Page 220 - Constructing Craft

become. For instance, in 1979, an Opposition Labour Member of Parliament, David

Butcher, representing a group of potters in Hastings, tried to shame the government
into abolishing the sales tax for studio potters. He claimed that there were ‘about

5,000 potters’ in New Zealand and they were ‘making a very good name for
themselves’. He stated that they sold their work for ‘between $3 million and $5

25
million a year’ giving an average income to each ‘of about $1,000 a year’. He
argued that while they might be very talented, they were not wealthy. However, his

figures were misleading. While it was true that there were a large number of potters

in New Zealand, most produced very small quantities of work. The potters who
generated larger quantities were fewer in number but their incomes were larger

26
proportionately. Hugh Templeton, speaking as the Minister of Customs countered
Butcher’s argument by suggesting that: ‘Pottery [could not] be viewed as a hobby
when potters are engaged in a commercial enterprise of such a size; 1,000,000 kg
27
of the tableware sold in the country [was] produced by craft potters.’ Figures such
as these were used to promote studio pottery as an important part of New Zealand’s

culture and economy, but the data could be used in different ways depending on
which issue was emphasised – the economic value of the craft ‘industry’ or the

perception that craftspeople added to the nation’s cultural heritage.

In another example of confusion that developed occurred when the Crafts Council

(CCNZ) used the report commissioned by the government in 1979 to investigate
28
sales tax on craft to promote the contribution craftspeople made to the economy.
Whereas in 1979 craftspeople encouraged the perception that they made little
money, by 1982 the CCNZ was making a case that suggested craftspeople were

doing very well indeed. The CCNZ claimed that: ‘In Nelson 64 full-time potters have

an annual turnover of more than $1 million’ and: ‘In the Canterbury area, 25 full-time
29
woodworkers have an annual turnover of $1.25 million.’ In the case of the Nelson
potters, averaging turnover ($15,000 per potter) will not give a true picture because

some of these potter’s earnings barely covered their material costs while a few were
earning quite large incomes. However, it was a reasonable assessment of the

average income. The Canterbury woodworkers figure seems very high (an average
turnover of $50,000 per woodworker) but may have included some furniture makers

who used the term ‘craft’ but who produced furniture by assembling mass-produced
pre-cut parts. Research carried out on handcrafted furniture in Canterbury,

Constructing Craft