Estimates Debate — Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage

I rise on behalf of my colleague Deborah Coddington, who has raised for the people of New Zealand the Prime Minister’s contribution to pride in New Zealand in the sending of a dunny that brays like a donkey to Venice. It is very easy for people in the arts world to despise and reject any notion that the hoi polloi, those of us who are not the insiders, should have a view on what the Government should pay for by way of art. Of course, we are all expected and encouraged to have a view on high art, architecture, major public buildings, and the beautification of roads and other things that are useful, and we all welcome the extent of the improvement to our environment that the arts and the artists can create. But this Government turns artists into beneficiaries. It encourages them to feel that New Zealand is a poor country.

Of course, it may be relevant that the average wealth of New Zealanders—the average savings of New Zealanders—is a quarter of that of even the Australians, who are not rich, and it may be that in an impoverished country there is no one else to sponsor art other than the Government. But it is extremely precious for the people whom the Prime Minister has set out to sponsor, and to turn into political clients, to complain when New Zealanders have a view on what they are paying for. It is more than precious for them to object that we should simply accept the judgment of the experts. The Prime Minister, in her role as patron of the arts, should accept that she must be judged on the art they create and on the people whom she puts into power to spend the taxes of ordinary people on these artists.

We are told by Creative New Zealand that in recent years the members of et al have produced “rich and poetic installations that combine sound text and found objects”—whatever those are—and that the results are “profound and disturbing”. We are all proud to know that New Zealand is going to offer in Venice—“layered and immersive installations which explore the link between science, technology and areas of behaviour reformation, involving political ideologies and fringe religious practices, are particularly pertinent at this time.”

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What a load of crap.

What a load of crap. What a load of drivel, and we are paying for it. Let me go on further. It states that the project for Venice this year “builds on the success of recent projects. Et al’s sculptural installations create highly charged environments packed with outdated and junked computer hardware and scrawled messages on instruction cards and wall charts. Rows of chairs, examination tables, computer stations and flickering screens in grey rooms activated with electronic noise, suggest a kind of pseudo science as well as a disturbing view of religious fanaticism.” It will “exploit an alluring quality” in the collective’s own work. What is this alluring quality? It is “the absence of the artist”. It is rich enough on its own; it does not need more.

Then we get an explanation in the footnote of who the artists are that the Government is sponsoring to Venice: “p.mule, blanche ready-made trust, bud shoop, cj (Arthur) craig and sons, constance strange, L budd, Lillian budd, lionel b, marlene cubewell, minerva betts, merit groting, mythic investments”—I like that; that could be a new summary for the Prime Minister’s entire investment in the arts—“and popular productions.” I think that one was misnamed.

I ask the Prime Minister what we are about, with $500,000 of taxpayers’ hard-earned money—from taxpayers who actually do try to beautify New Zealand and the world; taxpayers who build gardens, who buy things that they like, who buy CDs, and who pay to sponsor the music they prefer. What are we doing when this Government sponsors such tripe?

I want to respond to the member, because there are a number of fundamental untruths in what he said. I also want to make some other points about the matter. Firstly, to suggest that I, as Prime Minister, had any role in choosing this work—

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is unparliamentary to suggest that there are fundamental untruths in what I said. Maybe she could allege that I was mistaken. However, the word “untruths” implies that I have consciously said something false.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will ask the Prime Minister to reword that.

They are fundamental errors, but then the member should be in a position to know why he is wrong. The member would be well aware that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage does not select the work that represents New Zealand at an exhibition off shore; absolutely not. To suggest, as the member did, that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage must be judged on the art created by New Zealanders is to suggest a sort of Nazi or Stalinistic view of the world that I personally could not buy into.

The second error is that if the member had bothered to research his comments, he would have been aware that the previous “piece of art” by that artist, of the donkey, etc., is not what is being submitted to the Venice Biennale. What happens is that a piece of art is created for the area that New Zealand is allocated at the Biennale. It is submitted as a concept at this stage, and on the basis of a range of concept proposals the selection committee has chosen. The position is that Creative New Zealand is, of course, funded by the New Zealand taxpayer. It is accountable through the normal mechanisms, including through a select committee process, and members should take the opportunity during the estimates to call in Creative New Zealand and hold it accountable for its processes.

The Creative New Zealand organisation then delegated the work of selecting an artist and curator team to a selection committee. In my view, it is there that the process has gone awry. I will not make comments about the quality of the artist, or the quality of the artist’s work. That is for others. I do think it is perfectly legitimate for the public to debate the nature of the art. But as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I will not go around demeaning individual artists. But what is a matter of considerable concern to me is that, firstly, this presence at the Biennale came about because there was an invitation from the Italian Government to the New Zealand Government for there to be New Zealand representation. The New Zealand Government takes the view that those who represent New Zealand at the Biennale should be capable of representing it. Indeed, the criteria set out in the selection committee’s brief states: “The key personnel have a proven track record of undertaking the ambassadorial and publicity responsibilities required in a major international exhibition project

Clearly, that criteria has not been met. Key personnel must include the artist. The artist must therefore be able to be named, and be able to give interviews and perform other ambassadorial functions. Obviously, there has been interaction with me, the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and Creative New Zealand, as we have expressed our concern about what appears to be a breach of the selection criteria. As a result I am now advised that the artist will engage extensively with international arts professionals at the event, she will conduct selected interviews with international arts media, and she will provide responses in writing to questions. That still leaves me with some concerns, because the artist does not wish to disclose her identity.

I think this is a salutary lesson for Creative New Zealand, that if it delegates to a selection committee the least it can do is ensure that it follows its own criteria. I can assure the member that that will have a bearing on my thinking about resourcing levels for Creative New Zealand in the future.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Communications Security and Intelligence

Vote Ministerial Services

Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet