Irish arts policy shames NZ

2026-03-22 - 17:24

New Zealand nil, Ireland 325. A progressive new arts wage policy in Ireland, which pays €325 per week to artists over a three-year period with no strings attached, has the support and admiration of Opposition parties in New Zealand—but no firm plans to commit to a similar model. Ireland’s new Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) initiative will give artists a weekly income in the hope of reducing their need for alternative work. A pilot scheme has become permanent, with 2000 artists being selected at random—no hoops, no criteria—to receive the weekly €325 wage. Irish author Caelainn Hogan was among those whose name was drawn from a hat in the pilot scheme; she wrote in the Guardian, “I am a freelance writer who, like most artists, has always had to work outside my creative focus to afford to live, constantly worrying I will never be able to afford a home myself or to start a family. As such, the basic income was life-changing.” The scheme was a success for the artists—and the government. Hogan: “It turned out that artists on the pilot made back millions. The state’s own research found that for every euro the government spent on supporting artists, society received €1.39 in return, and the scheme was estimated to have generated more than €100m in social and economic benefits.” The BIA is the first scheme of its kind in the world. Mulish, timid New Zealand is in no position or state of mind to do anything to actively follow the leader. “I think the idea is awesome,” said Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, interviewed last Wednesday at the party offices behind Karangahape Road in downtown Auckland. “We’re absolutely open to it. We’re always open to good ideas. If we were to be in a situation where we could find cross partisan agreement to support our artists and to get something like this off the ground, of course the Greens would be on board with that. I’m in no way, shape or form opposed to the idea. So. Yeah, if you manage to find other political parties who are willing to make this happen, then you’ve got the Greens vote and we’ll do it.” Yeah, sure. Arts minister Paul Goldsmith did not return messages. There was little point in seeking the views of New Zealand First, and no point whatsoever in listening to Act. I spoke with Labour’s arts spokesperson Rachel Boyack on Thursday. “It very much has come across my radar,” she said. Good. But was there any chance, I asked her, of a Labour-led government taking on the scheme? She found words to form a kind of blockade to the question, and rambled, “I want to be really careful because until we actually see the state of the books, which will happen after the budget, we won’t be in a position to make any commitments to things that we really want to do. But in the medium to long term, I’d really like to see us looking strongly at this and it could be in the short term, but I want to be really careful not to over promise. But what I can definitely say is it’s been raised by the sector by a lot of people with me as an opportunity. And I think it’s something that has real merit.” Well, yes, but that’s already been proven by Ireland’s own figures. “This is a gigantic step forward that other countries are not doing,” said Irish culture minister Patrick O’Donovan at the BIA launch. “For the first time in the history of the state we now have, on a permanent basis, a basic income structure that will really revolutionise and, in many ways, set Ireland apart from other countries with regard to how we value culture and creativity.” Talk of value is all very fine but what about the maths, the figures, the money? I was alerted to the BIA scheme by economist Brian Easton. I asked him for his thoughts on the numbers. He emailed, “This is how it might work. Ireland has about the same population as New Zealand so let’s settle on 2000 artists per three-year term here too. They would be paid at the rate of the Job Seekers benefit—currently $361.42 net a week for over 25-year-olds, which would be treated as taxable income (so any additional earnings would be taxed). “The scheme would have a direct cost of about $37.6m a year (rising as benefit levels rose). You can hear the fiscal austerity brigade loudly objecting. But the actual cost of the scheme may be near zero. Some recipients will come off social security benefits—the advantage to them will be less stress, more certainty—at zero fiscal cost. Recipients will pay tax on their earnings, adding to fiscal revenue. Given the high level of unemployment, every participant that leaves a job creates the opportunity for an unemployed person to take it—another fiscal gain.” A revolutionary new policy at zero fiscal cost, in fact likely fiscal gain, and yet seemingly too challenging for Labour and the Greens. Jenny Nagle, chair of the New Zealand Society of Authors, can only look to Ireland in awe and despair. “Cheers to Ireland who made it policy to value their creatives and writers as workers,” she emailed. “The NZSA has been aware of this scheme since the pilot began. The payment alleviates basic financial pressure for Irish writers to leave them free to do what they do best – write! It smooths the humps between royalty cheques, advances, and PLR payments so writers can afford heating, and ... eat. “Latest data show NZ authors incomes remain below the poverty line—circa $16kpa. We sit at the opposite end of the spectrum, seeking mere parity of investment for books and reading, with the visionary and enlightened Irish a world away.” I sought comment from three authors. Two gave the kinds of replies I expected but the third was against the entire premise of BIA. Khadro Mohamed is a Wellington writer and the author of Before the Winter Ends, which I rate as the best New Zealand novel of 2025 (it made the Ockham longlist this year). She replied, “I’ve known about this grant since it was first passed in Ireland. I think it’s amazing and something I wish our govt could adopt. It really sends a message to artists everywhere that our work and time is of value. “I’ve lived in Wellington my whole life and I’ve always been told it’s the ‘creative capital’ but with rising costs artists are either leaving the country or working a 9-5 that leaves no time for creativity. It’s really hard to exist in a world that claims to care for the things you create but works against you, you know? I don’t understand how artists are supposed to stay in a city/country that barely pays enough for workers to live and still expect artists to make the city the creative hub it’s known for. With a small weekly wage, artists could work part time, to pay for bits and pieces and then dedicate more time to their field. I really hope it’s something NZ can adopt. I know for a fact it would change my life and many others.” Bridget van der Zijjp is an Auckland novelist, and also the co-director of the writers festival in Hamilton, HamLit. She replied, “I’ve always thought this kind of scheme would be a deeply beneficial. A game-changer if you like. It would potentially give artists who are struggling to get by not just time but also a lift in self-esteem and that would also mean a lift in the energy they can put into their works. “I have written three novels, and am working on a fourth. Each has taken me around three years, writing for stints and also dropping in freelance/temporary work when I needed more funds. There’s always the saggy bit in the middle where I have a crisis, wondering why I am choosing to do something so financially unrewarding. But some support or recognition for the project will always increase the incentive.” Creative New Zealand’s funding model is a one-off grant. You get a big cheque, at best, and you have to make it last. A few private writers residencies allow for a stipend. As van der Zijjp said, “I’ve been lucky enough to recently be awarded the Ireland, Wilson, Sargeson Fellowship, which was a real boost because it gives me months to focus on the novel, but it also makes me feel relevant as a writer (which is often a struggle) and that lifts confidence. Fellowships and CNZ funding are highly contestable, and usually allocated to specific projects, so having a window of three years, like in the Irish scheme, feels like you would be able to think in the longer term about where to take your practise, and to really inhabit your artistic/writer self.” Rachel Boyack from Labour brought up the issue during out interview on Thursday. She said, “One of the things I think is worth looking at is that Creative New Zealand currently have a fund that’s available for emerging artists and it’s quite competitive and it’s basically a one-off grant. Whereas this [Irish] scheme means you get a weekly income for three years. Whether we would do it for three years would be a question. The other thing Ireland do is they make it randomised, the luck of the draw, whereas I think probably you’d want to have a fairer system than just being whoever gets their name pulled out of the hat. I think you’d actually want some criteria so that you actually got the best people with the best potential getting access to it.” Classic. Every NZ arts bureaucrat since the dawn of time has always demanded hoops, boxes to be ticked, and whatever other regulations that meet the requirement of that golden concept of “criteria”. It’s the kind of thinking that is the antithesis of the Irish BIA idea. “We can continue earning and applying for artist grants,” author Caelainn Hogan pointed out in her Guardian piece. You can imagine the red tape any kind of NZ equivalent would install to prevent that sort of thing happening. Still, at least Boyack was open to a weekly wage rather than a one-time lump sum. “I’ve talked to artists who’ve said they would actually prefer something that had certainty of funding over a period of time rather than just the grants,” she said. “So it could be you could actually reallocate some funds from within Creative New Zealand to support something like this.” The third author I contacted was Christchurch writer Erik Kennedy. His poetry collection Sick Power Trip is shortlisted for the $12,000 poetry prize at this years Ockham NZ book awards. Kennedy is also a Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand advocate. His views on the BIA scheme were interesting. He emailed, “I have had strong feelings about the Irish scheme for a while—feelings that I don’t think necessarily make me popular. “I don’t particularly like it. First, though, I’ll say what’s good about it. I’m sure for those who receive it, it’s wonderful, maybe life-changing. The return on investment for society seems impressive. But many, many people are struggling in the age of $3 / litre fuel and $7.50 coffees, and morally I’d find it hard to defend a programme that was restricted to artists. Lots of workers can use a leg up, not just arts workers. “Why would we grant from the start that the way to go is an artist’s basic income rather than a universal basic income? Because it’s an easier sell? Because there’s something that seems a little romantic about nurturing talent? As artists, we use our imaginations, and I would prefer to imagine a bigger, more equitable programme. The person that a struggling artist has most in common with is any other person who’s struggling. “Of course at the moment this is all academic, because as far as I know no one is putting a programme like this in their 2026 manifesto. But I’d love to see a real conversation about this in Aotearoa arts spaces.” Kennedy got that right. No one is putting a programme like this in their 2026 manifesto. I asked Boyack and Swarbrick what mind of message is being sent that Ireland is committing itself to something radical and apparently cost-effective, while New Zealand is stumbling around in the dark, afraid of what taxpayers might think. Swarbrick, in full oratory in the Greens basement behind K Road: “I think first and foremost it shows that we have had 40-odd years of neoliberal trickle-down economic thinking which has driven our economy and our society into the doom loop that we’re now experiencing, whereby as a result of this kind of death by a thousand cuts, we are haemorrhaging creativity and particularly young skilled people offshore.” Boyack, temperately and cautiously as ever: “I think we’ve got ourselves into a place in New Zealand at the moment where there’s unfortunately been a punching down on the arts. So it’s seen in a derogatory way, and I really struggle with that. I think that we should be seeing the role of arts as an essential part of who we are as a nation.” Ireland 325, New Zealand a big fat enduring nil.