm, the family, the individual,\nor the household, not the relational unit.”34\n30 David Maggs, 2021 Art and the Work After This. p28\n31 https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/a-manifesto-for-the-creative-economy-april13.pdf p.51\n32 Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska. “Understanding the value of arts & culture.” AHRC, 2016.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- [pages 11,12]\nin is still about picking winners; it needs to shift towards providing enabling\nconditions i.e. a healthy creative ecosystem.33\nCritical to thriving within an innovation paradigm… is the capacity to function not as a sector, but\nas a system. “The key emphasis here is the relational unit, the network, the collaboration…You\nthink about national statistical institutes, most of the data is on the firm, the family, the individual,\nor the household, not the relational unit.”34\n30 David Maggs, 2021 Art and the Work After This. p28\n31 https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/a-manifesto-for-the-creative-economy-april13.pdf p.51\n32 Geoffrey Crossick and Patrycja Kaszynska. “Understanding the value of arts & culture.” AHRC, 2016.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- Its findings provide a baseline for enhancing service delivery and effectiveness.\nmini-card, small-h-img\ntrue\nsec-spacing\nsection-none\nsec-spacing-bottom\nsection-padding-between\nstyle\ndefault\nCONNECT\nWITH US\nfalse\nX\nlp-x\nhttps://x.com/wbg_gov\nSubscribe to our monthly newsletter\nWorld Bank Governance Global Department\nThe latest news, publications, and events on institutions, good governance, GovTech, open government, procurement, anticorruption, public finance, accountability & more.\nfalse\nGovernance Update|SVC123\nfalse\nTopic Expert\nArturo Herrera\nhttps://www.worldbank.org/en/about/people/a/arturo-herrera-gutierrez\ndefault alt\nDirector, Governance Global Department, World Bank\nmini-card\nmini-card\nView All Experts\nGovernance Contact\nLara Saade\nlsaade@worldbank.org\nsec-swoosh\nsec-swoosh-type11\nstyle\ngrid, bg-neutrals-20, stay-connected\nsec-spacing\nsection-none\nsec-spacing-bottom\n  Source: `global-intelligence/source-text/association-worldbank.org-governance.txt`\n- By excluding goods and service\ninputs from other industries and imports, ‘value add’ avoids double counting as it does not\ninclude the value-added from other industries.\n• Employment11: Number of people employed (using the trident methodology that includes\ncreative practitioners working in creative fields, creative workers employed in other sectors\nand non-creative workers working within creative sectors).12\nDirect Economic Measures\nTypical Direct Economic measures for screen sectors globally may include:\n• Spend on production (including: live action audiovisual content; animation; VFX and post-\nproduction; other television production; independent film production; inward film and high-\nend TV production, public service broadcasting content);\n• Direct Employment: (e.g. cast, crew, development and production staff) as well as TV\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- For the individual it may be relevance\nand resonance; for the community, different kinds of social value and connection, for the economy,\n1 https://www.gfoa.org/materials/gfr1014-defining-and-creating-value\n2 https://anzsog.edu.au/research-insights-and-resources/research/what-is-public-\nvalue/#:~:text=Public%20value%20is%20consumed%20collectively,and%20'non%2Dexcludable'.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- 3 AHRC (2021) Understanding the Value of Arts: Cultural Value Project Report\nhttps://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AHRC-291121 p.5\n2\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- 12 Statistics Working Group of the Meeting of Cultural Ministers (SWIG) (2018) Measuring the economic value of cultural and\ncreative industries p.35\n13 Screen Scotland. (2021) Economic Value of the Screen Sector in Scotland p.v\n14 Oklahoma Film and Media Office (2020) Measuring and Communicating the Economic Impact of Film and TV Production.\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n- 42\n39 Justin O’Conner (2022) Culture in Crisis https://resetartsandculture.com/wp-\ncontent/uploads/2022/02/CP3-Working-Paper-Art-Culture-and-the-Foundational-Economy-2022.pdf\np10\n40 Bakshi, (2012) Keynote speech delivered at Culture Count: Measuring Cultural Value\nForum, Customs House, Sydney, Australia, Tuesday 20th March. p2\n41 Ibid. p2\n42 Ibid cit. p1\n13\n  Source: `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)`\n\n## Global Ideas and Case Study Inputs\n\nGlobal source texts are available for later idea synthesis:\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/association-worldbank.org-governance.txt`\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/consulting-deloitte.com-government-public.txt`\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/university-ash.harvard.edu-Harvard-Kennedy-School-Ash-Center.txt`\n\n## Source Artifacts Used\n\n- `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf` - strategies - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989\n- `pages/about.html` - pages - http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/\n- `pages/contact.html` - pages - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/contact-us/\n- `pages/homepage.html` - pages - http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/\n- `pages/news-latest.html` - pages - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/news/\n- `pages/publications-index.html` - pages - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/resource-library/?filter_resource_category=data-and-insights&filter_resource_type=publications-reports&filter_resource_subject=0&filter_resource_format=0\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/association-worldbank.org-governance.txt` - global-intelligence - local file\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/consulting-deloitte.com-government-public.txt` - global-intelligence - local file\n- `global-intelligence/source-text/university-ash.harvard.edu-Harvard-Kennedy-School-Ash-Center.txt` - global-intelligence - local file\n- `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520\n- `other-pdfs/Correspondence-and-email-policy.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Correspondence-and-email-policy.pdf\n- `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862\n- `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852\n- `other-pdfs/Screen-Australia-SCREEN-CURRENCY-Request-for-Proposals.pdf` - other-pdfs - https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Australia-SCREEN-CURRENCY-Request-for-Proposals.pdf?v=1777435433\n\n## Gaps To Fix\n\n- No corporate plan text source found.\n- No annual report text source found.",
  "legislation_md": "# Screen Australia - Acts and Legislation Discovery\n\n**Generated at**: 2026-05-09T20:57:33.369288+00:00\n**Entity ID**: O-000810\n**Jurisdiction**: Commonwealth\n**Portfolio**: Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, \n\nCommunications, Sport and the Arts\n\n> This is an evidence-based discovery list from scraped department material. A mention does not always mean the department administers the legislation; high-confidence and official register links should be reviewed.\n\n## Summary\n\n- Source files scanned: 11\n- Unique legislation references found: 2\n\n| Type | Count |\n|---|---:|\n| Act | 2 |\n\n## Legislation References\n\n### Sex Discrimination Act 1984\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=Sex+Discrimination+Act+1984\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- ,\nDisability and Health Inclusion Strategies, viewed March 2023.\n224 For more, see Australian Human Rights Commission 2016, Access for all: Improving accessibility for consumers with disability.\n225 Following the definition set out in the 2013 revision of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) for gender identity and sexual orientation.\n226 This approach reflects ABS 2021, Standard for Sex, Gender, Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables, 2020.\n227 Australian Human Rights Commission 2018, Terminology, viewed March 2\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pages.jsonl`\n\n### UK Equality Act 2010\n\n**Type**: Act\n**Confidence**: low\n**Mentions**: 1\n**Register search**: https://www.legislation.gov.au/search?query=UK+Equality+Act+2010\n\n**Sources**:\n- `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pages.jsonl`\n\n**Evidence contexts**:\n- enOnScreen bullying online broadcasting within scope of the\nand harassment awareness campaign182 regulatory system and update broadcasting and\nregulatory policies to better reflect Canada’s\n● summits – for example, the 2019 The Power\ndiversity; and use of the UK Equality Act 2010\nof Inclusion Summit run by the New Zealand\nwhich drives work by the British Film Institute\nFilm Commission;183 and diversity, equity\nand Creative Diversity Network\nand inclusion summits planned by the\nUS Television Academy184\n179 Creative Diversity Network 20\n  Source: `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pages.jsonl`\n\n## Files Scanned\n\n- `pages/about.html` (page)\n- `pages/contact.html` (page)\n- `pages/homepage.html` (page)\n- `pages/news-latest.html` (page)\n- `pages/publications-index.html` (page)\n- `other-pdfs/Correspondence-and-email-policy.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Screen-Australia-SCREEN-CURRENCY-Request-for-Proposals.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)\n- `strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pages.jsonl` (pdf_pages)",
  "global_initiatives_md": "# Global Ideas Input - Screen Australia\n\nUse the source text files in this folder to produce implementable ideas for Australia.\n\nFor each idea, separate:\n- large structural reforms\n- small/cheap operational changes\n- overseas case-study evidence\n- university/research support\n- consulting/association trend support\n- implementation steps in the Australian context\n- risks, prerequisites, and likely owner\n\n## Sources\n\n- [association] World Bank Governance Global Practice - https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance - `source-text/association-worldbank.org-governance.txt`\n- [consulting] Deloitte Government and Public Services - https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/Industries/government-public.html - `source-text/consulting-deloitte.com-government-public.txt`\n- [university] Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center - https://ash.harvard.edu/ - `source-text/university-ash.harvard.edu-Harvard-Kennedy-School-Ash-Center.txt`",
  "strategy": {
    "reporting_period": "2024-25",
    "corporate_plan_period": "2025-26",
    "vision": null,
    "vision_source_page": null,
    "purposes": null,
    "purposes_source_page": null,
    "how_we_deliver": null,
    "how_we_deliver_source_page": null,
    "government_priorities": [],
    "outcomes": [],
    "values": [],
    "values_framework_name": null,
    "kpi_targets_2025_26": [],
    "kpi_results_2024_25": [],
    "_source_urls": {
      "annual_report_url": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/annual-report",
      "corporate_plan_url": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/corporate-plan"
    }
  },
  "ideas": [
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Data & Performance",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "KPI evidence register with named owners",
      "idea": "Create a simple register mapping each KPI to source data, owner, frequency, target, and last result.",
      "quote": "SWIG advise caution on the limits of these approaches)20\nOther measures that are sometimes included in Economic Impact studies include\n• Supporting training and skill building (reducing loss of talent “brain drain”) 21\n• Supporting employment in broader arts and culture sectors22\nSome attempts to measure economic impact also engage with more extended models such as the\nRIOM Regional Input Output Model – a closed model that applies the ABS transaction tables with\nemployment and demand data to model the impact of changes in demand on regional economies,\nestimating changes in output, product and Gross State product.23\nMany of these indirect impact measures are used alongside the direct economic measures to\ncalculate total Return on Investment (ROI) or multipliers (as in, every $1 spent in a given area\ngenerates $XX in Economic Impact).",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public",
      "source": "strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Data & Performance",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Outcome dashboard linking budget, delivery, and public impact",
      "idea": "Build a public-facing outcome dashboard showing spend, outputs, outcomes, and delivery confidence.",
      "quote": "SWIG advise caution on the limits of these approaches)20\nOther measures that are sometimes included in Economic Impact studies include\n• Supporting training and skill building (reducing loss of talent “brain drain”) 21\n• Supporting employment in broader arts and culture sectors22\nSome attempts to measure economic impact also engage with more extended models such as the\nRIOM Regional Input Output Model – a closed model that applies the ABS transaction tables with\nemployment and demand data to model the impact of changes in demand on regional economies,\nestimating changes in output, product and Gross State product.23\nMany of these indirect impact measures are used alongside the direct economic measures to\ncalculate total Return on Investment (ROI) or multipliers (as in, every $1 spent in a given area\ngenerates $XX in Economic Impact).",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / Parliament / public",
      "source": "strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Risk & Assurance",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Recommendation tracker for audits, reviews, and inquiries",
      "idea": "Publish a single internal tracker for audit/review recommendations, owners, due dates, and implementation evidence.",
      "quote": "16\nMeasuring and understanding diversity in Australian TV drama 18\nMethod and scope 19\nPart 1: On‑screen diversity 22\nHow we measured on‑screen diversity 24\nFirst Nations 27\nCultural background (non‑First Nations) 33\nDisability 40\nGender identity and sexual orientation 47\nOccupational and social status 52\nAge 54\nDiversity in children’s drama and comedy 56\nRegional and remote Australia 61\nDiversity of actors 62\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities 70\nThe context: an industry raising the bar 72\nLived experience and authentic storytelling 73\nWhen lived experience is undervalued: carrying the burden and reputational risk 74\nFirst Nations perspectives: rebalancing the scale 75\nThe need for diverse leadership 76\nCommissioning and financial risk 77\nSpotlight on disability 78\nPage 4",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Risk & Assurance",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Integrated assurance and lessons-learned system",
      "idea": "Create an assurance system that connects audit findings, risk registers, delivery reviews, and investment decisions.",
      "quote": "16\nMeasuring and understanding diversity in Australian TV drama 18\nMethod and scope 19\nPart 1: On‑screen diversity 22\nHow we measured on‑screen diversity 24\nFirst Nations 27\nCultural background (non‑First Nations) 33\nDisability 40\nGender identity and sexual orientation 47\nOccupational and social status 52\nAge 54\nDiversity in children’s drama and comedy 56\nRegional and remote Australia 61\nDiversity of actors 62\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities 70\nThe context: an industry raising the bar 72\nLived experience and authentic storytelling 73\nWhen lived experience is undervalued: carrying the burden and reputational risk 74\nFirst Nations perspectives: rebalancing the scale 75\nThe need for diverse leadership 76\nCommissioning and financial risk 77\nSpotlight on disability 78\nPage 4",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Executives / assurance teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Citizen Services",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Plain-language service pages and proactive status updates",
      "idea": "Rewrite high-volume pages and letters into plain language, add status notifications, and measure contact reduction.",
      "quote": "The Nielsen report highlights that the\nabsent from broadcast and under‑represented on full diversity of Asian Americans is not represented\ncable (0.9%) but were over‑represented on digital and that stereotypes remain a concern.142\nplatforms in 2020–21 (2.2%). ‘Latinx’ and ‘Asian’\nleads were under‑represented across platforms\n134 Broadcast programs: 73%; cable: 60%; digital: 62%.",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Citizen Services",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Single front door for life-event based services",
      "idea": "Bundle services around life events so citizens can complete related steps across agencies in one journey.",
      "quote": "The Nielsen report highlights that the\nabsent from broadcast and under‑represented on full diversity of Asian Americans is not represented\ncable (0.9%) but were over‑represented on digital and that stereotypes remain a concern.142\nplatforms in 2020–21 (2.2%). ‘Latinx’ and ‘Asian’\nleads were under‑represented across platforms\n134 Broadcast programs: 73%; cable: 60%; digital: 62%.",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / service users",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Regulation & Policy",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Regulatory burden scan for forms, guidance, and reporting",
      "idea": "Identify the top 10 highest-friction reporting obligations and simplify guidance, forms, or evidence requirements.",
      "quote": "The updated framework allows\ncomponents 1 and 2 to be directly comparable and also avoids the risk of double-counting\nthat was possible in the previous framework.43\nThis new approach was intended to offer a pragmatic approach to create a ‘consistent and\ntransparent’ decision-making framework, through a narrowed scope of activity (excluding, for\nexample, computer systems design and related activity, clothing and footwear\nmanufacturing, wholesaling and retailing) to ensure that the cultural and creative sector\ncould ‘see itself’ in the new measure.",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams",
      "source": "strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Regulation & Policy",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Adaptive regulation program with live feedback loops",
      "idea": "Create an adaptive regulation model using sandboxes, industry data, risk scoring, and regular rule updates.",
      "quote": "The updated framework allows\ncomponents 1 and 2 to be directly comparable and also avoids the risk of double-counting\nthat was possible in the previous framework.43\nThis new approach was intended to offer a pragmatic approach to create a ‘consistent and\ntransparent’ decision-making framework, through a narrowed scope of activity (excluding, for\nexample, computer systems design and related activity, clothing and footwear\nmanufacturing, wholesaling and retailing) to ensure that the cultural and creative sector\ncould ‘see itself’ in the new measure.",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Regulated entities / policy teams",
      "source": "strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Regulatory capture",
        "Over-automation of judgement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Citizen Participation",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Consultation feedback summaries with response tracking",
      "idea": "Summarise consultation submissions by theme and publish what changed in response.",
      "quote": "[Page 25]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities\n● Findings from:\n○ consultations with 35 participants across 23 industry organisations\n○ in‑depth interviews with 28 key stakeholders including decision makers and diverse\nscreen practitioners\nPart 3: International context\n● Scan of related research findings and activity in the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand\nPart 4: Tools and resources\n● A compilation of publicly available resources\nFor more on the method and scope see:\n● How we measured on‑screen diversity\n● Appendix A: Key terms and definitions\n● Appendix B: List of titles\n● Appendix C: List of consultation and interview participants\nSafe Harbour\nPage 21",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / stakeholders / policy teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Citizen Participation",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Always-on policy participation platform",
      "idea": "Create a standing participation platform where citizens and stakeholders can propose, vote, and track ideas.",
      "quote": "[Page 25]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nPart 2: Challenges and opportunities\n● Findings from:\n○ consultations with 35 participants across 23 industry organisations\n○ in‑depth interviews with 28 key stakeholders including decision makers and diverse\nscreen practitioners\nPart 3: International context\n● Scan of related research findings and activity in the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand\nPart 4: Tools and resources\n● A compilation of publicly available resources\nFor more on the method and scope see:\n● How we measured on‑screen diversity\n● Appendix A: Key terms and definitions\n● Appendix B: List of titles\n● Appendix C: List of consultation and interview participants\nSafe Harbour\nPage 21",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Citizens / stakeholders / policy teams",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability",
        "Digital exclusion",
        "Low public trust if feedback is not acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Procurement & Delivery",
      "scale": "small",
      "title": "Procurement lessons library for repeat purchases",
      "idea": "Capture reusable procurement clauses, market lessons, supplier performance notes, and common evaluation criteria.",
      "quote": "[Page 109]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nDisability\nIn our current study of Australian TV drama, only The UK’s Diamond project found ‘disabled people’\n6.6% of main characters were identified as disabled comprised 8.1% of lead actors in scripted TV\n– well below the population benchmark (18%). programmed in 2020–21; and 7% of all on‑screen\nDisabled character representation was lower still roles in drama; 5.9% in comedy; and 12% in\nin comedy (3.6%) and children’s programs (3.8%). children’s.160 While these results are higher\nSignificant under‑representation of disabled people than the Seeing Ourselves 2 results for disabled\non screen and in the industry is also a common actors playing main roles (3.9%), the findings\nfinding across international reports. are not comparable as the Diamond project is\nbased on a confidential survey of screen industry",
      "impact": "High",
      "effort": "Low",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Delivery teams / suppliers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Pick one high-volume process or document family.",
        "Name an owner and baseline current volume, time, cost, and satisfaction.",
        "Run a 4-8 week pilot with clear before/after metrics.",
        "Publish lessons and decide whether to scale."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    },
    {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "category": "Procurement & Delivery",
      "scale": "large",
      "title": "Portfolio delivery office for major investments",
      "idea": "Stand up a portfolio delivery office that tracks benefits, risks, dependencies, procurement, and delivery confidence.",
      "quote": "[Page 109]\nSeeing Ourselves 2 | Screen Australia\nDisability\nIn our current study of Australian TV drama, only The UK’s Diamond project found ‘disabled people’\n6.6% of main characters were identified as disabled comprised 8.1% of lead actors in scripted TV\n– well below the population benchmark (18%). programmed in 2020–21; and 7% of all on‑screen\nDisabled character representation was lower still roles in drama; 5.9% in comedy; and 12% in\nin comedy (3.6%) and children’s programs (3.8%). children’s.160 While these results are higher\nSignificant under‑representation of disabled people than the Seeing Ourselves 2 results for disabled\non screen and in the industry is also a common actors playing main roles (3.9%), the findings\nfinding across international reports. are not comparable as the Diamond project is\nbased on a confidential survey of screen industry",
      "impact": "Very High",
      "effort": "High",
      "proof": "Evidence-backed",
      "beneficiaries": "Delivery teams / suppliers",
      "source": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf (https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862)",
      "implementation": [
        "Create a senior responsible owner and cross-functional delivery team.",
        "Map legislation, data, privacy, procurement, cyber, and workforce constraints.",
        "Co-design with users and frontline staff before technology selection.",
        "Stage delivery through pilots, benefits tracking, and public reporting."
      ],
      "risks": [
        "Privacy and data quality",
        "Change fatigue",
        "Unclear accountability"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "legislation_administered": [],
  "artifacts": [
    {
      "category": "strategies",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989",
      "file": "strategies/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf",
      "bytes": 1708428,
      "link_text": "Download File : Screen Currency 2 – Methods Discussion Paper"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2025",
      "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Correspondence-and-email-policy.pdf",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Correspondence-and-email-policy.pdf",
      "bytes": 83083,
      "link_text": "Correspondence and Email policy"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Australia-SCREEN-CURRENCY-Request-for-Proposals.pdf?v=1777435433",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Screen-Australia-SCREEN-CURRENCY-Request-for-Proposals.pdf",
      "bytes": 863263,
      "link_text": "Download File : Screen Currency 2 – Request for Proposals"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2026",
      "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf?v=1777352852",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Scene-Change-Report-April-2026.pdf",
      "bytes": 3180559,
      "link_text": "Download File : Scene Change"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2024-25",
      "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf?v=1775615520",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Drama-Report-2024-25-Key-Findings.pdf",
      "bytes": 1320793,
      "link_text": "Download File : Drama Report 2024-25 Key Findings"
    },
    {
      "category": "other-pdfs",
      "year": "2025",
      "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf?v=1775615862",
      "file": "other-pdfs/Seeing-Ourselves-2-Full-Report-Accessible-PDF.pdf",
      "bytes": 9766210,
      "link_text": "Download File : Seeing Ourselves 2: Diversity, equity and inclusion in Australian TV drama"
    },
    {
      "category": "annual-reports",
      "year": "recent",
      "url": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/annual-report",
      "file": "annual-reports/recent.pdf",
      "bytes": 8454399,
      "link_text": "Annual Report"
    },
    {
      "category": "corporate-plans",
      "year": "recent",
      "url": "http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/corporate-plan",
      "file": "corporate-plans/recent.pdf",
      "bytes": 6520728,
      "link_text": "Corporate Plan"
    }
  ],
  "_meta": {
    "snapshot_built_at": "2026-05-13T11:03:03+00:00",
    "strategy_brief_meta": {
      "model": "nova-micro",
      "folder": "Screen-Australia",
      "annual_report": {
        "file": null,
        "url": "",
        "year": null
      },
      "corporate_plan": {
        "file": "strategies\\Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.txt",
        "url": "https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screen-Currency-2-Methods-Discussion-Paper.pdf?v=1776991989",
        "year": null
      },
      "usage": {
        "input_tokens": 12741,
        "output_tokens": 155,
        "total_tokens": 12896,
        "model": "nova-micro"
      },
      "cost_usd": 0.00046763500000000004,
      "elapsed_seconds": 2.11,
      "generated_at": "2026-05-13T10:33:42+00:00"
    },
    "ideas_manifest": {
      "entity_id": "O-000810",
      "entity_name": "Screen Australia",
      "folder_name": "Screen-Australia",
      "generated_at": "2026-05-09T23:05:12.701562+00:00",
      "idea_count": 12,
      "markdown": "ideas/Screen-Australia_ideas.md",
      "jsonl": "ideas/ideas.jsonl",
      "inputs": [
        "Screen-Australia_strategy-overview.md",
        "strategy-evidence.json",
        "global-intelligence/source-manifest.json"
      ]
    },
    "global_intel_meta": null
  }
}