Creative industries aren't just 'nice-to-haves'.

Traditionally government investment in the arts and culture recedes in times of economic austerity, typically leading to closures of institutions, reduced community services, and increased reliance on private funding of projects. It’s time we learned to flip this model on its head, like the great cities of the world who rely on their arts and cultural sectors to provide opportunities for people to gather and mobilise the collective energy of the public, attract overseas visitors and create new opportunities for entrepreneurial ventures.

Isn’t it ironic that in the last few weeks Auckland’s latest injection of cash has come from the initiatives of our indigenous colleagues and local iwi Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to organise and stage the world indigenous conference and the music industry has provided a packed-out Eden Park with the Metallica concert.

These events provide direct economic impact of public investment in culture but now there is also well-documented research evidence of the indirect benefits that flow from public investment in arts and culture – the “spillover effects” that ripple outwards, benefiting sectors such as tourism and youth development as well as evolving and changing the identity of communities by spreading ideas and talent locally and across the world.

A 2022 research report investigating the value of the arts in Australia and New Zealand argues the economic and social impacts of investment in the arts at all levels of the community reveal some quantitative markers of impact and value through social engagement. But the spillover effects – such as boosting innovation, developing skills, supporting entrepreneurship, enhancing health and wellbeing – are challenging to quantify because they are often people-centred and woven into the fabric and infrastructure of the communities they inhabit. However, the economic and socio-cultural value of these effects should not be overlooked by policy makers, if we want to recognise the return on public investment in arts and culture.

New Zealand politicians have historically treated the creative industries as frivolous ventures that are not regarded as important or long lasting, as disposable ‘nice to haves’ rather than the building blocks of a nation.

This is in contrast to the great cities of the world such as Paris, London and New York where ongoing sustained spending and support of theatre, architecture, public galleries and community initiatives are the foundation of the vibrancy and appeal of those cities. New Zealand might not have the tax base to build the next Eiffel Tower or Sydney Opera House but we do have creative and entrepreneurial people who would support arts initiatives through resource and expertise, particularly if backed by public institutions.

The economic model regarding the extent to which the taxpayer has historically been expected to fund artistic, creative and cultural growth, preservation and participation is changing to become more similar to America where the arts and cultural scene is dominated by generous philanthropists. Currently, in New Zealand Gareth Morgan is setting up his own sculpture garden in Wellington and perhaps this will rival Gibbs Farm in the Kaipara. These private estates will now house some of the most important international sculpture in New Zealand but these significant works are not owned by public institutions but private individuals who can make their own decisions about when and who can gain access to them.

Who makes the decisions about who and what gets funded? How do we engage in this debate and how does the funding for arts and culture relate to the aspirations we have as a country? Are our institutions just receiving the piecemeal leftovers from Treasury at the end of the financial year? We tend to see entrenched and conservative views about public spending on the arts from our politicians such as the proposed $44m cut by Auckland Council that directly affected the arts, culture and creative sector.

How refreshing it would be to see our political leaders model their commitment to the arts by championing and supporting the institutions and talented artists who have been lauded on an international stage. The actors, directors, artists and musicians who are all household names today – such as Sam Neil, Taika Waititi and Lisa Reihana – all began their careers in New Zealand within an encouraging and nurturing arts sector. We need informed thinking to stimulate continued evidence-based debate about the value of public cultural investment and follow-up affirmative action to generate creative opportunities that benefit many and build economic resilience.