Screen Australia appeals Lush House decision
Screen Australia is now appealing a decision that Lush House meets the documentary criteria and qualifies for a Producer Offset.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under Subscription
Screen Australia is appealing an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling that Lush House is a documentary, and qualified for a 20% Producer Offset.
Screen Australia previously ruled the series as infotainment program but producers Essential Media claimed similar programmes, including SBS series Is Your House Killing You? and ABC’s Stress Buster had previously met the criteria.
The series, presented by cleaning guru Shannon Lush, airs on the LifeStyle Channel.
“This is the first case concerning the definition of documentary and we believe it is important to differentiate between documentary and lifestyle/infotainment programming. For this reason it is necessary to appeal the AAT decision,” said Screen Australia’s Chief Executive Officer, Ruth Harley.
The matter now proceeds to the Federal Court of Australia.
Screen Australia will contribute to the legal costs of Essential Media in the appeal.
Share
- Tagged with Is Your House Killing You?, Lush House, Stress Buster
4 Responses
@ Colin – I would like to point out the Screen Australia “Enterprise” scheme is not a grant – it is a loan and the “successful” applicants all now need to start paying back these loans. This legal action and subsequent challenge will be consuming Essential Media’s time and money, distracting them from doing the activities that generate income. I think it’s time we all started calling for Ruth Harley to resign. Enough is way beyond enough. Please go back to NZ.
It’s worse than that, Andrew.
it looks like Screen Australia gave $1M to the production company under its ‘Enterprise’ scheme – they were one of the production companies given a large grant so that they could become more commercial.
Now Screen Australia is spending hundreds of thousands to flog its own idea of what should or shouldn’t count as a documentary. And to make sure it’s not too commercial.
It’s attacking the definition that has been used for tv quotas for decades. No explanation for why, or what it will save by doing that, or what harm would happen if it accepted the judgment of the tribunal.
The government should be concerned about the level of judgment of the board, and the board should be concerned about the quality of its advice.
Screen Australia and the production company should hang their head in shame for producing appalling television, rather than squabbling about who get’s pays for it. Shannon Lush looked like she was sedated for most of it. Surely the question that needs to be answered isn’t what it is but why it was?
so Screen Australia (i.e. taxpayers) are now paying for both sides of the argument? I suppose there is a point to doing so because at least it draws a line in the sand for future reference but just seems this show is costing taxpayers enough money (and Foxtel subscribers also subsidising it) and, really, who’s watching it?