“It’s a big shift,” says Creative New Zealand CEO Gretchen La Roche, “and I know that can be quite confronting for people. Quite unsettling, especially because we’re in the process. This will take time, it’s a transition, but people have been calling for change.”
Our arts development and funding agency is undertaking one of the most fundamental shifts New Zealand has ever had in how we fund art, and artists.
Considering CNZ’s recently released 15 year strategy Tū Mai Rā, Toi Aotearoa arts respondents have noted the bold aspiration of seeing “empowered communities, of all kinds, making decisions on the arts and ngā toi Māori closest to them.” Yet those responses – from experienced arts managers and critics – make clear there hasn’t been a full announcement of the major structural changes that are planned.
The change lies quietly behind the words of a CNZ tender published at the end of April, and I’ve interviewed La Roche for a full explanation.
The tender calls for expressions of interest by 29 May from groups around the motu to enter regional partnerships with CNZ to deliver arts development, administer and distribute regional funding, and connect, partner and advocate for the arts in their region. These partnerships are to commence from July 2027, or earlier, if partners are ready.
‘Regional funding' turns out to be far wider than projects being delivered in different regions. It sees, with the exception of national arts organisations, non-regionally based initiatives, international projects and national advocacy work, funding decisions being made by up to 16 independent regional organisations.
La Roche confirms this includes funding to artists. In other words, artists and arts companies will apply for funding to the regional organisation in which they are based. These organisations will do so under contract with CNZ.
“We want to be clear,” La Roche says. “It’s not like the New Zealand sports model where high performance sits centrally. We fully expect the regional partners to be delivering from grassroots community practice right through to senior practice, in the same way we do currently.”
Further, Creative New Zealand are, as their tender states, looking for these organisations to take ‘a leadership and partnership role, not just programme delivery.’
This is “very deliberate,” says La Roche. “This is not satellite CNZ offices that would amplify cost. Nor do we see it as just contracts for delivery. They are partnerships that will have CNZ standing alongside them and working on agreed priorities and actions together. We will help with development and capacity capability building as required.”
“It’s also recognising that, in decision-making, Creative New Zealand is just one investor alongside local government, community trusts and philanthropic organisations.”
The planned changes are a significant power shift, and a response to what La Roche says is a broken system.
So what problems is this shift looking to fix?
“We’ve moved from a time,” she says, “where CNZ was able to support maybe half the applications, to dropping now to less than 20%. That’s a huge missed opportunity for our country. We want more responsive, agile ways of working. Simpler ways of applying for artists, closer to the decision making and also making stronger more connected-up decisions about investment.
“We see a big opportunity in this model for regional partnerships that can attract support from councils, iwi, business, education, health and other sectors.”
“I believe, and the arts council believe, strongly that we need to do something significantly different. Crucially we’ve got to get more investment into the arts. That’s fundamental. It’s hard for our artists to do the work right now.”
La Roche confirms that Creative New Zealand doesn’t have additional funds to carry out this change – this is a redistribution of the money they already have.
Will it in fact save CNZ money?
“No, it doesn’t mean there will be less invested in the arts,” La Roche replies, “but we don’t see it will increase our delivery costs compared to our current situation. But we do believe it gives us an opportunity to see an increase in investment from others – as we see pressure going on.
“Some local councils are pulling back from arts investment and, right now, we don’t have a strong lever to enter into conversations to hold the line. But, if we go in regionally with committed funds, for multi-years, it gives us the ability to drive a harder conversation about that. Frankly I think we’re going to need to.”
The reason for this change, then, is also clearly about creating a mechanism for increasing funding to the arts through the regions. Thickening the spread of who is funding the arts – and sharing more of the decision-making to do so.
“We’ve been trying for close to 20 years to get an increase in our baseline funding with no success so clearly just asking for more to do more isn’t working.”
All this as the government announces this week that nearly 9,000 public sector jobs are to go in the next three years, and government agencies are to merge. Will CNZ be downsizing?
“We do have to ensure CNZ is operating in a way fit for purpose. As already signalled we are undertaking internal review of our operating model. But it’s occurring internally at the moment, so I can’t talk much more about that.”
Has there been political pressure for CNZ to make this change?
“No. We’ve had no direction on how to do this. I think there’s always political interest in CNZ being efficient in what we do and that we invest public money wisely – that’s a constant.
“But the real genesis of this began in 2023 when we went out on the road and undertook numerous hui around the country and received extensive feedback. It has come from a point of going ‘the system is completely broken’. What was very clear was the notion of more self-determination coming through.
“We have been looking at other regional funding models in New Zealand and internationally, as well as looking at our own whakapapa with regional arts councils and our own devolved scheme, Creative Communities. What works, and what doesn’t.”
Creative Communities is CNZ’s one current ongoing regionalised funding programme. In the 2024-2025 year Creative New Zealand gave out over four million through Creative Communities, with 1,771 grants awarded by 67 territorial authorities
At this stage La Roche says there is no decision on whether the scheme will move under these entities. Nor is funding from that scheme assisting this transition.
What is happening in New Zealand isn’t in isolation. La Roche says Creative Australia has “strands of this approach which they talk about as one of their most effective”. Scotland (that has an equivalent population base) are looking at this model and other European countries are working in this space also, she says.
“There’s a real interest globally around this type of approach of participatory decision-making and regionalism – of moving away from centralised or institutional funding.
“We’re probably a little bit at the forefront of actually doing it.”
La Roche talks about a change of mindset about what a region is. From the old binary of four main cities and then ‘regional’ New Zealand, to everywhere from Auckland, Gisborne, Tasman and Otago being regions. The growth of cities like Tauranga and Hamilton are reflective of such changes. Having up to 16 regional organisations in partnerships with CNZ aligns with the fact that New Zealand officially has 16 regions. La Roche says CNZ are conscious of populations shifting internally, becoming more diverse, aging and changing the ways culture is engaged with.
“It becomes difficult from a solely centralised model of funding to reflect the nuance that we see emerging. If we stay wholly to the centralised model it's very, very difficult to be responsive to the growing distinctive characters of different parts of the country. What for instance Northland might be looking at, and the shape of their creative community is vastly different to Auckland.
“And at the same time it allows CNZ to take a stronger role in the national and international space. It’s a balance between not letting things get too small or insular, but at the same time having responsiveness to the emerging needs,”
Who will these regional bodies be?
This proposal does address some current geographical inequities. RANA (Regional Arts Network Aotearoa) has 13 member organisations, from Creative Northland down to Arts Murihiku in the far south. None however represent East and Central Otago (including Ōtepoti Dunedin). In fact outside Ōtautahi the entire East Coast of the South Island is not represented. There’s also an absence of arts development member organisations in the central and lower North Island: from Rotorua to the King Country and Gisborne, to further south Tararua, Wairarapa, Kapiti and Horowhenua districts.
There are RANA member organisations who already appear to have strong mixed funding, geographic reach and ambitious programmes, like Creative Waikato. But they are few. Other organisations range from the West Coast Society of Arts to council funded arts advocates Toi o Tairaka Arts Wellington and Toi Ōtautahi. They all work in very different ways and at different scales.
There’s not just significant capability building to be done. In many cases entire new organisations will need to emerge. Beyond this month’s initial expression of interest, organisations will be dealing with making some very big decisions. Some trustees won’t be fans of now running a major arts funding and development agency for an expanded region. Some organisations will have trust deeds or membership structures that will see them need to do far more than just restructure. And, as La Roche notes, in some regions there are overlapping agencies: RANA organisations Arts Murihiku and Three Lakes Cultural Trust both cover Queenstown Lakes District.
It will be interesting to see who does, and doesn’t, apply.
“We’re hoping to establish a really strong joined-up national network of arts development entities so we’ve got really even development and capability around the country,” says La Roche. She adds that there’s lots of potential for CNZ to engage in capability building where needed and CNZ could continue to hold some of the space while they establish the right kind of entities. “CNZ does have a record of developing these sorts of organisations. Some in the network historically came through CNZ.”
Yet at present it looks like all that is going to have to be done without the likes of the one-off Regional Strengths fund the Helen Clark-led government gifted CNZ back in 2003.
For some it might also all seem – as theatre critic Dr James Wenley has noted – a little ‘back to the future’. Back in the 1990s, the then QE2 Council had three regional arts councils looking after, under statute, a host of community arts councils.
Yet this is far more devolved. Back then they all had the same employer. Philip Clarke, chair of The Big Idea and Artspace Aotearoa, former Northern Regional Arts Council worker, and former director of Objectspace, suggests that if CNZ are going to make a successful transition they are going to have to invest a lot of money in helping people negotiate the issues. “Rather than, here’s a contract and here’s a million dollars.”
“There was one organisation’s view coming through and everything was done in concert,” says Clarke of the old regional arts councils. “So how do they expect arts development to happen in this highly devolved way?”
La Roche says CNZ’s agreements with these regional entities will ensure the delivery of what’s important to CNZ. This she says includes the support of all artforms, and artists being at the centre of decision-making.
“These things become crucial to us. Equally, that there is transparency in the decision-making practice and cultural representation and Te Tiriti underpinning this, with a strong support for Toi Māori and Pacific arts, and other diverse groups practice. That doesn’t change and it’s important we’re there to ensure it.”
What could possibly go wrong, you may ask.
Ceding control and enabling stronger participation is going to challenge many people’s level of trust. Yet it is, La Roche says, what people have been calling more for.
To that, others may ask ‘which people?' I put it to La Roche that many will see this as compromise in the development of art of excellence, versus stronger grassroots engagement. While the changes may better service currently underfunded regional cultural scenes, for artists whose community and potential investors aren’t local but spread globally, there could be issues.
How can we expect a panel from one region to have the same experience and knowledge of a panel drawn nationally?
“Well, I think about all the incredible knowledge and expertise, and high performing artists around the country,” she replies. “And we know this at CNZ because we bring panels together from across the mōtu. I believe firmly that that knowledge and experience actually does exist out there and, what’s more, people know very well – and much more closely – the quality close to them.”
Closeness. Should artists be close to the decisions that are going to affect them?
Philip Clarke recalls that even with the former three regional council structure there were issues of locals pushing proposals because it was from their area. “Sometimes you need a bit of distance to create a bit of objectivity.”
Will CNZ have less control of conflicts of interest issues given it’s in contractual partnerships, where they don’t have ultimate control? And don’t more financial investors closer to the funding decisions further heighten the risks of conflicts?
“Yes we need to look at how we manage conflicts of interest,” La Roche acknowledges. “But I also think we are really mature smart people, and artists solve problems every day. This can be done. We’re a small country and we manage conflicts of interest all the time. That plays out even with a centralised model.”
How will the funding be divided up between regions (rather than art forms) to effectively support the best applications? What is judged to be a national arts company? And how is the growth of up to 16 organisations spread nationally good for the reduction of bureaucracy?
Just a few of the questions that remain to be answered.
