Changes to the PLR Scheme Fall Well Short

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Most New Zealanders have never heard of the Public Lending Right (PLR), yet they benefit from it whenever they borrow a book by a New Zealand author from their local library.

The idea is straightforward. Libraries allow books to be borrowed for free, which can reduce potential sales for authors, so the Government pays authors a small amount based on how many of their books are held in public libraries. It is a sensible idea and I, like many authors, love that my books are available to borrow – I wrote them to be read.

Unfortunately, the scheme, created in 1972 with $1 million, has remained mired in the 1970s – e-books and audiobooks are not recognised.

The fund itself has been hollowed out by inflation. Although it has increased to $2.4M, and that may sound significant, if it had been inflation adjusted it would be closer to $17.8M. If a New Zealand library book was worth $1 under the scheme in 1972, that same payment is worth only about 14 cents today.

To put that into perspective, if MPs had accepted the same inflation-adjusted erosion imposed on the PLR, Brooke van Velden (the current minister responsible) would not be earning more than $300,000. She would be receiving something closer to $48,000.

Despite organisations such as the New Zealand Society of Authors pressing for change, and a full review of the system being undertaken in 2020 (which identified all the required changes), the scheme has become a can that successive ministers have kicked down the road.

This year, unexpectedly, Brooke van Velden decided the scheme needed to be reviewed before she leaves Parliament after the November election. Consultation documents were hurriedly prepared and sent out. Having written numerous articles and sent requests to the Minister, you might expect that I was encouraged, if not excited, but the minister ruled out any increase in funding.

As a result, the changes announced are, at best, underwhelming. A reduction in the number of physical copies an author needs held and an administrative mechanism to deal with errors if the scheme makes a mistake. Whatever the review cost, it wasn’t worth it.

The situation says something larger about how we value creative work in Aotearoa. Writing is only one example. For many artists, a few thousand dollars can be the difference between continuing their work or quietly giving up.

While over this side of the Tasman we debate administrative tweaks, Australia significantly increased its corresponding fund in 2023 and in May 2026 announced additional funding to “ensure authors are paid for the free use of their work in Australian public and educational lending libraries.” Australia isn’t just leading us in arts funding, it has lapped us many times over.

Properly funding creative work strengthens the society we live in. It shapes how we understand ourselves as a country. Our stories, our identity, our voice. We celebrate the cultural icons of the past while often providing limited support to those creating today’s culture.

There is a persistent belief that funding the arts is a luxury, or worse, a drain on the economy. It is neither. Most artists are not wealthy. The money they receive is spent locally on rent, food and services, circulating back through communities.

Aotearoa New Zealand is not a company, and the idea that it should operate like one has misinformed decades of political thinking. The pursuit of Government surpluses as an end in themselves – and the media’s often gullible acceptance of that logic – has allowed the failed austerity thinking to embed itself in our conscience.

It is definitely time for a change of thinking.

People have asked me whether it’s worth my time and effort speaking out about the PLR funding – will it make any difference?

Maybe it will. Maybe it won't.

But there is one thing it does achieve. It makes it harder for this minister, or the next one, to stand up in Parliament and say, "I've received no complaints about the size of the fund."