ARTICLE AD BOX
"The show was made by NHNZ, formerly Natural History New Zealand and owned by Julie Christie. After the credits ... there came a line advising this show would get a rebate under the Screen Production Rebate scheme.
"This means that either 25 or 40 percent of the cost of making the programme on Jorja Miller will be refunded from the taxpayer’s purse. In other words, you and me have paid a sizeable chunk of the cost of making this rather inconsequential TV show.
"On Monday morning, the news bulletins were broadcasting information about a new $70 million dollar fund to subsidise 'events' like concerts featuring big time international stars. The narrative seemed to be that if Taylor Swift’s promoters had access to some of this money last summer when she was playing in Australia, they may have attracted the superstar to perform in New Zealand.
"All of which got me thinking about why are taxpayers still in the business of subsidising certain industries again? ...
"[T]here are increasing signs of what the political class often refer to as 'mission creep.' The two examples given above involve what might be termed glamour industries – screen production and entertainment. The government is happy to prop them up.
"But as taxpayers are we that well off that we can subsidise movies and TV shows to the tune of over a billion dollars for the next four years? It’s a scheme designed to attract big time film productions to this country but somehow modest little feature sports programmes on women rugby players qualify too – because they have a potential overseas audience through NZR+.
"The fact that international audience will be miniscule appears to be irrelevant. ...
"That’s the line that film producers and entertainment and sports promoters always use: 'Look at the economic impact this has had' they’ll say. Good for them. But if they’re so good couldn’t they have done it without taxpayers subsidising it?
"But as taxpayers are we that well off that we can subsidise movies and TV shows to the tune of over a billion dollars for the next four years? It’s a scheme designed to attract big time film productions to this country but somehow modest little feature sports programmes on women rugby players qualify too – because they have a potential overseas audience through NZR+.
"The fact that international audience will be miniscule appears to be irrelevant. ...
"That’s the line that film producers and entertainment and sports promoters always use: 'Look at the economic impact this has had' they’ll say. Good for them. But if they’re so good couldn’t they have done it without taxpayers subsidising it?
"Governments putting money directly into certain industries are trying to pick winners. Are bureaucrats the best people to be the judge of what will fly and what won’t? I don’t think so. ...
"A subsidised economy was supposed to have ended forty years ago. The country can do better than its slow-creep return."
~ Peter Williams from his post 'The slow creep of subsidies: The Government looks after glamour industries'
English (US) ·