Arts policies

From the viewpoint of the arts community, the National Party's announcement this week that, if able to form a government this year, it will maintain "current levels" of arts funding will be a cause of both reassurance and concern.

Those involved in the arts, culture generally, and the heritage sector have been concerned that a National-led government would take an axe to arts funding so as to provide funds for its more popular and voter-friendly policies, such as tax cuts.

And at first glance, the statement by National's spokesman, Chris Findlayson, that funding will be maintained - "It is essential we continue to support creative Kiwis and our creative sector" - is helpful. But, as usual, the devil is in the detail, and the detail is not at all so reassuring.

Mr Findlayson talked of "intelligent intervention" as being the basis of National's approach to the arts.

If that means, in part, a greater reliance on private donations as a substitute for a degree of state funding, there will doubtless be an outcry given economic conditions.

He said his party "has advocated policies to foster the culture of giving through charities tax changes and community group funding", which, while it might be consistent with a "free enterprise" approach, seems to add some reinforcement to concerns being expressed in the sector.

More worryingly, it seems clear from the statement that the party will not be maintaining arts funding in real terms, which, at a time when inflation is reaching levels unmatched for a decade or more and a recession clearly developing, rather undermines the positive "spin" given to the policy.

Mr Findlayson has pledged to retain the Music Commission and NZ On Air, and expects more opportunities for arts, culture and heritage-related programming on free-to-air television, without saying what circumstances will change to make this a likelihood, given TVNZ's contemptible approach to this broad subject to date.

The Large Budget Screen Production Grant and the Screen Production Investment Fund will be retained, and the party will support "practical changes" in the Copyright Act and the Film Commission Act.

But there was no indication of any new projects National might propose; rather, the focus is on a close examination of the culture bureaucracy, including the "reform" of the Arts Council, another "update" of the Historic Places Act, and a requirement for "all state funding agencies to be far more focused on artists and their needs", whatever that might actually mean.

Mr Findlayson and his colleagues ought - but will not - look to the Prime Minister's campaign opening address in 1999, when she set out Labour's policy programme: "Art and culture express the heart of our nation.

They will play a huge part in the 21st century in expressing our identity as a dynamic, vibrant, innovative nation which has so much to offer the world."

Those sentiments have seen much practical realisation since, and no serious advocate of culture could disagree that increased state funding has been an important stimulant.

But it is also instructive to recall the Clark Government's 2001 "arts recovery package", and what that actually meant in practical terms.

While very welcome to the arts community, and long overdue, it immediately resulted in a demand for support that could not possibly be met.

The professional arts sector absorbed the bulk of the package.

Of the initial $86 million package, with funding increases of more than $20 million a year in each of the next three years, Creative New Zealand received $20 million.

The Film Production Fund got $22 million, NZ On Air $7 million, the NZSO a $3 million capital injection and an extra $1.4 million annually, and the Museum of New Zealand an extra $2 million a year for operating funds and $9 million a year for capital funding, leaving regional museums to struggle.

Furthermore, Creative New Zealand's $20 million had to be spread over three years and had GST taken off it, leaving about a net $6 million a year - which was spent mostly on an arts development strategy whose purpose was to strengthen and develop professional arts organisations and their infrastructures.

Practitioners who might have expected a far greater increase in the number and scale of grants were considerably disappointed.

There is no doubt, though, that with all the quibbling about taxpayer-funding for the arts, there has in the past six or seven years been a new-found confidence in the sector.

How much of this is really due to a boost in state funding and how much due to the substantially better economic times until this year, is moot.

The decision by Helen Clark to take the arts portfolio was both symbolic and real, and it would be a retrograde step if, upon a change of government, the political enthusiasm for the arts was to founder on the rock of pragmatic politics.