The creative sector's views on the Government's proposed Creative and Cultural Strategy - known as Amplify - is much clearer.

Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) published a feedback summary report on Wednesday afternoon (12 March) that fleshed out the detail of the 704 submissions its received in the public consultation window in late 2024.

It's a comprehensive and detailed report, with many subtle points to soak up. As MCH Secretary for Culture and Heritage Leauanae Laulu Mac Leauanae puts it, “We received many innovative ideas and constructive feedback on the strategy."  

Among the most striking - don't overlook our local creatives and audience in the aim to take Aotearoa art international, and these goals will require new investment in the sector.

Keeping it Kiwi

MCH's report states that while over 71% of respondents supported the vision statement of the strategy to 'Amplify our arts and culture to make New Zealand a global creative powerhouse' and its intent to foster the economic growth of the creative and cultural sectors, many made it clear that international ambitions shouldn't take precedence over the needs of domestic audiences and practitioners.

The report notes "Some respondents suggested that the Amplify vision is suitable if applied to highly commercial arts or creative industries, but less relevant to those working in other areas such as cultural heritage and traditional art forms. 

"It was seen, by some, to overlook wellbeing, social cohesion, cultural identity, community resilience and other outcomes, and alienates those whose work aligns with these areas."

As one piece of feedback underlines, “Just making arts and culture an export commodity does not enrich the lives of New Zealanders whose culture it is.”

It also saw some question whether focusing on impact overseas would lead to cultural appropriation and a lack of authenticity and diversity. 

But there is no question seeing New Zealand creativity and culture up in lights across the world is a source of huge pride for many, which has the potential to foster economic prosperity.

The report states "Some submitters were confused as to what was meant by global creative powerhouse, while others felt New Zealand was already a creative powerhouse. Feedback also referenced ngā toi Māori as a critical and unique part of what makes New Zealand a creative powerhouse in a global cultural context, and what differentiates and makes us special internationally."

Analysing Amplify

The name of the strategy also came into question. 'Amplify' has been described as "a buzzword" and "vague".

The report explains "Like ‘powerhouse’, a considerable number of respondents viewed the term ‘amplify’ as ambiguous and questioned what it means in practice (for example, getting more out of what already exists, or increasing scale to make a bigger impact). 

"These submitters suggested that the Strategy should articulate a more action-oriented vision, focused on tangible outcomes. It was also noted that for New Zealand to become a global creative powerhouse further support is needed."

Target zone

When Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith announced the Amplify strategy back in November 2024, it came with four proposed targets to achieve its goals by 2030.

While they achieved broad support for their aspirations and intent, questions were raised during feedback - mostly regarding the process of how the targets are reached and the impact on what are seen as long-standing issues within the sector.

"Submitters felt that achieving the targets by 2030 would require new investment and resources, and expressed concerns on how the targets will be achieved within the Strategy’s five-year timeframe," details the MCH report.

Among the suggestions, reshaping the targets so increased participation and raising the median income for creative professionals were the first step to tick off before some of the larger-scale ambitions.

This is how the targets were broken down:

Target: New Zealand ranks among the top 25 nations in the world for culture and heritage soft power, resulting in high-value cultural tourism and exports

Strong support overall for this target - but again, the wording came under the microscope.

There were requests for an explanation about how ‘soft power’ was measured, and how the creative and cultural sectors could influence this if rankings were reliant on a range of activity across different sectors. Some also refuted the suggestion that a rise in the rankings would lead to tangible outcomes for New Zealand audiences or creative and cultural practitioners. 

The report continued "There were also concerns that prioritising ‘soft power’ and exports would come at the expense of recognising the inherent value of arts, culture and heritage for New Zealand."

Target: More New Zealanders are actively engaging with New Zealand arts, culture and heritage

MCH declared this target was backed by the majority of those who provided submissions - with some stating it should be Amplify's top target given its a goal few in the creative community would question.

Wariness of definition is a continued theme, with queries on how ‘active engagement’ would be defined and measured - some noting it should come with a specific figure.

"Some submissions outlined how the action’s parameters could be identified, including by using existing data (for example, audience numbers for funded content) or identifying known data gaps (such as research on barriers to accessing creative and cultural activity)."

Target: The GDP contribution of the arts and creative sector increases to at least $20 billion, with a focus on exports

Unsurprising to most followers of the creative community, there was strong pushback on the sector's GDP numbers defining the full value of the arts.

"By prioritising commercial outcomes, there were concerns that the broader societal benefits of creative and cultural endeavours would be ignored or incorrectly captured, including the value of te ao Māori and ngā toi Māori to New Zealand."

On the flipside, there were some who pushed for a more ambitious GDP target in tandem with an investment boost and a clearer roadmap to achieving the target’s economic aims, including more export-orientated actions.

Target: The median income for creative professionals more closely matches the median income for New Zealanders earning a wage or salary.

Perhaps the least likely target to receive pushback, this has been a pain point for generations of Aotearoa artists.

The infamous $37,000 median income for creative professionals (compared to overall salary and wage earners median of $61,800) doesn't just need addressing - it demands it. 

The widespread support for this target is met with some cynicism that it can be achieved without more financial support from the government.

"Many believed that income growth for artists would lead to greater export and GDP contributions as well as increased engagement with arts, culture and heritage."

As one respondent puts it, “The achievement of these targets will require a …well-resourced sector along with new investment into research, development and planning alongside investment into current activities."

Perusing the pillars

Achieving the four targets proposed was then broken down into a trio of strategic pillars to outline actions the Government will take over the next five years.

Under each pillar, a range of actions were proposed, with submissions invited to rank their priority order.

And as the full report shows - there were no shortage of suggestions from respondents. But for a more condensed view of the pillars: 

Maximising impact through the $450m annual Crown investment

"The majority of comments on the actions under the Investing for Maximum Impact pillar articulated how government investment can be leveraged to better support organisations and practitioners, with some submitters expressing scepticism about the pillar’s value in the absence of additional funding," the report articulates.

Increased competition for the scarce funding resources was also a highlighted concern, "leading to a funding structure which ignores the broader societal contributions of creative and cultural activity", while initiatives engaging traditionally underrepresented, marginalised or vulnerable groups received "considerable support".

The most supported action in this pillar was Develop a structure for central government funding of the creative and cultural sectors that simplifies access and purposefully leverages other sources of funding, for example local government, iwi and private funding, which was placed in the top three of 75.9% of repsondents. 

Feedback was resolute that central government funding remains critical, with support for "a more systematic and structured approach to funding." Pleas for a more equitable funding in the brutal current landscape was noted. 

The report explains "Submitters were concerned that leveraging private funding would lead to increased competition amongst organisations and different artforms, and disadvantage regional and rural centres with lower population and wealth levels. It was also noted that private funding takes significant work to attract and maintain."

Other strong thematic areas and points of interest related to this pillar concerned raising sector incomes, support for a broad range of cross-portfolio objectives and outcomes, and emphasis on the multi-faceted value and benefits of the creative and cultural sectors.

Nurturing talent and supporting a pipeline to provide sustainable career opportunities

Another hot-button topic in the creative community, and one that has often been criticised for being under-supported by the powers-that-be. 

With 64.2%, the most backed action in this pillar was Develop a creative education work programme to increase learners’ exposure to New Zealand creative and cultural activity through the school curricula, working with sector partners.

Feedback highlighted this action as a critical priority for government, given concerning trends like the sharp decline in students selecting creative and cultural subjects, the disestablishment of school libraries, and a lack of free creative and cultural programmes.

One of the leading stated examples - the hugely unpopular culling of the Creatives in Schools programme, which put experienced artists in direct contact with students rather than expecting teachers to take on more specialised skills. Unsurprisingly, a large number of submissions called for the programme to be reinstated or used as a building block for an eventual successor.

With the New Zealand arts curriculum facing a refresh in 2027 - this is likely to come to a head in the very near future.

One respondent expanded “It is important to see creativity as a component that supports all elements of the education programmes, not just as an additional subject.”

There was also an emphasis on creative education outside the formal education system, which was identified as a key gap in the strategy. It included a call for "greater recognition of the role that participating in community groups such as kapa haka, theatrical societies, or church and youth groups have in feeding a workforce into the industry."

Submissions saw value in the strategy supporting a stable career pipeline offering sustainable career opportunities and stable income sources and engaged strongly with career-related actions. Submitters highlighted programmes already underway which allowed professionals to grow capability while on the job and stressed the value of sector-led professional development opportunities.  

Reducing barriers to growth – modernising and streamlining government regulation to enable our cultural sectors to thrive

The most popular proposed action for this final pillar was Work across government to identify and update regulation that impacts on the creative and cultural sectors’ ability to grow and produce creative work, such as the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Act, the Copyright Act, and alcohol licensing regulation. It was in the top three actions of preference of 57.7% of respondents.

As you'd expect, there was a broad range of feedback across a range of creative mediums with plenty of suggestions of what should be improved and brought up-to-date. Many submissions "emphasised the importance of fit-for-purpose regulation that is conscious of future challenges and opportunities, including around AI and IP."

This pillar also say a focus on feedback on the need to protect the data sovereignty of ngā toi Māori, with "concerns of misappropriation, exploitation and a disregard for tīkanga if AI and other emerging technologies are left unregulated."  

Among the feedback for proposed changes: 

• Extending the Copyright Act term from 50 to 70 years and putting measures in place to deal with AI data-scraping before its too late
• Making things easier for smaller operators and grassroots communities to reach compliance requirements for Alcohol Licensing regimes 
• Recommending a multi-year licenses for recurrent events, a “festival license” designed to account for the unique nature and lead times of major events, and a “pre-approved” status for event organisers, reducing red tape and processing times
• Standardising sound control policy and enforcement across all local councils for clarity and consistency, enabling the live music industry to thrive
• Requiring libraries to source their collections from New Zealand not Australia
  and setting up a literacy/ literature Commission similar to the Film Commission
• Ensuring the galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM) sector has permanent exemptions written into legislation for the collecting and exhibiting of NZ's heritage

Not to be forgotten

In the eyes of respondents, MCH has reported there is a  strong support for Amplify, the targets it outlines and the principles it aims to uphold.

But the broad brushstrokes has left some feeling there are under-served segments of the creative community that is not given enough focus in the strategy.

Some pointed to the actions being somewhat disjointed from its draft principles, and that the "economic-focussed tone of the Strategy neglected to recognise the diverse needs of New Zealanders and subsequently creative and cultural work would be less accessible."

Communities that felt under-represented in the strategy include the disability sector and regional arts, along with not enough emphasis on the sustainability of cultural sectors and the diversity of creative and cultural careers pathways.

Others are calling for Amplify to explicitly outline commitments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ngā toi Māori, either by reordering and prioritising the principles on supporting and acknowledging Māori arts, culture and heritage, or by adopting more explicit language, like "protects" or "partners" instead of just acknowledges.

What happens next

With the creative community voice now spelt out, Manatū Taonga has stated the feedback given will form the foundation of the advice that it provides Minister Goldsmith about what changes could be made to the strategy.

Leauanae details "Feedback reflected the broader benefits of arts and culture to the lives of New Zealanders, and the intrinsic value of the arts to our quality of life. These are important drivers of the strategy.  

“We’ll be taking this feedback into account as we progress the strategy.” 

From there, Cabinet decisions are expected in June with a view to publishing a final version of the Strategy in July.

Once Amplify is finalised, an implementation plan and evaluation framework will be established to monitor the progress and delivery of actions.

Until then - it's a case of hurry up and wait.