A Tax on Shakespeare

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26945, 22 January 1953, Page 6

A Tax on Shakespeare

The Government has time to reconsider its refusal to forgo entertainment tax when the Stratford-on-Avon company visits New Zealand for a Shakespearean season later this year. The reasons why it might consider granting this relief are

that the Stratford-on-Avon Memorial Theatre is a non-profit-making trust, which puts all its profits back into its work, that it will bring competent productions of Shakespeare to a country that all too seldom sees these great plays professionally played, and that it would be encouraged to bring another company to this country again soon. There has been a suggestion that the company might even leave the money from the tax rebate in the country for this purpose—a possibility well worth exploring. According to the Associate Minister of Finance (Mr Bowden) the Government was chiefly influenced in its decision because the company’s tour is limited to the four main centres. The reason why smaller centres are not to be visited is precisely the reason why the remission of entertainment tax (a total of about £6000) would be of value to the company—the great expense incurred ip the tour of Australia and New Zealand. Even with the longer runs possible in the larger centres, the company must be working on a fine margin. If the tour is as successful as all will hope, there will be little surplus as a backing for future tours. If the New Zealand entertainment tax were remitted the company would have a better prospect of being able to finance future tours, perhaps including the secondary cities. The Government’s refusal of the concession will certainly not help the company to add to any future itineraries, if, in fact, it is prepared to make future tours. The Government’s attitude to the production of good plays is different from that of its predecessor (which granted the entertainment tax concession to the Old Vic company in 1948), and different from that of other countries. The Australian Government has agreed to waive entertainment tax (20 per cent, in Australia compared with 10 per cent, in New Zealand) for the Stratford-on-Avon company. In Britain (where entertainment tax is up to 15 per cent.), there is no levy when a non-profit-making company presents a play considered by an independent panel to be either good entertainment or good theatre. This exemption was even granted to “ A “ Street-car Named Desire ”. This liberal attitude to the stage is more justified in New Zealand, where the people have fewer opportunities of seeing the best plays and actors. Entertainment tax from all sources in New Zealand, including cinema theatres, brings in only , about £300,000 a year, so the Gov- ■ ernment would not' stand to lose a great deal of revenue if it followed the British example. At the same time it would give encouragement to companies with enterprise and a genuine wish to bring the best of drama to this country. The Stratford-on-Avon company has risked a good deal on this tour, but ■ it will be New Zealanders who will ; ultimately suffer most if jt is not i financially successful.