Latest news with #GeoffreyPalmer
Scoop
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Parliament Versus Executive: Regs Review And The Regulatory Standards Bill
, Editor: The House Analysis - Parliament recently heard a single week of public submissions on David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill. The submissions were seldom complimentary. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is considering that bill, but this week a different select committee heard briefings of its own on issues that arise from the bill, because the bill's aims seem in conflict with the purpose of the Regulations Review Committee - even its existence. The Regulatory Standards Bill's own description lists its aims as being to: promote the accountability of the Executive to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems; and support Parliament's ability to scrutinise Bills; and support Parliament in overseeing and controlling the use of delegated powers to make legislation. That may sound good on paper, but the bill does not create or support parliamentary bodies to keep a check on the Executive. Instead, the bill creates an external board which works under the Executive. Parliament already has a committee tasked with the express job of evaluating regulations, including hearing public complaints - the Regulations Review Committee. Regs Review, as it is commonly described, is traditionally one of Parliament's most cross-party, collaborative committees. It is usually chaired by a senior opposition MP; currently that chair is Labour MP Arena Williams. Among the committee's briefings on the bill this week was a public briefing from former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Because it was public, this article uses that discussion to help outline the reason the Regs Review Committee is concerned enough to ask for briefings on a bill being considered by a different committee. Williams outlined one purpose to the former prime minister thus: "I would like to progress usefully for the Standing Orders Committee, what the role of the Regulations Review Committee is now." Note: The Standing Orders Committee is the body that considers changes to Parliament's rules. If the Regulatory Standards Bill is passed, the Standing Orders Committee will likely need to adjust Parliament's rules to try and make it all fit. Background to Regulations and Regs Review It was Geoffrey Palmer's parliamentary reforms in the 1980s that created the Regulations Review Committee and gave it the job of fixing regulations, with the power to ask Parliament to disallow (ie. kill) bad regulation. Earlier this year the current committee asked the House to do exactly that to a regulation regarding law school curricula - and the House agreed. More often though, the committee asks ministers to fix poor regulation, and is successful in doing so. This role clashes with aspects of Seymour's new bill, which would empower its own non-parliamentary board to review regulations - a board appointed by the minister for regulation and working together with their Ministry for Regulation. Sir Geoffrey provided background to the Regs Review Committee's creation in the 1980s. It was part of a response to a period of government under Robert Muldoon when New Zealand was often governed by executive decree, without much reference to Parliament, in spite of the fact that Parliaments - not governments - have supremacy. Sir Geoffrey listed a few former laws that gave ministers vast powers. "The Economic Stabilisation Act, the Commerce Amendment Act of 1979, the National Development Act that allowed you to develop New Zealand by Order in Council, and not by Parliament. These were very grave exercises of executive power, and that led to the repeal of all those statutes. And it also led to the setting up of this committee." The Economic Stabilisation Act from 1948 for example, was used by Robert Muldoon's National Party government in the 1970s and 1980s to freeze wages and prices across the entire country, and to determine interest rates. As one response to the 1970s oil shock, people were forced to choose a day they could not drive their cars. That was all done without reference to Parliament. Despite his own government's repeal of such broad powers, Sir Geoffrey argued that regulation is not inherently bad, but is necessary. "You cannot run a country on the basis of primary legislation alone. It is not possible. And the ministers have to be able to have the ability to have administrative arrangements that are within the competence of the enabling provisions in the primary act that allows detail to be dealt with." Ministers need to be able to act without constant reference to the boss. Many powers are necessarily delegated to a minister or a ministry. That delegated authority is enabled by primary legislation (statute law), and is referred to as secondary legislation - mostly it is regulation. Imagine if no authority was delegated. How would that look? Maybe you couldn't get a new passport until your name had been included in legislation, or your passport was approved by the governor-general. Every price change for a government service (eg. a DOC campsite), and every new-build classroom would need specific approval. That all sounds ridiculous, but power is delegated, and without delegation things must be confirmed at the centre of power.. "The enthusiasm for terrific deregulation makes me nervous," Sir Geoffrey told the committee. "I don't quite know where that desire comes from, because the evidence has not been put in front of this Parliament. It's asserted, but it's not generated as evidence anywhere that I have seen." The double-up Putting aside other criticism of the Regulatory Standards Bill, what exactly is the issue for the Regulations Review Committee? Sir Geoffrey noted one glaring issue: "There was nothing said about the Regulations Review Committee in the legislation, or indeed, as far as I can see in any of the consideration that led to the drafting of this ill-considered bill." That is a monumental oversight, or possibly a snub, because the job of the Regs Review Committee and that of the Board that the bill creates will, at best, overlap. They may clash terribly. It's like a second referee being sent onto the field during a game - a referee that answers to someone different, and one with a vested interest. "The conduct of this Parliament," Sir Geoffrey said, "already pretty unsatisfactory in many points of view, is going to get a whole lot worse when you have these confusing areas of responsibility that don't fit." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked the former prime minister which group would have supremacy if they both tried to consider the same regulation - board or committee? "The Regulatory Standards Board is a creature of the minister, and it is not a creature of Parliament. This committee is a creature of Parliament." Only one of those creatures has the power to ask Parliament to strike out bad regulation. Sir Geoffrey indicated that was everything you needed to know. In other words, since Parliament has supremacy over the Executive, Parliament's Regulations Review Committee would have supremacy over the Executive's proposed Regulatory Standards Board. Sir Geoffrey argued that the bill ought to be amended to have no role in secondary legislation at all. He also had advice for the committee and for its backbencher colleagues. "If you are left alone, that would be good; but what you need to do is to be more muscular. …The bad habits of New Zealand legislation have been somewhat restricted by the activities of this committee, but not enough. The bipartisan thing that is necessary to make the committee work properly needs to extend to backbenchers from the governing parties feeling that they can exercise their judgement without fear or favour." He suggests that non-executive MPs-regardless of their political affiliation-ought to do their jobs as parliamentarians, not as voting automatons without a role in keeping a check on governments. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
RNZ News
18-07-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Parliament versus Executive: Regs Review and the Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith Analysis - Parliament recently heard a single week of public submissions on David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill. The submissions were seldom complimentary . The Finance and Expenditure Committee is considering that bill, but this week a different select committee heard briefings of its own on issues that arise from the bill, because the bill's aims seem in conflict with the purpose of the Regulations Review Committee - even its existence. The Regulatory Standards Bill's own description lists its aims as being to: That may sound good on paper, but the bill does not create or support parliamentary bodies to keep a check on the Executive. Instead, the bill creates an external board which works under the Executive. Parliament already has a committee tasked with the express job of evaluating regulations, including hearing public complaints - the Regulations Review Committee. Regs Review, as it is commonly described, is traditionally one of Parliament's most cross-party, collaborative committees. It is usually chaired by a senior opposition MP; currently that chair is Labour MP Arena Williams. Labour MP Arena Williams chairing Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Among the committee's briefings on the bill this week was a public briefing from former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer . Because it was public, this article uses that discussion to help outline the reason the Regs Review Committee is concerned enough to ask for briefings on a bill being considered by a different committee. Williams outlined one purpose to the former prime minister thus: "I would like to progress usefully for the Standing Orders Committee, what the role of the Regulations Review Committee is now." Note: The Standing Orders Committee is the body that considers changes to Parliament's rules. If the Regulatory Standards Bill is passed, the Standing Orders Committee will likely need to adjust Parliament's rules to try and make it all fit. It was Geoffrey Palmer's parliamentary reforms in the 1980s that created the Regulations Review Committee and gave it the job of fixing regulations, with the power to ask Parliament to disallow (ie. kill) bad regulation. Earlier this year the current committee asked the House to do exactly that to a regulation regarding law school curricula - and the House agreed. More often though, the committee asks ministers to fix poor regulation, and is successful in doing so. This role clashes with aspects of Seymour's new bill, which would empower its own non-parliamentary board to review regulations - a board appointed by the minister for regulation and working together with their Ministry for Regulation. Sir Geoffrey Palmer gives evidence to Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Sir Geoffrey provided background to the Regs Review Committee's creation in the 1980s. It was part of a response to a period of government under Robert Muldoon when New Zealand was often governed by executive decree, without much reference to Parliament, in spite of the fact that Parliaments - not governments - have supremacy. Sir Geoffrey listed a few former laws that gave ministers vast powers. "The Economic Stabilisation Act, the Commerce Amendment Act of 1979, the National Development Act that allowed you to develop New Zealand by Order in Council, and not by Parliament. These were very grave exercises of executive power, and that led to the repeal of all those statutes. And it also led to the setting up of this committee." The Economic Stabilisation Act from 1948 for example, was used by Robert Muldoon's National Party government in the 1970s and 1980s to freeze wages and prices across the entire country, and to determine interest rates. As one response to the 1970s oil shock, people were forced to choose a day they could not drive their cars. That was all done without reference to Parliament. Despite his own government's repeal of such broad powers, Sir Geoffrey argued that regulation is not inherently bad, but is necessary. "You cannot run a country on the basis of primary legislation alone. It is not possible. And the ministers have to be able to have the ability to have administrative arrangements that are within the competence of the enabling provisions in the primary act that allows detail to be dealt with." Ministers need to be able to act without constant reference to the boss. Many powers are necessarily delegated to a minister or a ministry. That delegated authority is enabled by primary legislation (statute law), and is referred to as secondary legislation - mostly it is regulation. Imagine if no authority was delegated. How would that look? Maybe you couldn't get a new passport until your name had been included in legislation, or your passport was approved by the governor-general. Every price change for a government service (eg. a DOC campsite), and every new-build classroom would need specific approval. That all sounds ridiculous, but power is delegated, and without delegation things must be confirmed at the centre of power.. "The enthusiasm for terrific deregulation makes me nervous," Sir Geoffrey told the committee. "I don't quite know where that desire comes from, because the evidence has not been put in front of this Parliament. It's asserted, but it's not generated as evidence anywhere that I have seen." Putting aside other criticism of the Regulatory Standards Bill, what exactly is the issue for the Regulations Review Committee? Sir Geoffrey noted one glaring issue: "There was nothing said about the Regulations Review Committee in the legislation, or indeed, as far as I can see in any of the consideration that led to the drafting of this ill-considered bill." That is a monumental oversight, or possibly a snub, because the job of the Regs Review Committee and that of the Board that the bill creates will, at best, overlap. They may clash terribly. It's like a second referee being sent onto the field during a game - a referee that answers to someone different, and one with a vested interest. "The conduct of this Parliament," Sir Geoffrey said, "already pretty unsatisfactory in many points of view, is going to get a whole lot worse when you have these confusing areas of responsibility that don't fit." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked the former prime minister which group would have supremacy if they both tried to consider the same regulation - board or committee? "The Regulatory Standards Board is a creature of the minister, and it is not a creature of Parliament. This committee is a creature of Parliament." Only one of those creatures has the power to ask Parliament to strike out bad regulation. Sir Geoffrey indicated that was everything you needed to know. In other words, since Parliament has supremacy over the Executive, Parliament's Regulations Review Committee would have supremacy over the Executive's proposed Regulatory Standards Board. Sir Geoffrey argued that the bill ought to be amended to have no role in secondary legislation at all. He also had advice for the committee and for its backbencher colleagues. "If you are left alone, that would be good; but what you need to do is to be more muscular. …The bad habits of New Zealand legislation have been somewhat restricted by the activities of this committee, but not enough. The bipartisan thing that is necessary to make the committee work properly needs to extend to backbenchers from the governing parties feeling that they can exercise their judgement without fear or favour." He suggests that non-executive MPs-regardless of their political affiliation-ought to do their jobs as parliamentarians, not as voting automatons without a role in keeping a check on governments. * RNZ's The House , with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
08-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
On Using The Tax System To Boost Funding For The Arts
Despite the myriad concerns being expressed about the Regulatory Standards Bill including misgivings by his own Regulations Ministry and scorn from constitutional law expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer David Seymour has professed to find no merit in … Despite the myriad concerns being expressed about the Regulatory Standards Bill – including misgivings by his own Regulations Ministry and scorn from constitutional law expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer – David Seymour has professed to find no merit in any of the objections. Sure, he'll add in a reference to the Treaty if people can make what he considers to be a sound argument for why he should do so – but in the same breath, Seymour made it clear that he had no intention of actually honouring any Treaty responsibility to Māori. Truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Show Art The Money Often, a false division gets made between art and commerce, and that helps to explain why art tends to be treated as a social luxury: an optional extra, and not one of life's essentials. Everywhere you look, the arts are coming under pressure from rising costs, changing patterns of arts consumption, and declining support from donors and philanthropic foundations. What's to be done about it? Well…last weekend, the NSW state government announced plans to hold an 'arts tax summit' at the Sydney Opera House in September. The gathering will explore ways to radically reform the tax system with the aim of shoring up support for the arts in Australia. The ideas being floated include: giving wealthy patrons added tax incentives to donate to the arts, offering tax relief to the owners of vacant commercial premises if they rent them cheaply (or for free) to artists, and allowing artists to claim a wider range of production-related expenses on their tax returns. Reportedly, this NSW arts summit will be attended by NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey, and about 150 donors, venue operators, art investors and tax experts. [Just how many artists will be invited is unclear.] 'The sector is telling us,' Mookhey told the Sydney Morning Herald, ' that tax policy settings are a significant impediment to artists' business viability, international competitiveness and income stability.' Arguably, artists deserve better. At last count, the arts and culture sector contributed an estimated $A123.3 billion annually to the Australian economy. In the year to March 2024, New Zealand's arts and creative sector contributed $NZ17.3 billion to our economy, or 4.2 % of GDP. In other words, the arts and cultural sector more than pays its way. According to Infometrics research in 2023, the arts/culture sector grew by 5.3% that year, compared to only 2.9% growth for the rest of the economy. Some 117,0000 people were employed in the arts/culture sector in 2023. Only 11,000 of them identified as Māori, well below the ratio of Māori within the general population. So, even on strictly economic terms, the arts sector is punching above its weight. As the Infometrics survey pointed out : Productivity (measured as GDP per FTE) in the Arts and Creative sector grew by 1.7% to $155,539. Over the past five years (2018-2023), productivity has grown by 3% per annum on average, where the total economy has remained relatively flat (0.2%). Point being: arts funding deserves to be treated as an investment, not as a handout. One of those tax incentives being seriously considered in Australia i.e enabling vacant commercial premises to be made available to artists at little or no rent, deserves to be investigated here in order (a) to give creative people a place in which to create and (b) to help to revitalise the depressed commercial areas in our towns and cities. Reportedly, its worked elsewhere. Footnote: Other countries are treating arts funding as an investment in social wellbeing and economic growth. Last year, Ireland extended its Basic Income For The Arts funding programme into 2026, and put $35 million euros more into it: Launched in 2022, the pilot scheme is examining the impact of a basic income on artists and creative arts workers over a three-year period. Payments of €325 per week [that's $NZ634! ]are being made to 2,000 eligible artists and creative arts workers, who have been selected at random. Here's the rationale : ' I believe that Ireland holds a unique position in the world, where our culture, Ár dTeanga and our artists are the beating heart of our society,' Minister Paschal Donohoe commented. 'There are record numbers visiting our national cultural institutions. Irish writers are some of the best in the world – giving us pause to reflect on the world around us, to make sense of it or, indeed, to escape it entirely for a moment.' Not surprisingly, artists in Ireland like the scheme a lot, and say it improves the quality of their work. Footnote Two : On that score, it is worth noting that in New Zealand, Budget 2025 kept the level of our Large Budget Film Production Grant at only 20%. This rebate is available to international film productions in return for the increased spending, jobs and skills expertise that these major film projects inject into the New Zealand economy. Problem being, our current rate is no longer competitive. In Australia, it is 30%. In Ireland, the headline equivalent rate is 32%. As in NZ, there is no overt cap to Ireland's film production incentive, which is based on whatever is the lowest figure: 32 % of qualifying expenditure, 80% of the film's total production costs or 180 million euros. As for government support to Ireland's own film industry, there was an 8% increase last year to the incentives for local feature film productions that utilise Irish creative talent. The coalition government has provided no similar, additional stimulus to our own local film industry. The Art Budget blues Given New Zealand's current ideological fixation on cost cutting for its own sake, Creative NZ's retention of funding of $16.6 million in Budget 2025 counts as a relief, even though inflation will erode some of the funding's net value. Direct government funding provides about 25% of Creative NZ's revenue, with the other 75% coming from Lotteries Board money, which has inched up to $52.78 annually for the next four years, from $49.5 million in 2023/24. The current lotteries plus government funding comes to an annual total of $69 million, well down from the $87 million the arts received during the last year of the pandemic recovery period. In a familiar gambit, 're-prioritisation' has also seen funds shifted from one scheme and added to another to create an illusion of extra government support. At Creative NZ for example, funds for the umbrella Toi Uru Kahimakea programme (formerly praised to the skies by Creative NZ for expanding the range and reach of the arts in New Zealand and for being one of the organisation's 'most significant annual investments') will now be poured into the general funds available to arts organisations. Similarly, the Ministry For Culture and Heritage will see much of the funding for the National Fale Malae Project ( an intended showcase for Pasifika art and culture) being 're-prioritised' for other purposes. The recent funding cuts and job losses at the Ministry (which will sharply reduce the country's awareness of its own history)have been met with horrified public opposition. To no avail, so far. As for the community funding for arts -related community assets such as libraries, community organisations and events…Finance Minister Nicola Willis once again raised (on RNZ yesterday) the spectre of National imposing a cap on the annual rates increases that local councils are allowed to propose. This pandering to property owners resentful of anything being spent on community facilities and events they don't personally use, is deeply alarming. An arbitrary rates cap poses an obvious threat to council spending on the likes of libraries, community arts events, and public transport.(Yesterday, Willis spoke about the need to reduce council spending 'on fanciful projects.') By driving down rates revenue, a rates cap policed by central government would force communities to make ugly choices about which public facilities councils can continue to support. In the process, the rates cap would also undermine the international credit rating of councils, and increase the costs of their borrowing for essential infrastructure. Instead of an imposed rates cap, Local Government NZ President ( and Selwyn mayor) Sam Broughton wants local and central government to collaborate on solutions: 'From the international analysis it is clear that a rates cap will have unintended consequences on communities; it will restrict the ability of councils to invest in infrastructure and risks their financial instability, and we need to avoid this…..Australian examples show that a rates cap will have the opposite effect to what the Government wants to achieve.' Footnote: BTW, and in the interests of informed collaboration, there is nothing 'fanciful ' about local council or central government spending on the arts. Artists pay taxes and help lift the nation's GDP, as well as enhancing the public's sense of wellbeing and cultural identity. If artists could afford to live downtown e.g. if tax system changes did enable unused commercial properties to be occupied at peppercorn rentals – this could revitalise the inner city, boost retail spending, provide part time labour for cafes and restaurants, and enhance the value of adjacent downtown properties through the added foot traffic (and tourism) being generated. Footnote: In 2019 Victoria University academic Jonathan Barrett analysed how a capital gains tax could make more people feel inclined to invest in art. Don't Rely On The Market Some people, including a few artists, find the very notion of state funding of the arts to be a hard concept to embrace. For one thing, there's a certain lack of romance involved. An artist starving in a garret is a more heroic image (at least, until the gum rot sets in) than an artist pulling a government cheque from the mailbox en route to the potting shed. Charges of elitism over arts funding (why this art form over that one, why them, not me) tend to clang up hard against the sense that this stuff is really important, contributes to our national identity etc etc. All of which is worthy of debate, provided it doesn't lead to policy paralysis, One way to justify spending on the arts is to demand a commercial return, as one would with any other commodity. That argument is self defeating. Why? For one thing, society benefits from what economists call the 'spillover' benefits of arts creation and consumption, just as it does in other non-quantifiable areas. Inevitably, the 'spillover' returns to society from spending on art, public healthcare, state schooling, science and the military are notoriously difficult to quantify, and establish a market value. Defence spending for instance is as costly as its benefits are nebulous. Yet for some reason, successive governments have been willing to write the NZDF – and them only – a blank cheque. Why not science? Why not the arts? There is also a so-called 'option value' argument for arts funding, whereby whilst you or I may not choose to patronise an art gallery or a ballet, many of us would still like to see such things supported, and kept as a viable option for others, or for our grandchildren. To illustrate this notion of option value, economists routinely offer the jokey old anecdote about the King of Naples, who once told the composer Antonio Scarlatti that he felt fine about supporting the Naples Opera, just so long as he was never actually invited to attend the confounded thing. Another key economic driver for regular boosts in arts funding was a point made decades ago by the economist William Baumol – namely, that arts activity is simply not conducive to the technological advances and the productivity gains that have been obtainable elsewhere in the economy. This syndrome – routinely called 'cost disease' or 'Baumol's disease' – applies equally to the funding for public health and education as much as it does to the arts. All such sectors entail services – creating art, educating kids, caring for sick people – that are next to impossible to automate and to mechanise. 'This means that as wages go up in these handicraft services,' Baumol said, 'there is no productivity offset to rising costs.' (Lorde, Taikla Waititi, Shane Cotton etc do not come off a production line.). At this point, the free marketers would probably say – well, why not leave it the market? If people want art, then let them pay for it. Yes, Baumol wrote, but what quality would the prevailing market settle for? Wouldn't such a market be inclined to downsize by cutting out rehearsals and other production costs, and concentrate on the likes of sure-fire Broadway hit musicals, rather than on Shakespeare or on untried new talent? In other words, the centre-right formula of holding the funding at current levels – and looking to the market and/or the community for extra money – is unlikely to result in (a) quality (b) diversity and (c) anything other than the recycling of the known and the safe. All of which would quickly erode the option value and the cultural capital of our art, both here and overseas. It would be self-defeating, in that it would diminish/destroy the value of the product. Besides…at the very worst, an added investment by the state in art and culture is certain to deliver better social and economic returns than gifting landlords with a $3 billion handout. Footnote : Australia is a wealthier country than New Zealand. Yet its artists hardly have it easy. According to the SMH article linked to above, the average annual income of professional artists in Australia is $A54,500, earned via insecure projects and commissions. A writer's average annual income is just $A18,000, and the median annual income for musicians is $A15,000. Plainly, starving in a garret for your art isn't a lifestyle ' choice' that died out at the end of the 19th century. Needing The Love There's no particular reason for linking to this, beyond it being an all-time favourite video. Oh baby lady girl. Art is its own reward :
Scoop
08-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
On Using The Tax System To Boost Funding For The Arts
Despite the myriad concerns being expressed about the Regulatory Standards Bill – including misgivings by his own Regulations Ministry and scorn from constitutional law expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer – David Seymour has professed to find no merit in any of the objections. Sure, he'll add in a reference to the Treaty if people can make what he considers to be a sound argument for why he should do so – but in the same breath, Seymour made it clear that he had no intention of actually honouring any Treaty responsibility to Māori. Truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Show Art The Money Often, a false division gets made between art and commerce, and that helps to explain why art tends to be treated as a social luxury: an optional extra, and not one of life's essentials. Everywhere you look, the arts are coming under pressure from rising costs, changing patterns of arts consumption, and declining support from donors and philanthropic foundations. What's to be done about it? weekend, the NSW state government announced plans to hold an 'arts tax summit' at the Sydney Opera House in September. The gathering will explore ways to radically reform the tax system with the aim of shoring up support for the arts in Australia. The ideas being floated include: giving wealthy patrons added tax incentives to donate to the arts, offering tax relief to the owners of vacant commercial premises if they rent them cheaply (or for free) to artists, and allowing artists to claim a wider range of production-related expenses on their tax returns. Reportedly, this NSW arts summit will be attended by NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey, and about 150 donors, venue operators, art investors and tax experts. [Just how many artists will be invited is unclear.] 'The sector is telling us,' Mookhey told the Sydney Morning Herald, ' that tax policy settings are a significant impediment to artists' business viability, international competitiveness and income stability.' Arguably, artists deserve better. At last count, the arts and culture sector contributed an estimated $A123.3 billion annually to the Australian economy. In the year to March 2024, New Zealand's arts and creative sector contributed $NZ17.3 billion to our economy, or 4.2 % of GDP. In other words, the arts and cultural sector more than pays its way. According to Infometrics research in 2023, the arts/culture sector grew by 5.3% that year, compared to only 2.9% growth for the rest of the economy. Some 117,0000 people were employed in the arts/culture sector in 2023. Only 11,000 of them identified as Māori, well below the ratio of Māori within the general population. So, even on strictly economic terms, the arts sector is punching above its weight. As the Infometrics survey pointed out : Productivity (measured as GDP per FTE) in the Arts and Creative sector grew by 1.7% to $155,539. Over the past five years (2018-2023), productivity has grown by 3% per annum on average, where the total economy has remained relatively flat (0.2%). Point being: arts funding deserves to be treated as an investment, not as a handout. One of those tax incentives being seriously considered in Australia i.e enabling vacant commercial premises to be made available to artists at little or no rent, deserves to be investigated here in order (a) to give creative people a place in which to create and (b) to help to revitalise the depressed commercial areas in our towns and cities. Reportedly, its worked elsewhere. Footnote: Other countries are treating arts funding as an investment in social wellbeing and economic growth. Last year, Ireland extended its Basic Income For The Arts funding programme into 2026, and put $35 million euros more into it: Launched in 2022, the pilot scheme is examining the impact of a basic income on artists and creative arts workers over a three-year period. Payments of €325 per week [that's $NZ634! ]are being made to 2,000 eligible artists and creative arts workers, who have been selected at random. Here's the rationale : " I believe that Ireland holds a unique position in the world, where our culture, Ár dTeanga and our artists are the beating heart of our society," Minister Paschal Donohoe commented. "There are record numbers visiting our national cultural institutions. Irish writers are some of the best in the world – giving us pause to reflect on the world around us, to make sense of it or, indeed, to escape it entirely for a moment." Not surprisingly, artists in Ireland like the scheme a lot, and say it improves the quality of their work. Footnote Two : On that score, it is worth noting that in New Zealand, Budget 2025 kept the level of our Large Budget Film Production Grant at only 20%. This rebate is available to international film productions in return for the increased spending, jobs and skills expertise that these major film projects inject into the New Zealand economy. Problem being, our current rate is no longer competitive. In Australia, it is 30%. In Ireland, the headline equivalent rate is 32%. As in NZ, there is no overt cap to Ireland's film production incentive, which is based on whatever is the lowest figure: 32 % of qualifying expenditure, 80% of the film's total production costs or 180 million euros. As for government support to Ireland's own film industry, there was an 8% increase last year to the incentives for local feature film productions that utilise Irish creative talent. The coalition government has provided no similar, additional stimulus to our own local film industry. The Art Budget blues Given New Zealand's current ideological fixation on cost cutting for its own sake, Creative NZ's retention of funding of $16.6 million in Budget 2025 counts as a relief, even though inflation will erode some of the funding's net value. Direct government funding provides about 25% of Creative NZ's revenue, with the other 75% coming from Lotteries Board money, which has inched up to $52.78 annually for the next four years, from $49.5 million in 2023/24. The current lotteries plus government funding comes to an annual total of $69 million, well down from the $87 million the arts received during the last year of the pandemic recovery period. In a familiar gambit, 're-prioritisation' has also seen funds shifted from one scheme and added to another to create an illusion of extra government support. At Creative NZ for example, funds for the umbrella Toi Uru Kahimakea programme (formerly praised to the skies by Creative NZ for expanding the range and reach of the arts in New Zealand and for being one of the organisation's 'most significant annual investments') will now be poured into the general funds available to arts organisations. Similarly, the Ministry For Culture and Heritage will see much of the funding for the National Fale Malae Project ( an intended showcase for Pasifika art and culture) being 're-prioritised' for other purposes. The recent funding cuts and job losses at the Ministry (which will sharply reduce the country's awareness of its own history)have been met with horrified public opposition. To no avail, so far. As for the community funding for arts -related community assets such as libraries, community organisations and Minister Nicola Willis once again raised (on RNZ yesterday) the spectre of National imposing a cap on the annual rates increases that local councils are allowed to propose. This pandering to property owners resentful of anything being spent on community facilities and events they don't personally use, is deeply alarming. An arbitrary rates cap poses an obvious threat to council spending on the likes of libraries, community arts events, and public transport.(Yesterday, Willis spoke about the need to reduce council spending 'on fanciful projects.') By driving down rates revenue, a rates cap policed by central government would force communities to make ugly choices about which public facilities councils can continue to support. In the process, the rates cap would also undermine the international credit rating of councils, and increase the costs of their borrowing for essential infrastructure. Instead of an imposed rates cap, Local Government NZ President ( and Selwyn mayor) Sam Broughton wants local and central government to collaborate on solutions: 'From the international analysis it is clear that a rates cap will have unintended consequences on communities; it will restrict the ability of councils to invest in infrastructure and risks their financial instability, and we need to avoid examples show that a rates cap will have the opposite effect to what the Government wants to achieve.' Footnote: BTW, and in the interests of informed collaboration, there is nothing 'fanciful ' about local council or central government spending on the arts. Artists pay taxes and help lift the nation's GDP, as well as enhancing the public's sense of wellbeing and cultural identity. If artists could afford to live downtown e.g. if tax system changes did enable unused commercial properties to be occupied at peppercorn rentals – this could revitalise the inner city, boost retail spending, provide part time labour for cafes and restaurants, and enhance the value of adjacent downtown properties through the added foot traffic (and tourism) being generated. Footnote: In 2019 Victoria University academic Jonathan Barrett analysed how a capital gains tax could make more people feel inclined to invest in art. Don't Rely On The Market Some people, including a few artists, find the very notion of state funding of the arts to be a hard concept to embrace. For one thing, there's a certain lack of romance involved. An artist starving in a garret is a more heroic image (at least, until the gum rot sets in) than an artist pulling a government cheque from the mailbox en route to the potting shed. Charges of elitism over arts funding (why this art form over that one, why them, not me) tend to clang up hard against the sense that this stuff is really important, contributes to our national identity etc etc. All of which is worthy of debate, provided it doesn't lead to policy paralysis, One way to justify spending on the arts is to demand a commercial return, as one would with any other commodity. That argument is self defeating. Why? For one thing, society benefits from what economists call the 'spillover' benefits of arts creation and consumption, just as it does in other non-quantifiable areas. Inevitably, the 'spillover' returns to society from spending on art, public healthcare, state schooling, science and the military are notoriously difficult to quantify, and establish a market value. Defence spending for instance is as costly as its benefits are nebulous. Yet for some reason, successive governments have been willing to write the NZDF – and them only – a blank cheque. Why not science? Why not the arts? There is also a so-called 'option value' argument for arts funding, whereby whilst you or I may not choose to patronise an art gallery or a ballet, many of us would still like to see such things supported, and kept as a viable option for others, or for our grandchildren. To illustrate this notion of option value, economists routinely offer the jokey old anecdote about the King of Naples, who once told the composer Antonio Scarlatti that he felt fine about supporting the Naples Opera, just so long as he was never actually invited to attend the confounded thing. Another key economic driver for regular boosts in arts funding was a point made decades ago by the economist William Baumol – namely, that arts activity is simply not conducive to the technological advances and the productivity gains that have been obtainable elsewhere in the economy. This syndrome – routinely called 'cost disease' or 'Baumol's disease' - applies equally to the funding for public health and education as much as it does to the arts. All such sectors entail services – creating art, educating kids, caring for sick people – that are next to impossible to automate and to mechanise. 'This means that as wages go up in these handicraft services,' Baumol said, 'there is no productivity offset to rising costs.' (Lorde, Taikla Waititi, Shane Cotton etc do not come off a production line.). At this point, the free marketers would probably say – well, why not leave it the market? If people want art, then let them pay for it. Yes, Baumol wrote, but what quality would the prevailing market settle for? Wouldn't such a market be inclined to downsize by cutting out rehearsals and other production costs, and concentrate on the likes of sure-fire Broadway hit musicals, rather than on Shakespeare or on untried new talent? In other words, the centre-right formula of holding the funding at current levels – and looking to the market and/or the community for extra money – is unlikely to result in (a) quality (b) diversity and (c) anything other than the recycling of the known and the safe. All of which would quickly erode the option value and the cultural capital of our art, both here and overseas. It would be self-defeating, in that it would diminish/destroy the value of the product. the very worst, an added investment by the state in art and culture is certain to deliver better social and economic returns than gifting landlords with a $3 billion handout. Footnote : Australia is a wealthier country than New Zealand. Yet its artists hardly have it easy. According to the SMH article linked to above, the average annual income of professional artists in Australia is $A54,500, earned via insecure projects and commissions. A writer's average annual income is just $A18,000, and the median annual income for musicians is $A15,000. Plainly, starving in a garret for your art isn't a lifestyle ' choice' that died out at the end of the 19th century. Needing The Love There's no particular reason for linking to this, beyond it being an all-time favourite video. Oh baby lady girl. Art is its own reward :
RNZ News
06-07-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Watch live: Hearings begin into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill
Analysis : A week of political scrutiny lies ahead for one of the government's most polarising bills, dubbed by some critics as "Treaty Principles 2.0". Starting Monday morning, the Finance and Expenditure select committee will reconvene for about 30 hours over four days to hear public submissions on the lightning rod Regulatory Standards Bill . The bill - championed by ACT's David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation" and would require ministers to explain whether they are following them. It would also set up a new board to assess legislation against those benchmarks. But while it may sound dry and technical, the legislation has become a flashpoint in a wider debate about the country's constitution, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and competing ideologies. Among the submitters on day one: former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Green MP Darleen Tana, Transpower, and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists. The bill - championed David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. The new Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Minister for Regulation - could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "We need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities," Seymour told Parliament in May. Opposition to the bill has been intense. An early round of consultation last year attracted about 23,000 submissions, with 88 percent in opposition and just 0.33 percent in support. Seymour has dismissed that as "meaningless" and initially claimed many of the submissions had been created by "bots". He later walked that back, but maintained they were driven by non-representative online campaigns. It is true campaign groups have provided templates for submissions or even offered to write them on people's behalf. But the pushback has come from far and wide: lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and public servants. Even Seymour's own Ministry of Regulation has raised concerns. Seymour has labelled much of the criticism "alarmist" and grounded in misinformation. He's also targetted some critics on social media, accusing them of having "derangement syndrome" and conspiracy thinking. The most common criticisms are: 1. That it elevates ACT's values above all else Critics argue the bill embeds ACT's political ideology into law, particularly its emphasis on individual rights and private property, while ignoring other considerations. Notably, te Tiriti o Waitangi is not mentioned in the bill - an omission which critics fear could undermine the Treaty's legal status and influence. Seymour says he has yet to hear a convincing reason why the Treaty should get special consideration when evaluating good law-making. Critics also object to the principle of individual property rights being given prominence over, say, collective rights. They fear the bill could dissuade governments from introducing rules that protect the environment, or restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, because that might be seen as breaching the listed principles. Even though the government could still pass those laws, critics worry it would send a message that profits and property are more important than public health or environmental protections. For his part, Seymour is unapologetic about the principles proposed and open that he wants to reset the culture of government. "If you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you'll actually have to show why it's in the public interest," Seymour says. 2. That it's a solution in search of a problem New Zealand already has a raft of systems in place to check laws are made properly. For example, Cabinet's Legislation Guidelines require ministers to follow best practice principles - including the rule of law, human rights compliance and consultation. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, made up of experts and officials, also provides detailed feedback on bills, and Treasury checks the impact of major policy decisions. As well, Justice officials and Crown Law conduct Bill of Rights vetting of legislation, with the Attorney-General required to report any breaches. Critics say this bill just adds another layer of process - increasing cost and workload for little benefit. To that, Seymour says: "If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." 3. That it is a corporate power grab A lingering concern has been whether the bill could open the government up to legal challenges or claims for compensation - especially from large corporations. Among its principles, the bill does include the concept that property should not usually be taken without consent and "fair compensation". But the legislation also clearly states that it does not create any new legal rights or obligation enforceable through the courts. That means companies would not have a new avenue to sue the government if a law affected their property or profits. Still, critics argue that simply embedding the principle in law could alter expectations over time. Businesses or lobby groups, for example, might point to it to put pressure on ministers to avoid certain policies. As well, lawyers say the courts could take note of the new principles when interpreting legislation or reviewing regulatory decisions elsewhere. The National-ACT coalition agreement includes a firm commitment to pass the bill through into law - though not necessarily in its current form. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the government will pay close attention to the select committee process and remains open to changes. "The devil is in the detail," he told reporters on Friday. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as "a work in progress" and has indicated his party wants changes. He has not specified which provisions in particular concern him. The opposition parties, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, have already promised to repeal the bill if elected next year. That means, for all the noise, the bill's practical impact may be limited, affecting only the parties introducing it - which presumably would adhere to these principles whether they were codified in law or not. The select committee hearings will run from 8:30am till 5pm, Monday through Thursday. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
