A very tight recent funding round from Creative New Zealand, as well as confirmation of significant staff cuts at the government agency, have compounded anxiety in an already struggling arts sector.
Author
- James Wenley
Senior Lecturer, Te Whare Ngangahau–Theatre and Performance Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
The situation also raises important questions about the arts economy ahead of November’s general election, with so many competing budget and policy priorities.
Creative New Zealand’s Arts Organisations and Groups Fund , announced in July, granted just over NZ$104 million over two to three years to 94 applicants in the top two funding tiers (over $125,000).
This was almost half the $201 million requested.
The fund replaced the previous Tōtara and Kahikatea programs, to which only invited organisations could apply. For the first time, any group could make a case for substantial multi-year funding.
Many of the former Tōtara and Kahikatea recipients are accounted for in the latest funding results . Legacy groups Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and New Zealand Opera dominate, each awarded more than $3 million a year.
But many groups received less funding than under the previous program – some significantly less, such as youth theatre company Massive, which saw an almost 60% reduction .
Do more with less
Only 10% of the funding round went to groups based in the South Island/Te Waipounamu . While there are many new recipients, some established organisations missed out completely.
For example, Dunedin Arts Festival staff were ” shocked, devastated and confused ” after the festival received no funding for the first time in its history.
The organisation claimed on social media this was “despite [Creative New Zealand] telling us that our application was recommended for funding by the assessors, with positive feedback about all we were doing for our community”.
Consuming arts and culture has been shown to be good for general health and wellbeing . But public investment in the arts also creates flow-on economic benefits: people leave their houses and spend their money in restaurants and hotels.
In 2024, New Zealand researchers found a $75.5 million government investment in the live performance sector generated a $209 million tax take: for every dollar invested, $3.20 was returned in value to the community.
Despite this, the arts sector in general remains a perennial poor cousin when it comes to state spending. This year’s budget saw a $27 million cut to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage over four years.
At the same time, Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith has introduced Amplify: A Creative and Cultural Strategy for New Zealand , which proposes to grow arts exports and tourism, increase engagement with arts and culture, and add more arts jobs.
The message seems to be clear: under the current government, the sector is expected to do more with less.
Will regional devolution work?
Creative New Zealand’s latest funding round coincided with confirmation of a radical internal restructure, cutting a third of its workforce from 84 roles to 55.
While this year’s budget also trimmed the organisation’s funding by $1.3 million over four years, Arts Council Chair Kent Gardner insisted the job losses were part of a bigger strategy : “This is not a reaction to short-term pressures – it’s the implementation of a long-term plan.”
Nonetheless, Goldsmith justified the political pressure, telling Pacific Media Network he “wanted less of their money being spent on administrators in Wellington and more of it going out to the artists that they’re supporting”.
The question now is whether the pressure will actually produce better outcomes.
Part of Creative New Zealand’s restructure is a devolved funding model that will see regions gain greater autonomy over decision-making – something communities have said they wanted.
The initiative has moved quickly, too, with a tender process for prospective regional partners only open for a month and staff redundancies announced before the new model is even close to being in place.
In the meantime, the fear is that organisations facing reduced or zero state funding – even if it’s not their only income source – are now in a fight for survival.
New thinking needed
The national population continues to grow, but government funding of Creative New Zealand has been stagnant for two decades (money from the Lotteries Commission providing the majority of its budget).
Furthermore, the 2026 budget also set a tax credit cap of $100,000 on charitable donations, potentially reducing the private sector’s contributions to the arts.
If anything, New Zealand needs to be developing new policy ideas and better incentives for investment, as is happening elsewhere.
In 2022, for example, Ireland (with an equivalent population to New Zealand) piloted a now permanent Basic Income for the Arts scheme that provides €325 (NZ$640) a week to 2,000 eligible artists for three-year cycles.
Closer to home, after some high-profile musical theatre closures , Australia is talking about tax incentives for live performance. It is estimated a tax offset of 25-40% would pay for itself, generate economic activity, add new jobs and increase the number of productions.
Tax incentives already exist for New Zealand’s screen and gaming industries. Expanding these across the arts and cultural sector in general, or introducing some kind of tax exemption scheme for creative practitioners , would make sense.
In my view, a weakened arts sector not only makes New Zealand poorer, it also makes it duller. Expanding support for the arts needs to be part of the conversation this election.
