Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

A profit-share production. We have guidelines around that as well to ensure everyone gets a fair shake of the income that is generated from those productions. Highlighting these kinds of guidelines is useful to try to keep some floor of income under the artist.

I wish to clarify my comments on freelancers. Creating the floor of rights for freelancers as employees, giving them the same rights as employees at work, is really the key answer, from my perspective. That is not to say that they should not be freelancers any more. There is huge value for many artistic people in being freelance. However, when they are in a particular engagement at a certain point in time, for that engagement the same rights should apply to them. This does not mean that they all seek permanency, because flexibility is required for people to go from production to production.

I was interested in the Chairman's comments about more structured employment generally across the arts. That is a useful conversation. I am not sure the funding model is at fault. The special purpose vehicle is probably not the best vehicle, but there are comparable examples. In the general construction industry, builders go from project to project and quite often employ people. If the builder has no work people are just laid off, and then when the builder has work people are recalled. That is not without its problems in that people may be blacklisted or not called back, but there are ways of dealing with that through collective bargaining agreements and so on. Therefore, I do not think there is a huge impediment to that discussion and I do not think the funding model needs to be turned on its head to deal with it either. It would be useful to look at comparable sectors and how one could make that work.