Auckland vs Wellington arts funding
Saturday’s Herald had two articles on the issue of arts funding for Auckland vs Wellington. I have some comments on comments in the articles:
The Auckland War Memorial Museum, he says, receives virtually no operational funding, while its capital counterpart, Te Papa, scores millions a year from the Government.
Aucklanders are asked to pay to visit their museum; Te Papa is free.
First of all, both have the same charging policy – free admission but donations encouraged.
Secondly one needs to ask how come Te Papa gets two to three times as many visitors as the Auckland War Memorial Museum, despite a population base one quarter of Auckland’s.
Wellington gets many of the national cultural facilities because we support them so strongly. Now to be fair to Aucklanders, they are not all cultural philistines. The spread out nature of Auckland means that any facility is harder to get to for most residents than a facility in Wellington. Wellington CBD is just so trivially easy to get into, that it is easier to use the local facilities.
Auckland’s Philharmonia Orchestra often finds itself playing second fiddle to the Wellington-based New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, says APO board chairwoman Rosanne Meo. APO figures show it earns $2.56 million a year in government funding – barely a fifth of the NZSO’s $12.34 million.
The NZSO visits Auckland about six times yearly, playing about 12 concerts. The APO plays about 40 mainstage concerts a year in Auckland, she says.
Now reading this you might think those greedy Wellingtonians get to have the taxpayer pay for around 40 concerts a year in Wellington. But as the NZSO tells us:
All its main symphonic programmes are presented in Auckland and Wellington, and as well as this, the orchestra visits some 30 New Zealand towns and cities annually.
Wellington get 12 main concerts – just the same as in Auckland. And 30 towns and cities get to hear the NZSO. Hence that is why it gets national funding. It is not a Wellington orchestra.
Auckland City Council arts, culture and recreation chairman Greg Moyle said Auckland is “desperately short of theatres. It seems only fair that some funding should come out of the central pot to help fund these sorts of infrastructure facilities that we would expect to find in a world-class city like Auckland.”
I would have thought that was something for Aucklanders to fund. As far as I know Bats Theatre, Circa Theatre, St James Downstage etc are all funded by sponsors, local Councils and lottery money.
Auckland City Mayor John Banks said there was “much inequity” between Wellington and Auckland.
It was unfair that Auckland City ratepayers alone funded Auckland’s art culture and the Regional Amenities Bill would hopefully fix that.
I agree that it has been unfair Auckland City rather than Auckland Region has had to fund many regional amenities.
As I said above, the geographic nature of Wellington means cultural amenities get far more visitors. Stick Te Papa in Auckland and I predict it would get less visitors than in Wellington, despite four times as large a population and most international visitors.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
David;
It’s a little unfair to say that Auckland Museum is free; it’s ‘free’ much in the same way education is ‘free’. The dome costs even more to get into. Finally, Auckland’s grey ghost is a war memorial, not a theme park. It was never designed to appeal to tourists, and I think a lot can be said for having our national treasures closer to the majority of our population and not on a fault line!
March 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Yeah! At last, a real issue to discuss. Where to start…
“First of all, both have the same charging policy – free admission but donations encouraged.”
Wrong, Just try getting into the Museum up here without paying. Have you been there in recent years? One enters through one of two turnstyles each with a cashier. Sounds like Te Papa? No way.
“Secondly one needs to ask how come Te Papa gets two to three times as many visitors as the Auckland War Memorial Museum, despite a population base one quarter of Auckland’s.”
It’s not a museum, it’s a funfair.
“not all cultural philistines”.
Oh thanks. When I lived in Wellington, I used to get this nonsense. So, drama aside (boosted historically by the silly decision to site Avalon in a wasteland), I used to challenge Wellingtonians to name any area of the arts and list the Wellington practitioners, and could always list more Auckland practitioners. Writing, painting, scultpure, etc, etc.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Wellington is the cultural capital for a reason – we have four professional theatres, two orchestras, a Performing Arts School. The Vectra Wellington Orchestra receives less central Government funding as the Auckland Philharmonic, but it still survives despite the presence of the NZSO in Wellington. AK07 was a flop, whereas NZ Festival 08 was another success.
But I wouldn’t call Auckland’s War Memorial Musuem “free, but donations encouraged”. You have to be given an admittance pass by a guy with a cash register – You can’t wander in like you can with Te Papa. I wouldn’t think many get past for free.
[DPF: Well their website calls it a donation, and if it is a fee, then the IRD should be investigating them for GST]
March 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Add to that the Domain is fairly isolated in terms of public transport…
March 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
On the orchestras, it’s true that Wellington only gets a few more concerts every year, but then this is more than made up for by the APO. The APO is clearly the second best orchestra in the country (and does a magnifent job given the paucity of public funding). So Auckland supports two seasons every year by very good/excellent orchestras, which does give the lie to the tosh about Wellington’s cultural eminence.
Note that the few extra concerts that Wellington gets (e.g. the single composer series) are just as “big” as those in the regular series (i.e., full concerts with top soloists), so the statement that “Wellington get 12 main concerts – just the same as in Auckland” is not a fair representation of the reality.
The 5:1 funding ratio may be very unfair, but we need to know how much of the NZSO’s budget is made up of the very considerable travelling costs.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The Auckland Regional Amenities Bill is completely wrongly named. It should be the Auckland Regional Entertainment Bill. It’s a shocking piece of legislation pushed by Judith Tizard in cahoots with Auckland City.
In essence approx 14.5 million p.a for entertainment, 2.5 million p.a. for lifesaving and coast guard stuff.
Auckland City (the richest local government unit) where most of the entertainment stuff occurs (and where most of the attendees of this entertainment live) is swapping a total spend of about 5 million p.a. (approximately 4 million on the Zoo and another 1million on all the rest) for a 3million contribution and a compulsory levy on all other local government units for force them to pay to subsidise entertainment.
In some parts of the region local government is making hard decisions to fund basic infrastructure like doing curbing and channeling. Those Councils decide on balance and as a result of their own consultation process they won’t fund say Opera New Zealand (where the venue is in Auckland City and half the attendees are from Auckland City).
The Bill seeks to eliminate the trade off that must occur with all spending and replace it with a levy system and a little bureaucracy to assist is striking the levy each year.
It’s a shocker and the Nats appear to going to vote for it – the Nats on the Select Committee were making the logical point that if this stuff is truly regional then the regional council should fund it. Despite this they appear inclined to support the Bill but are quibbling with the quantum of the levy, rather then the principle.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“Stick Te Papa in Auckland and I predict it would get less visitors than in Wellington, despite four times as large a population and most international visitors.”
Pure speculation. We can’t test the counterfactual, sadly.
Look, it’s probably true that a smaller proportion of Aucklanders spend their time in cultural activities, but you would expect that when there are so many beaches, parks, etc, to enjoy and the summers are twice as long. That’s why there are more people living here than the next three largest urban areas (Wellington, Christchurch & Hamilton) put together, after all. So many more recreational opportunities.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
jafapete wrote:
Very easily, Pete. I don’t eat shit from anyone, and the last time I got any static I very politely suggested she call her supervisor and school up on the history of her own institution. I also find it fundamentally offensive being asked to pay for access to a war memorial.
and MichaelE wrote:
After the best part of two decades of enormous losses — despite tens of millions of dollars in corporate, local body and central government subsidies. I think it would be fair comment to say any arts festival is not something you start with the expectation of quick profits/
March 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
The Auckland War Memorial Museum and Te Papa were established each in different times and for different purposes.
The AWMM looks and works like a museum, Te Papa more like the kiddies’ play area at MacDonald’s. I’m overstating it a bit but there is little to be gained from comparing the two facilities.
What worrries me is the new chief at the AWMM – a North American woman flown in from Los Angeles who speaks the latest museum management lingo and refers to Auckland as a ‘town’ – and her plans to make changes. It seems the AWMM is in for a shake-up designed to bring it up-to-date in some sort of way.
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall any public debate about the appointment of a new AWMM chief or about the future direction of the Museum. It’s not perfect but fine as it is. I like it, warts’n'all. The existing staff work hard and do a good job with little or no support from the government.
Why we need wholesale change and why we should hand over the direction of something as central to our national heritage as the AWMM to a foreigner is a mystery to me. Te Papa is not something we should replicate in Auckland.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Can we just knock that $0.5B eyesore with its tacky plastic displays right into Wellington Harbour with a wrecking ball? It’s a disgrace to have it called the “Museum of New Zealand”. It’s not a museum. Real museums have real artifacts. Most of Te Papa’s displays are plastic copies of stuff. It’s bullshit. What a waste of my tax money.
Whatever happened to the old fashioned notion of an industry that funds itself by selling tickets and making profits, y’know, like every other industry in New Zealand? Essentially, this is poor people paying for wealthy people to be entertained, and it’s wrong.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
kiwitoffee: Hear, hear! I agree with every word. (That doesn’t make you a card carrying leftie though.)
Craig: I am glad to hear that you didn’t pay up. You’d have to admit, though, very, very few people would have the guts to do what you did. I would be surprised if 99.something% of punters didn’t just pay up.
And I agree with many of Chris Diack (the sensible one)’s comments, but not the overall conclusion. Aucklanders are fed up with subsidising Wellingtonians all the time.
PS, I thought AK07 was very successful in many ways and enjoyed some of the events hugely.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Labour pays the NZSO to fiddle; meanwhile, Rome burns
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Te Papa is in the middle of town, which greatly facilitates visits. But it is a dog of a museum, utter crap. Every time I’ve been there, and I won’t bother again, it has just been such a mess. Sorry, I like museums to be museums, not fun-parks, but this approach seems to go down well in Wellington.
The War Memorial Museum is not free. They just about hold you down and waterboard you if you try and enter without making a suitable “donation”.
The idea of trying to gauge which city has a greater “culture” is fundamentally untestable. I believe operas sell out in each city. If you want to go for pop culture, how many people from Wellington come to Auckland for the BDO? Lots.
I suspect the private art collections in Auckland may be of a higher quality than those in Wellington, simply by the number of old wealthy collecting families here. If you don’t know who they are, you’ll never be able to find out though.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
God,nothings changed on this blogg , I live in the cultural centre , THE CAPITAL,WELLINGTON,i dont have the handicap of living in dorkland and with all the pathetic worries that causes, get over it LOSSIERS that live in the wet, crime riddled , child abusive north where lossiers and moaning posters seem to live.:(
March 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
jafapete: thanks.
A couple of other things I forgot…
Wellington doesn’t have an outdoors, unless you’re a penguin. For them it is indeed the culture capital.
On a more serious note, why the obsession with museum visitor numbers? It looks like the accountants are about to make a move on the AWMM. I wonder if there is some way of measuring the qualitative value of the AWMM as it is.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
kiwitoffee: we should set up a group to save the museum before this person wrecks the place.
You ask, “Why the obsession with museum visitor numbers? It looks like the accountants are about to make a move on the AWMM. I wonder if there is some way of measuring the qualitative value of the AWMM as it is.” The answer, as you undoubtedly know, is a complex of contestable if not mistaken assumptions and the tendency to treat quantitative data as objective and meaningful. It would make a good thesis topic for someone.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
BlairM asks, “Whatever happened to the old fashioned notion of an industry that funds itself by selling tickets and making profits, y’know, like every other industry in New Zealand? Essentially, this is poor people paying for wealthy people to be entertained, and it’s wrong.”
First off, the economics are different. Many cultural activities such as drama and classical music suffer from the problem that their marginal physical productivity is essentially fixed (you can only make an orchestra so small or reduce the number of players acting a Shakespearean play by so much). On the other hand, productivity of other economic activities is generally increasing (even in NZ). So, all else being equal, the unit costs of said cultural activities rises faster than of the other economic activities. (That’s the simple version.)
But you are correct it being the elitist activities that tend to be patronised by the wealthier which are being subsidised. It seems that society has democratically decided that it is worthwhile for this to happen, the arguments being that this is important for our national identity, that we are a civilised society, etc. Probably more accurately, the vast majority of voters don’t object too much to the elite (and we are not just talking about Helen & Judith T) indulging their own interests as long as it doesn’t cost too much, and so it is not an issue that has really been decided, in truth. But I can’t see this changing.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
jafapete:
I support any move to apply the brakes on museum modernisers, especially imported ones, but I’m not living in NZ at the moment. I shall follow developments at AWMM with great interest. I hope the NZ Herald takes up this issue.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
jafapete – yes in the grand scheme of things it is chump change, but the principle is also important. I do wonder, for example, whether NZ can sustain more than one symphony orchestra, if at all. Or if it should.
I’d also argue that if you subsidise art, its quality is decreased by an inverse proportion.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
BlairM: “I’d also argue that if you subsidise art, its quality is decreased by an inverse proportion.”
Hard to see how that has worked with the NZSO. They are truly world class, as the reviews of their London concert the other year, and many of their recordings, show.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
What makes Artists and Musicians think they should be funded by the taxpayer?
If I like Art, I will buy it.
If I like Music, I will buy it, or go to a concert and pay.
Why am I forced to pay tax for this?
Oh, forgot, it is another Social Service
March 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Me too, Steve, and not all artists and musicians have their hands out for public money.
This does not mean that art should be or can be provided only by the free market, even if such a thing exists.
I’m quite happy to see a small share of public money, at about the level we currently have it, allocated to the arts. Not because I get to benefit from it (even though I might) but because I can see the benefits for others who can’t afford to pay.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
If i hear another comment that dorkland , is better, ie brighter, better parks,better graffite better crime its the asian centre of godszone, under the FTA and with thousands of poor chinese flooding in to your sweaty crime riddled city , why do you people abuse a cultual icon ,WELLINGTON ???? ps the NZSO like WELLINGTON.( I LOVE WELLINGTON) no graffite in my neighborhood,your human dogs dont tag our walls with their urine(spraypaint) like your taggers love to piss on your walls in dorkland. A WELLINGTON LOVER.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Jafapete wrote : “Look, it’s probably true that a smaller proportion of Aucklanders spend their time in cultural activities, but you would expect that when there are so many beaches, parks, etc, to enjoy and the summers are twice as long. That’s why there are more people living here than the next three largest urban areas (Wellington, Christchurch & Hamilton) put together, after all. So many more recreational opportunities”
Spot on Jafapete. Auckland also has significantly more shows, music concerts (big and small), sporting and multi cultural events, better shops, much nicer nearby holiday spots etc etc.
Happy to be a so called cultural philistine if it makes you guys down there feel better about yourselves
March 24th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
You know, JSF2008, if Wellington is the cultural capital of NZ, and you are so proud to live in it as a result…why the hell can’t you spell words correctly or construct a coherent sentence?
March 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Bugger, Dog eat Dog beat me to it. I doubt that JSF would have been to an NZSO performance – ever.
I wonder what his problem with Chinese people is all about? Is JSF worried some Chinese criminal might cook him up for a black bean sauce dish?
March 24th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
As a visitor to Wellington I have visited Te Papa once I thought it was unfinished, and lacked character. As a resident of Auckland, I have visited the Domain more times in the last eighteen months than I would have because I take my little boy. he is under two and he runs his little legs off in the War Memorial, and genuinely enjoys every bit of it even the stairs. You don;t have to pay if you do not want to, but $5.00 for such a rockin’child-friendly place with miles of sights, sounds and dry places to run while it is pissing down outside – it is a bargain. Next time we are in Wellywood I will put Te Papa to the test, but my gut feeling is it will fail miserably. For a start it doesn’t even have a spitfire. What kind of an art gallery is that?
March 24th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
JSF2008, You just stay right where you are. Thanks.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
In one of the articles, Creative NZ chief executive Stephen Wainwright – a Wellingtonian – says …. “though Creative NZ is Wellington-based, it has offices in Auckland. Many institutions make a conscious decision where to be based, and while the NZSO is in Wellington, Auckland is home to NZ Opera.”
Wellington Opera and Auckland Opera merged about a decade ago in the face of financial difficulties. The new entity, National Business Review NZ Opera, performs identical productions in both cities. It is logical that it is based in Auckland because Auckland provides greater paying audiences and private sponsorship funding.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
JSF2008:
I believe you’re “John” under another alias? When did you last visit Te Papa, and did you enjoy the experience?
March 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
If we are going to compare Te Papa with anything similar in Auckland, I suggest more suitable than AWMM would be Rainbow’s End.
I wonder what ex-serivecemen and women would say to the Te Papafication of AWMM.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
AWMM only ask for a suggested donation. (http://www.aucklandmuseum.com) Same as Te Papa. The only thng is that AWMM has to put those Front of House staff there as cashiers. Yes, someone has to take the money off tourists who want to see Maori cultural performance. And no, the dome was never meant for public ‘just walk and have a look’ thing. It is an event centre for commercial purposes. And if you were one of those FOH staff who sit behind the counter, and got told more than 10 times a day that you don’t have to pay a donation to get through the museum, you would probably get sick of explaining too. And it is in AWMM’s act to not take any money from people visiting the war memorial.
As for Te Papa, they do not have such a contrains. However, more people have donated to Te Papa than AWMM. Simply because they have this donation box at the entrance. They know their consumer psychology and can get your money!
I think in a away, Aucklanders are in Auckland for a reason – they are here to work their butts off so they can have a brilliant holiday in their home town. I am often amazed by the number of people in Slyvia Park the days after holidays, e.g. Christmas. Like, people have never been to a shopping mall on a ‘normal’ weekend? Do they have to come to the shopping mall when the sales last like weeks? Families rather go shopping, see a movie, go to the beach, walk the dogs, sit in a cafe… than going to see a festival, or a concert? Not that there aren’t people who goes to it, but the turnout is relatively small. Quite depressing!
As for John, we know he always want more central government funding to fund Auckland. Good on him. Who knows what you will get if you don’t fight for it eh?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
“Many cultural activities such as drama and classical music suffer from the problem that their marginal physical productivity is essentially fixed”
Nah Many cultural activities such as drama and classical music suffer from the problem that no one wants to go and watch the shit they put on. Splitz Enz concert? Sold Out. DD Smash?? Same thing. Fuck me plenty of people would line up to go and see Howie the Maori sing about how his Old Man’s An All Black.
But why do the NZSO or Ballet need taxpayer subsidisation – cos hardly anyone wants to go and watch that shite. Its welfare for the chattering classes paid for by the working classes.
Why is it okay to throw 20m a year (or whatever amount it is) at the sacred cow the chardonnay sippers call the “Arts” but not okay to throw a couple of mill at a Street race or to do up ‘Puke?
Oh thats right cos a motor race is of interest to the low brow working class – and they only that happen to fund this arts programme (and a braying shithouse for a half a buck isn’t art – its a waste of fucking money thats what it is)
March 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Hobb: “Many cultural activities such as drama and classical music suffer from the problem that no one wants to go and watch the shit they put on…. Its welfare for the chattering classes paid for by the working classes.”
A couple of points:
(1) I’ve been to quite a few concerts that sold out the Aotea Centre or the Town Hall in recent years… by the NZSO, NBR (yuck) Opera, NZ Ballet, etc. When you think about it, if you count Symphony under the Stars and the like as broadly classical, you might even find more people indulging in this elitist culture than in pop culture.
(2) That should probably be “Nat-tering” classes. Did you know that the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council was established in 1963 and the New Zealand Film Commission in 1978, for example? What do those two dates tell you?
(3) The Irish seem to have done rather well by subsidising the arts, demonstrating that there is an economic pay-off.
(4) We’re pinot drinkers now.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:36 am
OK, what say Wellington lets Auckland have some more of the Arts funding, and Auckland lets Wellington have some more of the roading funding?
The way it works now is simple. If you want Arts, and the anti-business, anti-infrastructure attitudes don’t bother you or don’t affect you, you live in Wellington. Otherwise, you join the exodus to Auckland.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The stupid thing about State funding of the Arts, is that all great art has been produced in times of ECONOMIC prosperity, under a system that involved that artists had to do the hard yards looking for patronage. Demeaning? Hey, it produced great art. Guaranteed State funding, like tenure at universities, has only ever tended to result in ivory-tower charlatanism.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The Irish seem to have done rather well by subsidising the arts, demonstrating that there is an economic pay-off.
They joined the EU open market, got subsidies and large direct investment, reformed their tax system – perhaps the “economic pay-off” wasn’t entirely resultant of them switching to pinot & increasing their artists funding.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:15 am
The Irish, I’m afraid to point out, did rather well by BEING subsidised by Europe. Wellington has done rather well by being subsidised by the rest of New Zealand regardless of whether it was by Auckland or Hokitika.
Wellington thanks Hokitika and the rest of New Zealand for donating to the Arty classes. Quite often with an arched eyebrow, outstretched palm and slightly superior scratch of the collective chin ;~)
On the point of the high turnstile numbers for Te Papa, thats what happens when every school within 200 km is shipped in for free by Te Gumint.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Te Gumint. Love it!