OPINION
GAMBLING ON ARTS WRITTEN BY TIM BROWN
Support for the “Creative Capital” is evident in local election campaigns, but the art sector is truly out of fashion with central government. Art and politics are inextricably entwined. Art holds up a mirror to society. Politics, which seeks to manage and change society, is often in the mirror.
T
he politics-art connection attracts particular attention during local-body elections. In Wellington at least, an artistic vibrant city is seen to be a civic good. All the leading mayoral aspirants want Wellington to remain the Creative Capital. Their support isn’t just lip service. Maintaining a vibrant artistic scene requires money and Wellington City Council embraces its arts-sector responsibilities. There are economic and social capital benefits. While the Wellington City Council and its Mayoral aspirants are pledging to expand support for the arts, the central government position is notably different. Since it was elected in 2008, this National Government’s funding of Creative New Zealand has remained fixed at $15.7 million each year. In addition, this year the government will allocate $23.6 million to the NZSO, the New Zealand Ballet and Te Matatini Kapa Haka, up from the $20.7 million provided over the previous eight years. So the performing arts have received $36.4 million for each of the past eight years, and this year will receive $39.3 million, an 8% increase over eight years. This is however only a part of how government supports the performing arts. A material part of art sector funding is derived from gambling and this is in decline. Bob Jones called Lotto a voluntary tax on the innumerate, and the same could be said of pokies. Gambling is a difficult social issue. It clearly has a social cost, but prohibition doesn’t work and in any case individuals have rights and many people do find gambling fun and entertaining.
As a society we balance the reality of harm (the people most likely to wager on Lotto are those most deprived by the almost inevitable losses) with a regulatory structure which aims to recycle the profits (the punters’ losses) to good causes, including the arts. The problem for the arts is that such gambling is in decline, and who is receiving the profits is not always transparent. Lotto funding to CNZ was $33 million five years ago and is forecast to be $31 million this year. CNZ is generally seen to be undertaking its roles effectively, efficiently and transparently. The only issue with this part of government’s allocation of art funding is who is best equipped to cope with lower Lotto income. Should it be the arts sector or government? That doesn’t look complicated. Pokie trusts by contrast seem more problematic and more in need of tough politics. The Department of Internal Affairs is reviewing the “Class 4 Gambling Sector” (that is, pokie gambling in clubs and pubs). The DIA consultation documents are inconsistent and vague on key facts (they are available on the DIA website). The review does however at least underline that government is aware of the social contract: “We let some rather bad stuff happen – innumerate people gambling and losing money, in exchange for some social good – a good percentage of the punters’ losses are recycled to good causes”. The DIA consultation document makes pretty grim reading for anyone interested in the social contract in general and art funding specifically.
28