Synopsis: Dean argues that given there is to be government funding for the creative arts (an essential), then it should be distributed in such a way as to promote both the creation and the presentation of art works equitably. He develops a detailed argument based on population distributions and numbers of active artists, concluding that approximately 68% of total Australian government subsidy for the creative arts should go to the presentation of works originated before 1950; 23% to presentation of post-1950 works (which would include c. 2.3% for the presentation of new Australian work); and 9% towards the creation (composition, writing etc) of new work. Presently the latter two components seem to be substantially underfunded. Funding should be based on a single competitive pool, with a uniform demand for quality of work, and in most cases also for innovation and Australian content. An essential feature of the funding distribution would be that the availability in different areas of activity should change with time, representing in part the degree to which they consume the attention of Australian creative artists. Thus for example, the development of a new creative field (such as computer music in the 1950s), inevitably creates a requirement for a change of distribution; and similarly, fields may cease to attract many creative workers, and hence their need for subsidy can be reduced (e.g. opera), while preserving funding towards the presentation of a repertoire of older works in the field.