Why the Public Lending Right pisses me off
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash
Most New Zealand authors are familiar with the Public Lending Right (PLR). Most New Zealand authors don’t benefit from the PLR – I’ll get to that.
For those who haven’t heard of the PLR, its purpose is set out in legislation – “to provide for New Zealand authors to receive payments in recognition of the fact that their books are available for use in New Zealand libraries.” Quoting from the PLR website, the “fund ($2.4 million annually) is divided among registered authors, based on how many copies of their works are held by libraries”.
Wrong! I’ll get to that as well.
First, I need to say that I love that my books are in public libraries. I wrote them to be read and that we have a scheme that recognises that this impacts on sales is great – in theory. It’s how the scheme is administered, and its resistance to common-sense change, that’s what causes my head shaking, eye rolling and swearing.
I first encountered the scheme when I registered in 2018. I received an email in November from the PLR telling me 46 copies of my book were available in public libraries. That’s pretty good, or so I thought, as there are just over 70 public libraries who purchase books in New Zealand (smaller ones are spokes of larger libraries). This is where I encountered the first, and I believe the largest, hurdle authors must jump – you need 50+ copies for your book to count.
My reaction was – what? Why 50?
Remuneration that authors receive from the scheme is modest – for 50 copies you’ll receive about $250 for the year - but it provides a sense of validation. You’ve been recognised as a New Zealand author who makes their books available to the public. You can spend the money on a celebratory dinner or proofreading. It’s handy, not life changing.
I shook my head and let it go.
The next November email from the PLR made me grind my teeth. It informed me that the government approved, flaky-as-hell, statistical survey estimated there were 49 copies of my book in public libraries. I kid you not - 49.
I politely suggested to the PLR that if the count is 48 or 49 – make it 50 (if you’re a compassionate organisation) or 46 (if you’re … not). Telling an author they have 49 is the dictionary definition of bureaucratic sadism.
I went into each library website and I counted for myself – 56 copies. I pointed this out to the PLR, sending them my spreadsheet. The reply I received quoted the legislation chapter and verse in telling me, “We do not accept author-supplied counts”. The number was the number and that was that.
I get that accepting author supplied counts would be fraught but they had the number wrong. I used the complaints process to complain about the inaccurate count. I found out that complaining about the count was against the rules. The PLR dismissed my complaint, though they said they understood my frustration.
I didn’t want to, but let it go.
A year later, the November PLR survey results were again out – “Count of copies: 49. Yours sincerely …”
I wish I was making this up. So does my partner who now puts her fingers in her ears at the mere mention of the PLR.
I used the Official Information Act to request the statistical algorithm they use to see if I could work out why the standard error seemed so large. Studying the statistical formulas reminded me that I was a writer, not a statistician. Still, I chalked it up as a moral shot-across-the-bows.
I couldn’t help myself – I again complained about the count. It was noted and dismissed. I paced my writer’s garret (that’s writer talk for home office) plotting what I could do. In the end, I let it go. It was that or I’d wear out the carpet.
I consoled myself that next November would be different because I had second book registered in the scheme. I was far from happy but, at least, I would get recognition … and money. I learnt early in my working life to never say, “it’s not the money”.
The much-anticipated email from the PLR told me that public libraries held 44 copies of my first book and 29 of the second – 73 copies. I started thinking about what I would spend the money on when - Huston, we have a problem.
The PLR: The scheme is not cumulative.
Me: What?
The PLR: It’s not based on how many copies of [your] works are held by libraries, silly - it’s per book. Your books – 44 plus 29 equals remuneration of zero, nothing, nada, zip. We understand your frustration …
I lost it.
I could have 10 books, 40 copies each – 400 books – and receive nothing. What sadistic monster designed this system?
Around this time (2020), and adding to my considerable frustration, the Department of Internal Affairs conducted a review of the PLR. They received 540 responses (including mine) and the extensive/expensive report detailed all the changes needed including the two grievances I have outlined. The review achieved exactly nothing. I shudder at monumental waste of people’s time.
I abandoned communicating with the PLR and I complained to the Office of the Ombudsman (I’ve had success there before). They said they understood my frustrations but explained it’s not in their power to help. They suggested I write to the Minister of Internal Affairs – Brooke Van Velden.
Why not, I thought. ACT wanted to introduce an anti-red tape Ministry so writing to Brooke seemed a plausible strategy. She replied relatively quickly, at least she signed the letter written by a public servant who is now probably redundant. Brooke could do nothing but thanked me for writing and she said she would “receve further information about the scheme in the coming months”.
The National Library then contacted me (because Brooke made them) – they hid behind the legislation but did say that they understood my frustrations. I took them up on their offer of someone calling me to discuss my frustrations. That was March 2024 - I’m still waiting. Maybe they’re drawing straws, I can’t say I blame them. Who wants to ring someone so recognisably frustrated!
Most of the fixes to the PLR aren’t complex. And, as I understand it, many of the regulations are secondary legislation, the Minister can take advice on what changes to make and the Governor General can sign them off – they don’t have to go through a full parliamentary process. All the necessary committees exist, the issues are well known, the process not complicated – now’s good.
One reason the bureaucrats and politicians may be reluctant to change the scheme is that if more authors become eligible, the amount paid per book will plummet – the amount of money is finite. This will highlight that the scheme is woefully underfunded and it is only by excluding many authors that the scheme maintains its credibility.
By the end of 2024, four of my books will be in Aotearoa New Zealand public libraries. Currently there are 10 copies of my latest book – Weeping Angels – in Auckland public libraries alone with 30 people on the waitlist. But, at the time of writing, it still sits below the 50-copy national threshold so it will be ignored by the scheme.
I hope readers the length and breadth of Aotearoa take out my books and thoroughly enjoy them – I wrote them to be read. In turn, I look forward to my annual November email from the PLR which will remind me of my teenage school reports – “Riley must try harder”.
Help me give the status quo a push!
Please share this with people sympathetic to the situation and to those who may be impacted. If you want to help push for change, copy the text below and send it to Brooke Van Velden (Minister of Internal Affairs) - B.vanVelden@ministers.govt.nz
Dear Minister
I’m contacting you as a concerned citizen regarding the Public Lending Right scheme.
You wrote in January 2024 that you expected to receive further communication about the Public Lending Right scheme in the coming months. What information have you received and how will this alter the administration of the scheme?
If you haven’t already, when do you expect to be in a position to advise the Governor-General of changes to the regulations of the Public Lending Right Scheme?
Yours …
