As this year’s election approaches it is timely to remind all political parties that there is an important sector which deserves a lot more than the usual platitudes about the importance of art and the need for coherent and visionary approaches. Hopefully everyone involved in the sector can remind their local candidate of the need for arts policy!
Background
It is hard to find any experienced artist who does not view the situation for the arts in our country as gruelling and frequently discouraging. The latest report on the income of those working in the sector (sponsored by Creative New Zealand and NZ On Air) provides evidence for that gloomy view, by reporting that the median income for creative professionals is only $19,500 per year. More than half of our creative professionals have a second job, but even then, their median income is only $37,000 compared with $61,800 which is the average figure for salary and wage earners in New Zealand. Among the groups in trouble are the 47% of music and sound artists whose income is even lower now than it was in February 2020.
But income is only one aspect of the problem. There is huge public interest and involvement in the arts, yet somehow that does not get translated into media coverage or political support. The absence of arts policies by the major parties is once again conspicuous by its absence. This year, many members of the arts community have gazed enviously at the situation in Australia where the government has done extensive planning and policy-making and provided new funding to develop the arts. When the Hon. Carmel Sepuloni, Labour’s Arts Minister, was asked (by a Stuff interviewer onAugust 20) for her view of what the Australians had done, she replied that she did not think it was time for New Zealand to attempt “any visionary roadmap” of that kind. But will that time ever come?
Progress on Policies
It appears that the only three parties have seriously bothered to promote art policies for the election — the Green Party, NZ First, and Te Pāti Māori. The Greens propose some striking initiatives, such as a guaranteed level of income for every New Zealander. They also promise “adequately resourcing work in the arts,” though they have not yet provided details.
The idea of a universal basic income has been debated in the Nordic countries since the 1970s. The Irish government recently announced a basic annual income of around $30,000 for 2,000 of its artists. It is interesting to recall that our Labour government once ran a similar scheme. In 2001 Judith Tizard, then the Associate Minister of the Arts, instituted the ‘Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment’ (PACE) scheme to assist artists on the benefit. In her words, PACE meant: ‘Now, when you go to Work and Income, you won’t be told to go and work as a dishwasher.’ By 2003 Steve Maharey could report that 1200 beneficiaries had found work using the scheme, and 2127 jobseekers were signed up for PACE. The change of government in 2008 led to the running-down of the scheme, and in 2011 it was officially discontinued. It is fondly remembered as having lent important assistance to many careers, including bands such as Black Seeds and the Phoenix Foundation, along with creative people from other arts such as fiction writer Anna Taylor and film-maker Taika Waititi. There is no longer any sign of such an initiative in Labour policy, but the Greens are obviously thinking along similar lines.
The Greens also call for a general review of arts funding policy, and for the government to provide direct support for the arts instead of relying on income from gambling. They also speak of the need for an arts education strategy. The context for that is the widespread concern in the cultural sector that arts education at every stage, from primary school to tertiary level, is currently in a situation of crisis. (https://www.greens.org.nz/arts_culture_and_heritage_policy)
New Zealand First promises strong support for the arts and cultural heritage, but its policies are expressed in a more general form (https://www.nzfirst.nz/broadcasting_arts_culture_and_heritage). There are, however, some fresh initiatives such as “funding specialist curriculum leaders to support schools to deliver on the Arts Curriculum,” and requiring international pay television streaming services to include New Zealand content. (Australia already has a requirement of that kind.)
Te Pāti Māori speaks eloquently about the value of toi (the arts). It says: “Toi Māori is our total wellbeing strategy; our mental health strategy, our physical health strategy, our Reo Māori strategy, our Educational strategy, our whakapapa strategy, our tourism strategy, our community development strategy and our cultural defence strategy and must be recognised as such.” (https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/toi_maori)
All the policies of Te Pāti Māori focus primarily on Māori creative activity rather than on the arts in general. One of the party’s policies was implemented in May this year by the Labour government – a boost of $34 million in funding over the next two years to the kapa haka festival Te Matatini, making it the country’s highest-funded arts service provider. The party’s other proposals include the establishment of a Māori funding body parallel to Creative NZ with a budget of $57 million.
ACT has nothing about the arts currently on its policy website, but it has told PressReader that it “was open to reforming bureaucratic arts funding applications, and funding for large public sector payrolls for culture agencies.” (https://www.act.org.nz/policies)
Labour has focused mainly on the video games industry, announcing that it would give it a $40 million tax rebate each year. For other areas of the cultural sector, it may feel that it can rest on its laurels, following its support for Te Matatini in May, and its $22 million “funding injection” to “the arts, culture and heritage sector” in February. That was a final instalment of the government’s Covid Recovery Programme. $10 million of that amount will be devoted to “festivals,” while the other $12 million will go to Creative NZ in the wake of the bad publicity it received last year when applications hugely exceeded available funding.
The government deserves credit for having made these increases in funding, but in policy terms they seem piecemeal, nowhere near as comprehensive or unified as the Australian government’s support for the arts. Within our cultural sector, there continues to be a widespread desire for an overall review of funding priorities. There have been a number of public controversies over funding decisions by Creative NZ and by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. And individual freelance artists, who have very insecure careers, question the fact that such a large proportion of overall funding is swallowed up by institutions (such as ballet, opera, orchestra, Te Papa, etc.). Again, while everyone agrees that diversity and access are important goals, there are different ways of defining those terms. For example, a debate about the meaning of ”diversity” should address the changing needs of a society that is both “bicultural” and “multicultural,” both urban and rural, both contemporary and traditional. It is also argued that there is too much emphasis on emerging talent when so many proven, established artists are left to struggle with the “mid-career problem.” These are just a few of many issues that suggest the need for a review.
The arts have received little attention as part of Labour’s election campaign, and that is also the case with National. The leader of neither party is showing any interest in the subject in their speeches. Within the National team, media spokesperson Melissa Lee has expressed concerns about the future of Radio NZ and TVNZ, but Simon O’Connor who is the spokesperson for Arts, Culture and Heritage keeps devoting his newsletters to his other interests – “Internal Affairs and Defence,” “cost of living, health, crime,” etc.
Of course it is still possible that Labour and National will surprise everyone with last minute announcements. But as matters stand, we expect the cultural community will once again be struck by how restricted appears to be the support or understanding of the arts among our mainstream politicians and media. In that situation, it is not surprising that so many areas of our cultural infrastructure remain fragile, able to continue functioning only through the slog and dedication of the arts community.
Our arts lobby group consists of:
Judith Darragh
Sir Roger Hall
Eve de Castro-Robinson
John Daly-Peoples
Professor Peter O’Connor
Roger Horrocks
New Zealand Arts Review 