Peter Fischer - Wednesday, October 11, 2017


More and more artists are required to have public liability insurance cover and some are still not covered. If you have any artists that are looking for PLI we have a couple that we can note.


Our History

Duck for Cover is a not-for-profit association that was incorporated in October 1998 by a small group of performers who were finding the cost of arranging individual public liability prohibitive. They got together, got a policy and Duck for Cover was born.

From these beginnings, we have grown to a performer organization with over 11,000 members and we continue to grow. As we do, we are in an even better position to source the best possible policies for our members.

We're really proud of what we've managed to create and sustain for Australian performers over the years, and happy that a positive relationship with our broker, Steadfast IRS Pty Ltd (formerly IC Frith Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd) and underwriting insurer (Allianz) means we can continue to support performers with great, low cost insurance options. In addition to the Public Liability policy, we are now able to offer our members Personal Accident cover, Equipment cover and Professional Indemnity cover.

How does it work for you?

We are not insurance underwriters or brokers; we appoint a broker who finds the policy for us. You do not buy a policy from Duck. You join Duck for Cover as a member and are then covered under the policy we hold on behalf of all the Duck for Cover members. It is overseen by a volunteer committee who meet a few times a year, and managed by an administrator and office staff. That is the way we keep the costs down for you.

Duck for Cover is not an Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensee or a related body corporate of an AFS licensee or a representative of an AFS licensee.

We do not act on behalf of, nor receive any commissions or payments from, any broker, insurer or any financial service provider.

The administration fee included in your payment is the only income Duck for Cover receives. We use this to administer the association under the rules and laws of the Associations Act in Victoria where we are registered.



DanceSurance as it is now known started in 1970, when several of Australia’s leading Dance Studio principals approached Dennis Foley, a prominent Amateur champion who by profession was an insurance broker, asking him if he knew of any insurance facility which provided insurance for dance, particularly Public Liability, which would cover their needs at reasonable prices, not what insurance companies were prepared to offer, at their very high premiums.

Dennis, the son of former Australian champions Charles and Shirley Foley who also had a leading Melbourne studio, had been raised in the dance industry, quickly established that providers simply didn’t understand the dance industry and that was why their covers were inappropriate and premiums so expensive.

Accordingly as he was uniquely experienced and qualified in both industries, and had a long term interest in them, he decided to draft a suitable Public Liability policy, and then after sourcing a secure underwriter who was prepared to write cover at more appropriate rates (on a trial basis), and offered it to all who were interested.

The membership grew rapidly, and the cover has continually been improved and broadened to include many Performing Arts activities. Similar policies for other classes of business such as Student Accident, Business (Fire, Burglary, Glass, Money, etc.), Freelance Contractors Liability & Personal Accident Cover, etc. were also established.

Our team at DanceSurance are uniquely qualified, experienced and have a passionate desire to continue to give our clients the absolute best possible service, covers and premiums; and our clients positive feedback and referrals together with the support of our approved Lloyd’s Underwriters by way of continuously very competitive rates and claims service, continues to strengthen our market position as Australia’s Dance & Performing Arts Insurance experts. 


Peter Fischer - Wednesday, October 11, 2017

As agents we all have the challenge with artists not informing us of their correct GST status. Some charge GST and don’t put it on their quotes.

Some quote a price and state that it is GST inclusive. When we ring them and ask if they are GST registered and lodge a BAS statement, they say no.

After all this time many artists still need to be educated about GST.

What is the agent's responsibility??

Some may say it is the responsibility of the artist (supplier). The ATO expects agents to check the artists ABN number for validity and here we would find out if they are GST registered

Good thing to do is send out an email to all your artists and ask for their GST status - whether they are GST registered or not. Being entertainers, not all will reply and so you may need to do some individual checks as well.

We need to do whatever it takes to allow the booking process to run smoothly and not waste our time.

When GST registered acts quote a price, it must be GST inclusive. This is Law. As agents we must also quote prices inclusive of GST where applicable.

Eg: Our price will be $1.045 ($950+GST).

AEAA Helps Circus OZ Go Bush

Craig Reardon - Tuesday, April 26, 2016

The AEAA is continuing it's efforts to support live Australian talent by financially supporting another great performance initiative. Circus Oz approached the AEAA for financial assistance in doing gigs and workshops in indigenous communities from Arnim Land to the Central Coast and from Palm Island to the Pilbra.

They perform in local halls or under the vast Australian sky, and work with the local kids who blow them away with amazing tricks. You may also like to help by clicking on Circus Oz Goes Bush to make an donation.

Circus Oz has the talent and show - the only thing missing are funds to make it possible! This is where the AEAA stepped in with a $1000.00 to help make it all hapen.Circus Oz's dream is to make sure that the most diverse audience possible is brought together to gasp, clap and cheer the raucous hilarity of Circus Oz – if remote communities can’t come to them, they, with the support of the AEAA and others, can go to the remote communities.

AEAA Supports the Choir of Hard Knocks, now known as the Choir of Hope and Inspiration

Craig Reardon - Saturday, December 20, 2014

On 13/12/2014, at the Hope and Inspirations Christmas concert ant the Melbourne Town Hall, the President of the Australian Entertainment Agents Association, Jo Muldoon, presented a donation cheque for $1000.00 to the Choir of Hard Knocks, now known as the Choir of Hope and Inspiration. The cheques was gratefully received by Jonathon Welsh, founder of the choir.

The Choir of Hope and Inspiration is a choir consisting of homeless and disadvantaged people formed in Melbourne, Australia

AEAA actively encourages and financially supports new talent

Craig Reardon - Tuesday, October 12, 2010

At a recent meeting of the Australian Entertainment Agents Association Inc. it was decided to spend $3000 supporting young artists at the Melbourne Fringe Festival by sponsoring two of the awards.

These were the:

1. Australian Entertainment Agents Association award for innovation in Circus

2. Australian Entertainment Agents Association award for innovation in Music

For their generous support the AEAA will gain:

1. A listing on the Awards page of the 2010 Melbourne Fringe Festival Guide (70 000 copies distributed in Melbourne, Victoria and at select spots throughout Australia.

2. Logo placement at the popular Awards Night, the closing night of the Festival (audience of 500+, comprising artists, industry and media).

3. Our President Kevin Kosky had an opportunity to make a short statement relating to the goals of our organisation and present the Award to the Winner at the awards night Awards Night on Sat 9th Oct 2010. See photo above with AEAA President Mr Kevin Kosky centre.

Photo courtesy of Katie Harmsworth, Melbourne Fringe 2010.


Claiming agents Commission as an expense

Craig Reardon - Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Recently our Association was sent this following article by James Johnson, a lawyer who asked if we would be interested in publishing the article on our website.

The article discusses the possibility that some agent commissions paid by entertainers are not tax deductible. This certainly raised some interest and the article is worth reading for entertainers and agents.

Spriggs v Riddell – The Application to the Entertainment Inudustry

A landmark case has provided that professional athletes who pay fees to agents for negotiating their contracts can claim these fees as tax deductions. Given that the entertainment and sports are so closely related, it is without doubt that the principles provided in this case extend and are applicable to the entertainment industry.

Spriggs is a former professional Australia Football League (“AFL”) player. Riddell is a former professional National Rugby League (“NRL”) player. Both players had similar contracts with their respective agents.

Importantly, the contracts provided that a percentage of both their payment received from playing and sponsors was to be paid to their respective agents. Spriggs in 2004, and Riddell in 2005, received invoices from their respective agents for negotiating their contracts. Upon receiving these invoices, both players claimed these expenses as tax deductible.

The Commissioner of Taxation (“FCT”) prohibited the players from claiming fees paid to agents in respect of negotiating contracts. The players appealed this decision to the High Court of Australia (“the Court”), claiming that the fees were tax deductible.

The Court considered the following sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (“ITAA”):

Section 8-1

(1) You can deduct from your assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent that:

(a) it is incurred in gaining or producing your assessable income; or

(b) it is necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing your assessable income.

(2) However, you cannot deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent that:

(a) it is a loss or outgoing of capital, or of a capital nature.

The issue before the Court was whether the fees paid to agents in respect of negotiating contracts were incurred in the course of earning income. In other words, were the fees paid for ‘getting work’ or were they paid for ‘doing work’?

The FCT argued that the players’ expenses were not incurred in the course of earning their income, because they were incurred in getting new playing contracts. The FCT raised a case of similar facts, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena (“Maddalena”).

Maddalena was a semi-professional rugby league player who attempted to claim travel and legal expenses associated with obtaining a new playing contract. The FCT claimed that these expenses were not deductible.

In this case, the court held that Maddalena was not able to deduct these expenses, because they were not incurred in producing income or conducting a business, therefore, they were of capital nature which is not deductible under the s.8-1(2)(a) of the ITAA.

Spriggs and Riddell argued that Maddalena should be distinguished from their case in that Maddalena’s fees were not incurred in the course of earning income, because Maddalena was a semi-professional athlete and therefore, was not conducting himself in a business-like manner. Spriggs and Riddell further argued that they were professional athletes competing in professional leagues.

The HCA agreed with Spriggs and Riddell’s arguments that Maddalena should not be used as a precedent due to the fact that they were engaged in modern day professional sport, which is a business, as opposed to 1970 semi-professional sport, which was not a business for the purposes of the ITAA.

The HCA then proceeded to assess whether the fees paid to agents in respect of negotiating contracts were incurred in the course of earning income. The HCA unanimously held that the fees were incurred in the course of earning income, because each of the players had been engaged in a business for several years, by playing professional sport,before the fees were incurred.

This means that fees paid to agents by professional athletes for negotiating contracts are tax deductible if the expense is incurred in the course of earning income. In this case, Spriggs and Riddell incurred fees in the course of earning income, because they had already played for several years in a professional sport league.

Similar to athletes, entertainers who conduct themselves in a business-like manner will benefit from this case as they will be able to claim as tax deductible fees paid to agents for negotiating contracts.

There are several issues that this case leaves open, including:

- 2 -Spriggs v Riddell (AEAA).doc

1. It seems that a first-year professional athlete, or an entertainer not already engaged in the entertainment industry professionally, could not claim as tax deductible fees incurred for agents negotiating their playing contracts. This is because neither the athlete nor the entertainer would have been previously engaged in their respective industry professionally, therefore, the expense would not be considered to have been incurred in the course of earning income.

2. Agents are generally limited in the amount that they can charge for their services. Generally, the amount chargeable must be ‘reasonable’. A reasonable amount in pro-soccer, for example, is no more than 10%. Since the scope of what agent fees are claimable has been extended in this case, will this increase what quantifies a reasonable amount? In other words, can agents now charge more?

Authored by James Johnson, Lawyer

Payment terms for performers

Craig Reardon - Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Update of question asked by performer on 14.10.08

Hi , My name is Stuart. I am trying to find out if there are any guidelines about payment times from Booking agents as I am
currently waiting up to 2 months for payment of gig money and having to ring and chase it up all the time, there has also been at least one case and I suspect more of the agent taking more than their share of the money. The agent is not a member of your association so you may not be able to help me but any info would be appreciated.
Kind Regards

Hi Stuart

Thank you for your enquiry.

An agent's role is often to collect your money from the client. If the client has not paid the agent it is hardly the agents fault, unless they have not done a professional job on your behalf in trying to collect your money.

Members on our association are bound by our Code of Ethics and Guidelines to forward on any money they collect on your behalf, immediately to you. They are also bound to disclose to you, prior to you performing the gig, what the break-up of commissions/fees payable are. Could I suggest you encourage this agent to apply to be a member of our association or only deal with agents who are.

My guess is that your "Agent " isn't really an agent but a "promoter" who phones you up and offers you a fee for a gig. He or she then on sells your services to a client for what every he can get in the same way a retailer sells a lounge suite. This is still a valid model to run an entertainment business but the entity is not acting as a agency. An agent must by acting primarily on your behalf and by law you need to know what the fee the client is paying for your services.

Re an agent possibly taking "more than their share of the money". An agent needs to be honest and up from about their percentage commission prior to you accepting the gig. Our association has a recommended guideline of 15% commission. When an agent offers you a future gig you may in like to ask what percentage of your fee goes to him, then decide if you want the gig or not. He or she maybe well prepared to negotiate their cut to secure your services. Don't under estimate a performers power. If an agency has no performers they have no agency.

I hope this is of help.

Brian Moran
Australian Entertainment Agents Association Inc.
Ph 61 3 9441 0661

Neglecting to state whether GST is included in quote

Craig Reardon - Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Update 12.8.08

The following discussion paper relates to Acts and agents,' forgetting' to say "plus gst" when they quote on an act they represent. We welcome your comments.

Dear Member Agents
Below I have outlined a scenario which began in my office and I felt needed some input from other seasoned agents and possibly a clarification or ruling by our AEAA.
I welcome your comments and input but please don't be offended if I don't reply personally in the same detail that I have with Cathy Dean as outlined below. You would most likely say I have said enough anyway. The meeting on this Tuesday night would also be a great forum for us to discuss this issue.
First of 3 examples in 2 days:
1. I recently offered an act a gig as another act had pulled out due to illness. This new band told me the best they could do the job for was $1500, very close to the other fee, so I proceeded to lock it in by dropping my commission a little so the original fee to the client did not change. The client then wanted some extras and wanted to know the costs of these. All was going well with emails back and fourth with this great act, until I received this email from the band.
"Hi Brian, I’ve contacted the keyboardist and for an extra set the cost will be $70. (On top of our performance fee of $1500 which is not including the GST)"
Fine, I took it on the chin, the client had a tight budget and I knew would not come at the extra 10%, I had to find another band. And as some of you would say, I should have said to them in the first place "the $1500 has to include 'any chargable' GST". Well, this got me thinking. Was this really my responsibility?
Then the following email arrived after I informed them that I could not just go back to the client with the 10% increase as their budget was too tight
"Hi Brian, Firstly I was wrong to assume that the GST wasn’t included. In my experience, given it is a corporate function and that it is invoiced through an agency, GST has always been added on top of the quoted figure...................."
I've heard this before and quickly realized the confusion and misunderstanding I feel exists in our industry in this pricing area.
Example No. 2 Then that evening I needed a price on a well known artist for a country gig. "$5000" I was confidently told by the manager "and that includes travel." I waited, nothing else was forthcoming. Should I just add on my $500-600 on the top and quote this too my client, no, I knew better, so I asked if this included the GST. "Oh no" he said," that's extra." He's just broken the law but I'm the one feeling a bit silly for expecting it to be any other way!
Example No. 3 I wont go into it here but almost the same as the above example happened as I went to book a well know vocal harmony group the next day.
So I felt I needed to raise the issue and suggest the AEAA may be in a perfect position to suggest a constructive guideline to help clarify that appears to me to be a confusing area when viewedclosely.
I feel our industry is out of step with generally accepted community standards and the law in this area. I'm interested to know if others share my concern.
My fist step was to use my trusted colleagues, AEAA president Kevin Kosky and Treasurer Cathy Dean as my sounding board and sent off the following email to both for their valued opinions.
Brian Moran
Australian Entertainment Agents Association Inc.
Ph 61 3 9441 0661
Hi Cathy and Kevin
As I was in the middle of responding to an email from an act that quoted me a figure and did not mention the GST was not included, it dawned on me that this issue is worth discussing and maybe taking further with our members.
I think the practice reflects badly on our industry and our code of ethics should address this.
You will get an idea of the situation from the emails below. What annoys me most is her line, which I have heard many times. "In my experience, given it is a corporate function and that it is invoiced through an agency, GST has always been added on top of the quoted figure." The inference here is almost " your industry expects us to quote without GST as they add the 10% onto our quote." When it has gone this far I think we need to look at educating the acts, or it maybe another agent quoting us a price, and raise it with members.
Why does our industry flout the law when quoting when few others do. You see if you can find a car advertised without the GST included, or a new house, a Coke or a new laptop.
To save the confusion our government enacted very clear legislation to cover this but in our industry nobody seems to follow it.
I put this down or a couple of possible reasons:
1. Almost all our quotes are phone based and whoever is quoting feels $5000 might get us a over the line a little easier than $5500. If we had to put it in writing we would have to be a little more careful and the client could quite legally enforce the $5000 figure if we had not added "+GST"
2. Gst registered acts have a few more non gst registered competitors than most other industries, this drives them up the wall when they may be quoting against such acts, so they conveniently don't mention it when trying to get the job, and hope the client will not mind finding out later and hope that the line "you can claim the GST back anyway" will save their skin. A bit of a rough way to run a business, be it an agency or a band.
I think the practice reflects badly on our industry and our code of ethics should address it.
Am I expecting too much to try to bring about a change in this area?
Kevin responds with:

Hi Brian

I agree with you completely on this issue and from my understanding of the gst in general, the complete figure needs to be quoted including gst. Otherwise how would the client know what they are paying.

Then the fun starts

Cathy responds in black below, I respond to her in blue, she responds to this in greenand then I to her in red.

It gets a bit drawn out and you don't have to read it all. However it highlights many of the situation and issues involved and maybe helpful for some who want to have a say on the issue. The highlighted bit are worth noting I feel. (there again I've only highlighted my bits, sorry Cathy)

Hi Brian,
I don't really have this problem as when quoting I always, always say the figure and then say if there is gst included or not ... i.e. $500 no gst or $500 plus gst. This is because I work with as many people who are gst registered as are not. No problems or confusions encountered because it's so clear as to what's involved. (It's not you I'm worried about Cathy, its the clowns that quote you and me sometimes. You say here "no problems", but as I read on I did notice a few problems !- yes but altogether different to the problem you're having and could occur under either system. No, I think it is exactly the problem I'm concerned about, ) Because I work this way when a performer gives me a quote I will assume that there needs to be gst added .... I never, ever assume gst to be included no matter what goes on in other industries because it can't be assumed in this industry(this is exactly what I want to address) because of the two different groups of performers clearly working the industry ...those that are gst registered and those that are not. So assuming gst is included or not an option in this office. We take the base figure and then add the gst if needs be What you are really saying here is "I know the performers will quote me without the GST, I make allowance for there naivety and ignorance, and I work around it." I'm suggesting the AEAA has a ruling that brings anybody quoting into line with the law, and the industry will quickly change, especially if the ruling confirms that their fee should be literally what they quote and not the 10% extra they 'forgot' or neglected to tell you about. I would even argue if acts quoted their prices to you in the way the law states, you don't even need to know if they are GST registered or not at the quotation stage. You add on your commission to the figure they give you and quote the client. You could add "inclusive of any chargeable GST" but even that is not necessary, as the law clearly states that any figures quoted without the words "+GST" must include any gst in the figure.
And that responsibility lies with agents too as they quote to clients so if the agents want to cover their butts then make sure they know and declare the gst status of the performer ... yell at the performer all you like for not doing so but they will have declared to the agent at least once upon the start of any work with that agent and that should be recorded and be known by the agent and if not ... then the aforementioned ... cover your butt and double check with the performer.
No, If an agent or act tells me their fee is $5000, I should be able to just add my $600 commission on and quote the client $5600, that is all I need to say. (None of this '+gst' or 'Gst is not included', keep it simple like the Check out Chick in Coles. Do you ask the Check out Chick if the $87.49 includes the GST before you pay?If my client asks I say, "of course, that fee is inclusive of any GST, I always quote my figures inclusive of any gst that is chargeable" Why would you even suggest the possibility of splitting the fee into two parts . If there is gst chargeable, there is no way they can engage the act without paying the Gst so why separate it. Almost nobody else does it so why should we. Only when I go to write up the paperwork/invoicing do I need to document it and what the GST actually is for there BAS statement.
Working like this would mean that if a new the act was gst registered and they gave me a quote then I would add the gst automatically, not assume the gst was included. I have received quotes from acts that have included the gst but not many. Most say the figure plus gst ... if they don't stipulate and I know they're gst registered then I'd add it ... if I wasn't sure of their status then I'd find out and then add the gst or not.
I'm complaining about all this extra checking we should not be responsible for. The whole reason for the legislation is to save this confusion and the re checking we have to do. If we all took the acts on their word and by the letter of the law, they ended up with 10% less on the first one or two jobs, they would very quickly fall into line with the rest of the community on this one. If we treat our acts like they don't have to really understand their responsibilities and just continue to make allowances for their ignorance of the law, I feel it is demeaning of them and we are not acting in their best interest.
Yes, yes, yes ... but you SHOULD KNOW without checking from your first encounter with them. They would complain about having to keep telling you. No, strongly disagree. Tom the stilt walker tells me two years ago he was registered to collect GST. I phone him today and ask if he wants a 1 hour gig for $270. He says yes. He has to take responsibility for agreeing to a figure that must include GST because I never said $270 +GST. I'm not expected to know what may or may not happened to his registration over the last two years
If our Association sent out an informative and education bulletin stating the correct quoting guidelines, and make it one of our our web site's Performers Guidelines, think of the PR, kudos and credibility it bestows on the AEAA. Yes I agree ... but there is not only one correct way.
I think there is, and our Association should take leadership in establishing and recommending the best practice procedure. The association should investigate by consulting with all members of our industry and determine the least confusing and most accurate way of quoting and recommend this to be standard procedure in our industry.
I don't want to pre-empt such a finding but my hunch is it will be to stick with the letter of the law. If some other agent, manager or act is silly enough to quote me $5000 for an act and I proceed and book it in exactly for what he/she quoted me then our association's ruling will have predetermined he/she is unethical or negligent and needs to take responsible for his/her negligence, rather than ask me to phone my client and talk them into paying the extra 10% he forgot or neglected to include in the first place, on the premise that "the client will get it he GST back anyway" If the associations ruling backs this up this person will only make the same mistake once and not come back to me saying "In my experience, given it is a corporate function and that it is invoiced through an agency, GST has always been added on top of the quoted figure." which is the line that started all this rainbow coloured emailing. And it is not the first time I have heard this line.
If there was an error and the gst was not added and I had to go back to the client and explain the situation then that's what I'd do. I wont. If I have quoted the client a fee on behalf of the performer, I need a better reason than " the performer misquoted me" to even consider going back to the client with a variation after he/she has accepted the quote.That's you not taking responsibility for your part in the quoting process .... and it's not a big deal anyway .. don't quite understand your reticence ... it wouldn't be a common occurrence. I don't see it as my responsibility to have to check if the figure the band has given me is correct, it is their responsibility. And I'm saying it is common. I reckon if I asked ten GST registered acts tomorrow what their fee was for NYE, at least 3 would flout the law but saying the fee they want to clear is $XXX and make no mention of the GST but expect me to know that I should add it on. Unless the client is non gst registered themselves then it doesn't make any difference to them and over the past 8 years of the gst, when this has occurred, (ah, so you have had the problem! Never happened ... just a scenario)(It either occurred or it didn't!) not one gst registered client has been bothered (well, they didn't saythey were anyway ... no you are quite correct but all I can say is what I've perceived from my personal encounters. But they're all grown up and I'd assume they'd say so) I wish some of my clients were all grown up! because they do claim the amount back. And what about the other 50% of our clients who are private and cannot claim it back, stiff luck, is that what we tell them? Because I work the way I do, I can only say to you that I do not have the problems you're suffering and can categorically swear to you that no non-gst registered client has suffered as a result of my wayward and seemingly crazy way of operating. I think this speaks for itself. As wayward and as crazy as your ways may seem I still come to you as my sounding board due to the high respect you are held with in our industry. I know you would not sleep at night if some private client felt aggrieved by having to have the quote revised upward, nor am I overrun with this issue on a daily basis but I feel a standard should be set It's just a bit more paperwork for us to remedy. And we've had to do this for not only the reason of error but also because there have been several performers who mid financial year have changed their tax status. So we've need to reapproach the client with the problem and it's only ever been a short note of explanation and a reissuing of the invoice. No tears involved at all.
I really don't think it's an ethical issue (I think it is when other agents quote me $5000 and don't add on the GST. It happens all the time from some agents and it is unethical and illegal and they should know better if they are professional and AEAA members, is my view) So the agents are the culprits more than the performers?? Definitely, that is what I am saying and we are even training our performers to go the same incorrect way. ... don't you think that when I've quoted you that you have always known precisely what the gst story is? Because of how I do it?....No, I've go to write down two figures each time then add them up, bloody annoying, and one of the first times I used Chris on Nye's I some how didn't note down the GST component and quoted my client without it (or you or Red did not tell me) and I've been making about half my normal commission on this repeat job ever since as the client will not accept an increase larger than CPI. it's a practical issue which revolves around the clarity of quoting. I think what Melissa was saying was that she's come across a lot of people who work like me (I know, that 's my whole point, and it's this culture, we as an association, have a responsibility to offer some constructive guidelines to the industry yep ... constructive being the operative word ... who is having the least problems under which system?) You don't have problems because you are so well organized and take a personal interest in, and detailed record of, the GST status of all your acts. Its the other 10,000 agents, managers, individual artist, some who don't even know what GST registered is, that concerns me. It's them, and us they quote to, who would benefit from a definitive guideline from the AEAA. so that when she gave you the quote she assumed you would add the gst whereas you assumed the gst was included. So not an ethical problem I wouldn't think ... more miscommunication. Unless I don't get it. (Ok, so how can we, as a responsible industry Association help fix this miscommunication problem then?) Quote including the gst status of the act like I do already.... eg. $500 no gst or $500 plus gst. It works. But why not just $500 like most other industries do? Don't complicate the issue. If the client wants to know the GST situation let them ask and give them the honest answer.
What I have a problem with is bloody performers sending me invoices .... I can't tell you how many times I've delivered the 'agents position on this as ratified by the ATO speech' ... and to make it worse, some non gst performers send me tax invoices ... double wrong. Sigh ... after all this time.
Hope this helps ... sorry if it doesn't. Thanks heaps, all part of the process. Do you mind if I send your email (with my comments) to all other agents to gains a consensus of views.Nup Thanks
The more I discuss all this the more I am convinced that it would be so much simpler if the AEAA recommend all quoting be a set fee and ignored the "+gst" option. The plus"+gst" option is an encouragement for the agents and acts to, accidentally or conveniently, forget to mention it
regards Cathy
Cathys Clowns Entertainment Consultancy
PO Box 842, Panton Hill, Vic 3759
T: 03 9719 7395
F: 03 9719 7735

Vale Dennis Farrington

Craig Reardon - Friday, June 22, 2007
Dear friends in the music industry
I was saddened to hear of the passing of Dennis Farrington who was a well know band leader, identity, and legend in the music industry for so many years. He was 87 years young and greatly respected by those who dealt with him, including myself. He was a gentleman in the true sense of the word and will be greatly missed, especially by the hundreds of musicians who turned up over the years to play in a 'Dennis Farrington Band' at some gala event at a town hall in Victoria.

Thank you Dennis for your remarkable contribution to the Australian live music industry.

Fortunately he was interviewed and recorded by Bill Stephens at the National Library of Australia last year and an abstract of that recording is listed below:

Denis Farrington born 1920 in Tallangatta, Vic., talks about his family background; his siblings; growing up on a dairy farm; his schooldays; his swimming career; training for the Olympics; his career as a barber; Harry Motherson; his interest in music; playing in a brass band; selling records; being selected to represent the State of Victoria at the Berlin Olympics; his swimming skills; how the outbreak of war affected his swimming career; training in fitting, turning and welding while continuing work as a barber; football, cycling; moving to Richmond; commencing his music career; his first band, 'The Blue Moon Orchestra'; finding engagements for his orchestra during the depression; a typical routine for the orchestra; the source of his band arrangement; how the first vocalist sang with a megaphone; demonstrates with a snippet of song; dance styles in vogue at the time; maintaining 'The Blue Moon Orchestra'; sourcing musicians.

Farrington discusses his reasons for not pursuing a career in recording and broadcasting; how he became an employer of musicians; deputising at the Tivoli; sourcing musicians to work in television in the early days; working two jobs; playing at Government House; routine for musicians playing at Government House; protocol when playing at Government House; popular dance repertoire; supporting charities; obtaining sheet music and orchestrations; his favourite musicians and their attributes; Bob Gibson; Jimmy Burke; Kenny Weate; Max Reddy; Stella Lamond; Toni Lamond; Helen Reddy; working several Dennis Farrington Orchestras on the same night; a brush with gangsters; meeting Pat Lewis in 1972; dress codes and presentation; musicians and alcohol; his children and grandchildren; his O.A.M; his life governorship of Royal Melbourne Hospital.

Vale Dennis.

from Brian Moran, Vice President

Victoria Rocks Announcement

Craig Reardon - Tuesday, May 01, 2007
As part of the 2007-08 state budget, Victorian Minister for the Arts Lynne Kosky today announced Victoria Rocks, a Bracks Government election commitment as part of the Creative Capacity + policy, designed to support the growth and viability of the state's local music industry.

The commitment will draw together expertise from three areas of government, - Arts Victoria, Office for Youth and Tourism Victorian - to support pathways for young people and professional musicians at different stages of career development. The sector's creativity and potential for growth will also be supported by strengthening its position in the local and international contexts.

The package builds on the earlier initiative Music for the Future, which was managed by Arts Victoria until it's conclusion in 2005, and enables continuation of the FreeZACentral program managed by the Office for Youth. Also, it introduces several new elements to strengthen links between music and industry development including campaign delivery by Tourism Victoria to promote Melbourne as the nation's capital for live contemporary music.

Extensive consultation with musicians and key music industry representatives has already commenced to ensure the package to meets the current and future needs music community.

Further details including the application criteria and closing dates for the first round of funding will be announced in early July 2007.

Please see media release attached:


Jonathan Williamson
Senior Arts Officer - Victoria Rocks