Are we regulating away creativity?

I had the great pleasure of seeing Split Enz in all their quirky glory on May 4. There was something deeply inspiring about watching a group of 70-year-olds prancing around in flamboyant suits, playing the spoons and hammering piano keys with chaotic enthusiasm. Their complete indifference to what anyone else thinks produces music that is brilliantly creative, slightly unhinged, and timeless — as the audience’s replacement hips could attest.

What struck me most was the contrast with the twenty-somethings opening act. Technically, they were exceptional: polished, precise and flawless. But despite all that talent, something felt missing. The performance was enjoyable, yet strangely restrained…almost joyless.

It made me wonder whether the difference lies not in talent, but in the way generations have been raised. Talent may be innate, but genius is cultivated through experience, freedom and risk. Split Enz emerged from a New Zealand where the Kiwi “number 8 wire” mentality was alive and well. Children were free to roam the streets until dark, drove without seatbelts, fell out of trees and learned resilience by trial and error. They could experiment, make strange music they liked, to perform songs that failed spectacularly. They learnt from audiences who sometimes rewarded them with applause, sometimes with flying pints. Failure was not catastrophic; it was simply part of the process.

Today, younger generations are raised very differently. Children are kept safe indoors, encouraged to “be sensible” and constantly reminded to think of their futures. Their schedules are tightly managed, their risks carefully minimised and their mistakes heavily scrutinised, often publicly on social media. Increasingly, failure is treated not as a learning opportunity but as something dangerous to be avoided at all costs, often more by anxious adults than by the children themselves.

Is it any surprise, then, that much modern creativity feels technically perfect but emotionally hollow?

Our parenting culture reflects something larger in society. Over the past four decades, we have layered regulation upon regulation in an effort to reduce harm and eliminate risk – environmental management is also a great example of this. Many changes were necessary and well-intentioned, but somewhere along the way, we seem to have developed a zero-tolerance attitude toward mistakes. We have become so risk-averse that we often prioritise avoiding failure over enabling innovation.

The problem is that innovation requires failure. Creativity requires boredom, intuition and experimentation. Genuine progress requires people (and Councils) who are willing to try something uncertain without knowing exactly how it will turn out. Planning matters, of course, but no framework can anticipate every eventuality. The best we can hope for is try, review, improve. When systems are designed to eliminate every possible mistake before a project even begins, creativity is smothered long before anything meaningful can emerge, or worse – nothing happens at all.

As New Zealand enters another era of local government reform and environmental regulation change (again), we need frameworks that provide boundaries while supporting innovation. We should be spending more time and money on achieving tangible outcomes, and less on endless processes, paperwork and bureaucracy — a reality I recognise even within my own profession.

So, with another election approaching I acknowledge our much-loved musical pioneers, Split Enz, and wonder - do we stick with The Devil You Know and maintain the Straight Old Line so we don’t All See Red? Or is it Time for a Change for our Poor Boy, Christopher Luxon? Perhaps this coalition can survive at least Six Months in a Leaky Boat and prove it is a Hard Act to Follow. At the very least, we need politicians prepared to cut through Stuff and Nonsense so History Never Repeats.

 Eva Harris is  Principal Environmental Advisor for Enviro Collective