Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill

I was hoping that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage might take the first call in this Committee stage debate to explain why the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill has sat on the Order Paper for so long. Just to refresh the memory of colleagues, the Government Administration Committee was taking submissions on this bill in October 2010. It was so long ago that France was the Rugby World Cup champion—that is how long ago it was. It was so long ago that Mr Finlayson did not have that sheen of grey that sits across his hair tonight as we sit here. It was so long ago, but it was so urgent to bring this bill forward to this House. Yet here we are in 2013, and, finally, the Minister has got around to the Committee stage of this bill.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Good things take time.

Well, on this side of the Chamber we say that that is typical of the lazy approach of this Minister to the arts.

This is the Minister who wants to claim credit for what he calls the golden age of arts in New Zealand. There he was the other night, fiendishly writing away on Twitter, telling us that Eleanor Catton’s success in her short-listing for the Man Booker Prize was all Chris Finlayson’s work. It was all Chris Finlayson’s work. He was proud of that. He then took some advice and heard that Lorde’s music was also something that he should say he could take credit for. It was slightly outside his usual tastes, which range somewhere between Mozart and Neil Diamond—he is not sure where. So he took credit for both of those artistic successes for New Zealand. But this bill—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I suppose that member took credit for David Cunliffe’s CV, did he?

What was that, sorry?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I suppose that member took credit for David Cunliffe’s CV.

Oh, there is Judith Collins, once again bringing us back to the big issues of the day—the big issues of the day from Judith Collins.

The truth is that this is the best that this Minister can do when it comes to bringing a bill to this House about how to encourage and support the creative sector in New Zealand. The best the Minister can do is sit around for 3 years, come back to this House, and create a committee—because that is what the bill does. That is essentially Chris Finlayson’s vision for how to turbocharge the creative sector in New Zealand: create a committee of 13 people. That is all that Chris Finlayson is bringing to the Committee tonight. We would have thought, perhaps, on this side of the Chamber—and perhaps the Minister will take a call and tell us exactly what it is that has happened over the last few years that has meant that this bill has been delayed. He has obviously been anguishing in his mind about whether it should be 13 members or 12. Presumably he has chosen 13 because it is him and his 12 disciples. That is presumably why the Minister has chosen the number 13.

I actually note that clause 11 in Part 1 of the bill allows the Minister to appoint the board. That is not unheard of in these kinds of organisations, but what has subtly been taken out of the 1994 Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act, which we are repealing here, is section 9(5), which allows for public submissions on who might be on the board. That has subtly been removed to ensure that Mr Finlayson is the person who will control absolutely who is on this new board that is being created.

It has been so long since the House had the opportunity to discuss this legislation that it is worth traversing exactly what it does. It creates a new committee for the Arts Council of 13 members and it disestablishes at the same time Te Waka Toi and the Pacific Arts Committee.

On this side of the Chamber we have gone through this bill again and we have talked again to people in the sector, and the reality is that this is a missed opportunity by the Government to actually do something about making sure that Creative New Zealand and the Arts Council, which governs Creative New Zealand, are actually in touch with what is happening in the arts community in New Zealand. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been lost. We continue to wait for the really strong justification from this Minister for why he is disestablishing those bodies and for him to be able to show to this Committee that this new 13-person committee will actually be able to fairly represent the diverse interests of the arts communities in New Zealand. For instance, will it be able to represent the diverse Pasifika cultures by moving from the Pacific Arts Committee down to a—

I was very disappointed that on this most auspicious day when Jacinda Ardern was appointed the arts spokesperson for the Labour Party, she did not take the first call. I can understand why Mr Robertson is bitter and upset about the fact that having been rolled for deputy leader and leader he has now been rolled as arts spokesperson, but I was hoping that Miss Ardern would make a contribution on this most important of bills, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. The Arts Council makes a tremendous contribution to the arts in New Zealand and, indeed, has done so since it was created by a National Government, because the golden years of the arts always occur under a National Government. It has made a significant contribution across a wide range of art forms—for example, fiction, and I am sure that if David Cunliffe was minded to, he could submit his CV for the Prime Minister’s Awards for Literary Achievement for fiction. There is a lot more to be said on that front in due course.

But let me just say something, because the heart of the debate, and I am sure Mr Robertson would eventually have got on to it—

💬 Grant Robertson: Would have, if only I’d been allowed to.

—had he had a third call. The heart of the debate really focuses on clauses 10 and 11. Mr Robertson seems to have a concern about the fact that the Arts Board and Te Waka Toi are to be replaced by this new, more streamlined structure. Unlike Mr Robertson, I can advise the Committee that I have direct experience of this body, having served on the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand from 1995 to 2001. In what was truly a golden period, I was chair of the Arts Board from 1998 to 2001. The Arts Council was responsible for determining strategy and policy, and the Arts Board would deliver on that strategy.

There was only one problem with this beautiful structure and that is that it was bonkers, because the Arts Board itself was having to do a lot of the policy work. This funder-provider split may work well with widgets or in the health industry, but it does not work particularly well with the arts. So what we are doing is streamlining the functions so that there will be one body comprising 13 members, not 27 governors, as currently exists under the existing legislation, with all the administrative burdens that that imposes. There will be one body and that will be created under what is now clause 10.

It is very important, as there have been some very legitimate concerns raised about the future of Te Waka Toi, that one focuses—and I suggest Mr Robertson pick up his bill and look very closely as I go through it—on clause 10(4). What that provides is that for the first time at least four members of the council are indeed to be “persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, are qualified for appointment, having regard to their knowledge” of matters like tikanga Māori. So that is the first point. For the first time there will be four designated members to sit at the council table, and they must have those qualifications.

But it does not necessarily follow from that that Te Waka Toi will vanish. I invite Mr Robertson to focus on clause 11 because that provides that the four members of the Arts Council who fulfil the qualifications that I have just spoken of are to form a committee of the Arts Council and—

💬 Grant Robertson: Right—with no power, Chris.

Well, go to subclause 2, Mr Robertson. It is important in the Committee stage not to have some lightweight rant but to focus on the work.

💬 Grant Robertson: To “give advice”—give advice.

Wrong. Look at subclause 2. The functions of the committee are “to give advice … and any other functions that the Arts Council delegates to the committee.”

💬 Grant Robertson: Oh, that will do it. That will do it!

Why does he not read the bill, because he would see that Te Waka Toi, or the successor body, could be given a great deal of things to do—

💬 Grant Robertson: They’re subservient, Chris. That’s what you want. You want them to be subservient.

—and it is not a question of being subservient but a question of making sure there are much more direct linkages between the committee established under clause 11 and the committee established under clause 10. I say this to Mr Robertson for two reasons: one, a simple reading of the statute, which I am disappointed he has not undertaken, and, two, from the experience that I have had as chair of the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand.

Then I come to clause 10(5), which provides that for the first time two persons by reason of their knowledge of the arts and of the traditions and cultures of Pacific Island peoples are to serve on the Arts Council. The Pacific committee in my time as chair of the Arts Board was a subcommittee of the Arts Board. It had very little funding. It was disconnected from the Arts Council. Now what we have is a much more streamlined body but one where there is an ability of those who have a particular knowledge of tikanga Māori or of Pacific cultures to make a contribution to that important strategic body that is the Arts Council.

So the heart of the debate on Part 1 is not all the nonsense that Mr Robertson was talking about but is really focusing laser-like on clauses 10 and 11. That is what I invite members to do, because it is all very well to stand up and give one of those raves that he is accustomed to giving as the now associate spokesperson on the arts. As I say, I was very disappointed that he did not yield to the new spokesperson, but that is part of the ongoing divisions of the Labour Party, I guess.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: He just doesn’t share or play well with others, does he? He does not play well with others.

He does not. He is not a sharing, caring person. That is what distinguishes Mr Robertson from me. But, you see, it is clauses 10 and 11 that are what one has to focus on, so I will sit down now so that the newly minted rising star of the Labour Party, the person who has gone from rising star to elder stateswoman with no intervening period, Jacinda Ardern, can stand up and tell us her views on clauses 10 and 11.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. After that contribution from the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I do hope that any Arts Council of New Zealand has funding to provide the Minister with the ability to make Storytime for Radio New Zealand National, because he has an innate ability to tell a story—nobody can doubt that. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support—I beg your pardon, against. The Minister’s story was so good that it almost put me off. But there we go; I caught myself in time. New Zealand First will be opposing this Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill.

The purpose of the bill, as the Minister just eloquently told us, is to streamline the governance structure of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa, otherwise known as Creative New Zealand, so we all know that. The Minister just informed us of that. It is to take four governing bodies and reduce these down to one, it is to take a total of 27 appointed members down to 13, and the new entity will be called the Arts Council.

New Zealand First acknowledges that there is provision inside the bill for the allocation of four seats for specialists in the area of tikanga Māori and Māori arts. The Minister, again, just eloquently covered that. There are two seats for those with the knowledge of the traditions, cultures, and arts of the Pacific. However, we share the concerns of the Labour Party and the Green Party that this could result in the loss of a distinctive Māori and Pasifika identity, especially with the removal of community input at a local level through other amendments inside this bill. We do not believe that the focus—the “laser-like focus”—is actually on clause 10 and clause 11; it is the loss of community consultation that this bill brings forth that is the major concern.

We made mention—as has already been mentioned by Grant Robertson—that when this bill was introduced back in June 2010 New Zealand First was not available for its first reading, nor was it available for the Government Administration Committee submissions. So during the period between the second reading and the Committee stage, we, like our Labour Party colleagues, went out and took the opportunity to talk to our arts communities, to actually talk to the people on the ground who had been working inside the current statute area.

So we spoke to our Māori communities, to our Pasifika communities, and to all other members of our communities that actually input into the arts around New Zealand. We have confidence—we do have confidence—that any Māori and Pasifika appointees would continue to consult with their broader communities through hui and fono, but we now need to recognise that with the removal of the community voice entirely from the bill, these communities are not sure themselves that they will be appropriately heard. If some of the savings around having fewer entities and fewer people had been funnelled into this facility or any facility to consult, then there would have been greater consultation not only for these communities but for others.

On 17 July I wrote to the Minister seeking his support for my Supplementary Order Paper 35, which would require any new Arts Council to prepare a 5-year strategic plan after full consultation with our communities. On 27 July last year we were disappointed to receive the Minister’s response, where he declined to support the Supplementary Order Paper and declined to support the public involvement that would have eventuated from this Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister’s response reinforced his belief that strategic planning is not valuable. I quote from the Minister’s second reading speech: “The bill also removes the requirement for the Arts Council to provide a strategic plan every 3 years—a pointless exercise if ever there was one. This requirement is considered to be an unnecessary duplication of the obligation to provide a statement of intent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. I remember from my time in Creative New Zealand that no sooner had one completed one strategic plan, the whole exercise had to be started again. It was an utter waste of time.”

I guess no one should be surprised that a Minister in this National Government expresses an opinion that having to consult with the New Zealand public was and is “an utter waste of time.” I mean, after all, this is only their money. This is only the money of the New Zealand taxpayer. This Government appears to forget at every turn that the Government itself has no money; all money belongs to the public of New Zealand. The Opposition at least does not believe it an utter waste of time to consult with the public on how their money is spent. If the Minister finds it tedious to consult every 3 years, he had ample opportunity to extend that period. Supplementary Order Paper 35 gave him the opportunity to extend it to 5 years.

Going back to where I was before I was rudely interrupted by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Minister has some issues, I might say, with the fact that the Labour Party has chosen to take the arts so seriously that it has our fantastic spokesperson in Jacinda Ardern and two associate spokespeople, me and Darien Fenton. I have to tell the Minister that we took this decision carefully because we needed three spokespeople to match his three different personalities. So that was why we did it—just so—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: It’s not quite enough.

We know we cannot quite cover all of them, but that is why we have done that.

When I was speaking earlier on, I was speaking about the change that has happened, as the Minister notes, under clause 10 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I was talking at that point about the Pacific Arts Committee. The Minister got up and said: “Isn’t it fantastic there is now going to be two people on the Arts Council who are going to be representing the Pasifika communities?”. What he fails to tell the Committee is that currently the Pacific Arts Committee has seven people on it—it has seven people on it. That enables the Pacific Arts Committee to reflect the diverse nature of the Pasifika community in New Zealand. So we now move to a situation where there will be two people who will be put in the position of having to do that. In its submission to the Government Administration Committee—which was a very long time ago, so the Minister may not recall this—the Human Rights Commission actually raised this as a concern. It said that it was concerned that there would be a loss of effective advice from the broad range of people who are part of the Pacific Arts Committee.

Clause 10(5), which the Minister is terribly proud of, has been changed in a useful way by the select committee to acknowledge the importance of having people who understand not only Pacific arts but the traditions and cultures of the Pasifika community. So that change was made by the committee. What I would be suggesting to the Minister is that he does run the risk, with these changes, of losing that representation of the diverse range of Pacific cultures.

The same applies too to Te Waka Toi, because, yes, it is true that there are now going to be four people on the Arts Council who need a knowledge of Te Ao Māori and tikanga Māori, but the reality is that Te Waka Toi currently has seven members on it. So it also has seven members who will now be reduced down to four within this wider organisation. Again, the Human Rights Commission said, speaking specifically to clause 10, that it was concerned about the “loss of the distinctive identities and practices of Te Waka Toi …”. That was the same concern that we got when we spoke to community arts organisations around New Zealand.

The reality is that there may well be some structural changes to Creative New Zealand and to the Arts Council that would be useful, but what we have failed to be convinced by is the Government, which has taken 3 years to get this bill back into the House, actually coming forward to say: “This is how we are going to make sure that Māori arts and Pacific arts in New Zealand continue to be promoted.”

There were suggestions made during the select committee process by the Human Rights Commission and by other groups about how it would be possible, within the structure that the Minister is proposing, for there to be that specific recognition of the diversity in identities, and, unfortunately, that has not been taken up by the Minister. So we do not believe that clause 10 of the bill does continue to provide the kind of recognition of New Zealand’s diversity that we would like to see.

The Minister has justified a lot of this change as reducing bureaucracy. Well, if the Minister wanted to do one thing to reduce bureaucracy within the arts sector, he could take a look at the application forms that are required by Creative New Zealand—35-odd pages of repetitious content, required every year by arts practitioners right around the country. Or if he wanted to talk about reducing bureaucracy and improving the operations of Creative New Zealand, he could actually start thinking about how we could get funding into the regions. If we actually look at the submissions that came in on this bill in 2010, we see that a number of them came from regional arts organisations that were calling out for an Arts Council that had some representation from the provinces and the regions. That is not guaranteed within this bill.

Those regional and community arts organisations were essentially saying that “Creative New Zealand is not listening to us any more. It’s not in touch with our communities.” So if the Minister really wanted to reduce bureaucracy and get money out to the regions, so that arts could flourish, he would have more regional funding, rather than centralising it in the way that he has. Instead, the best he can do is come to us with his committee of 13 and say that that is the way we should turbo-charge the arts in New Zealand.

I would love to be standing here today debating a bill that had a vision for the future of arts in New Zealand. We would be able to support a bill like that. But, unfortunately, this bill does not provide that. It merely limits the participation of communities like Māori and Pasifika.

Tēnā koutou katoa. I enjoyed being part of the debate on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill at the beginning. Then Holly Walker took over, so I missed the select committee process. I am really sorry that I was not present for the submissions to the Government Administration Committee, but now I am back because Holly Walker cannot decide whether she should have her baby now or wait for us to win the America’s Cup. She seems to be in a state of limbo, along with the rest of the country.

I am now back on to this bill. The Green Party is opposing it not because we are against reviews—I think possibly it is high time there was a review of the Arts Council—but because we also have reservations about the nature of the streamlining and the logic behind that streamlining. Initially when we looked at it we could see the logic of it, but our test was when we went out to communities and had a talk to a range of people—not arts bureaucrats but people who are practising artists. I think that the arts bureaucrats know a lot, and they have a lot of experience in dealing with these things, but artists are the ones who have to use the facilities in order to create a genuinely vibrant and creative community, whether that is in a rural or an urban area.

What is important to us is what they are saying about the end of Te Waka Toi and the issues around Pacific representation, so we thought long and hard about this. We wanted to be able to support the bill, but when we had that feedback and listened to what people were saying, we were unable to do so.

If you look at both Te Waka Toi and the Pacific communities—this is an old question that is not often resolved in any country and it goes back and forth and back and forth—does one group better represent the marginalised majority if they are at the table, or is it better for them to have a separate identity and a separate ability to lobby, to have their own money, and to stand their own ground? That is not a simple issue, and there is debate both ways, but in the end the artists from Te Waka Toi and Pasifika communities said to us that they still want to have that distinctive and unique identity of practice, which Grant Robertson just described in a quote from the Human Rights Commission. In the end that has to be their call. If that is what they still want, that is what they need.

If you are talking about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori art, if those people still believe that the best way to acknowledge the Treaty is to have a separate Te Waka Toi committee—which has served them well in the past—then their voices should be heard in this debate. That is what we are prepared to speak up for.

The voices from Pasifika communities were actually stronger. They were even more concerned. Māori art has definitely always been the centrepiece of art in this country for hundreds of years and it is definitely still widely acknowledged, but Pasifika groups still feel that they are not heard. It is really interesting that if we think about the number of Pacific cultures in the changing demographic of Aotearoa, it is not just two different ones. It is not just about Samoan or Tongan. It is not about assuming that all Pacific Islanders can represent each other. It is about recognising the diversity of Pacific groups that have enriched our culture, as we are part of the Pacific, and them feeling that they are still on a journey towards being strong enough to want their own representation. If that is going to strengthen their position and that is what they want, I think we should recognise it. I think that is an important part of it.

We are also concerned about community arts development and the regional arts issues that were touched on by Grant Robertson. We do not think that it is—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in Part 2. We are on Part 1.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In terms of Part 1, we are very concerned that clause 10 and clause 11 do not solve the problem that this bill is purported to solve. It has been set up to make sure that we have a better system, but we are not convinced that those two committees being dissolved will make for a better system, so we are going to continue to strongly argue throughout this process that if Māori want Te Waka Toi and if Pasifika people want a separate committee, that is legitimate.

In my life I have had quite a lot to do with the arts, and particularly with the theatre and with creative arts in various forms, and it is not a happy day and we are not in a golden age when we start to look at issues like the loss of Creative New Zealand funding. Creative New Zealand does need to be streamlined in the sense of where it prioritises and where it puts its money. It is tragic for those of us who grew up with Downstage theatre to see the cuts that took place so that that theatre was operating only part-time, and so that it actually became a slow death, which, in the minds of many people, Creative New Zealand facilitated.

That kind of issue suggests that Creative New Zealand and the Arts Council do have work to do. If we lose culture, if we lose theatre, and if we lose unique cultural arts championed by Māori and Pacific artists, we are worse off as a country. I think that is why this issue is so passionate and why people on both sides of the Chamber care about it. It is an important issue, and Part 1 is an attempt to deal with it, but we do not think that it does.

I thought I would take a brief call because of that disappointing contribution from Ms Delahunty, which, inevitably, led into a discussion about Downstage theatre. Everyone in this Chamber is sad that Downstage has, unfortunately, closed its doors, but the reality of the matter, and it goes back to when I was chair of the Arts Board, is that it had had problems for many years. In fact, it was placed on notice in about 1999. It should be put on record that the Arts Council worked very hard with Downstage for over a decade to try to help it through its problems, but at the end of the day the problems affecting Downstage were such that there was a certain inevitability to its closing. I would think that before Ms Delahunty gets up here and blames the Arts Council for the demise of Downstage, she should perhaps get her facts right, because, as so often happens with that member, she got that completely wrong.

I should also say this about clause 11—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Nasty man.

No, I am simply—There is this rather tiresome and asinine refrain that one gets from the Labour Party whenever one engages in substantive debate that it is nasty. Can those members not come up with a better cliché than that, please. But can I come to clause 11—

💬 Grant Robertson: How about “vile”? How does “vile” sit with the member?

“Vile”? I think “vile” is good. Let us go with “vile” for a few weeks. But let us come to clause 11(3) of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, because that empowers the Arts Council to appoint other committees. So it is entirely possible that there could be an Asian committee appointed. There could be a Pacific committee appointed. That is a question for the Arts Council, and I would not be in the least bit surprised if there was a Pacific committee appointed, with the two members on the Arts Council also to serve on that.

I am actually very satisfied that the structure we have in place with the kinds of people whom I have been appointing in my usual bipartisan manner—I refer to Winnie Laban, the former member for Mana—

💬 Grant Robertson: Yes, her committee has been disestablished. That is right.

Well, no, she is serving on the Arts Council. She is an exceptional person. That is why I was so upset when Mr Goff made a misogynistic statement about her a couple of weeks ago in this place. She is an outstanding New Zealander. I have a very high opinion of her. It was a source of great joy when I stood against her in Mana and lost to her. She is doing an excellent job on the Arts Council. That is why I think there are good people who can serve—

💬 Grant Robertson: Three-time loser.

Well, at least I did not get third in the party vote in Wellington Central. That was the amazing thing. In 2011 he got third in the party vote in Wellington Central. I do not want to be accused of being vile, so I will not go on about that, but the reality of the matter is that if I stood in Wellington Central, I would whip him. [Interruption] Please, let us get back to the issues, and the issues are not my thumping Mr Robertson in Wellington Central or reducing him to being third in the party vote in Wellington Central again but saying that there is a capacity under this legislation to appoint further committees. So there is plenty of scope for diversity while at the same time addressing the essential point of streamlining the legislation.

I have got many questions for the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the first of which I would like him to address at the end of my speech. It is how he would be any different from Paul Foster-Bell standing in Wellington Central, in terms of his ability to take on Grant Robertson.

We have had this incredible suggestion for some time now from the Minister that we have somehow moved into this “golden age for the arts” under his leadership. The question I have for the Minister is how many members of the arts community have taken on this mantra, which he has proclaimed from his lofty office, that we are in the golden age for the arts? How many have accepted that hashtag on Twitter, other than comedians, of course, who found it extremely witty or, perhaps, writers of fiction who used it as a motif for the tired and the delusional? I have heard “golden age for the arts” quoted twice—once by Minister Finlayson and once by Paul Foster-Bell at a debate at Weir House last week. I have yet to see the evidence of the golden age for the arts.

In fact, I think what we are seeing is a sad state of affairs where Minister Finlayson has yet to acknowledge that the golden age for the arts was, indeed, under Helen Clark, and that he has been living bitterly in the shadow of that period for some time. He has tried to battle his way and carve out his own legacy. He has tried by focusing on the thing he loves—himself. He still thinks that CNZ stands for Chris, rather than for Creative New Zealand. As a result of the fact that he cannot battle his way out from under the shadow of Helen Clark’s legacy in the arts, he lashes out angrily at Opposition members and just cannot cope with the fact that we have chosen to give the arts the rightful place it deserves and to acknowledge that in arts, culture, and heritage there is a range of issues. We want to give these areas due credit in time, and we are unashamed about the fact that we have three members who are willing to take on that challenge—absolutely unashamed.

When it comes to the golden age for the arts, I do think that perhaps it is time to acknowledge that, in fact, we are in an ice age for the arts. Perhaps Minister Finlayson thinks it is golden, but, in fact, it is a lemon snow cone. When it comes to the Arts Council we are, I think, seeing the equivalent of the super-city approach being applied to it. I am loath to liken Chris Finlayson to Rodney Hide, but the idea that you replace four bodies with a single board—you call it efficient, you call it empowering to people, and you say you are reducing bureaucracy, but how does simply lessening the number of people like Māori and Pasifika individuals who represent important groups in and of itself reduce bureaucracy? If the Minister stood up and referred to what my colleague Grant Robertson talked about, including the mountains of bureaucracy that, we have to acknowledge, arts organisations do have to battle through every time they make a funding application, that would be something, but all that Minister Finlayson referred to was simply lessening the number of people.

I want to come specifically to concerns that were raised by submitters and, in fact, to concerns that were not raised by submitters. We have to acknowledge that when it comes to issues like this, you will not always get people giving their frank views transparently at a select committee, out of concern over what might happen to their own individual funding. I do not blame them for that. When you have a Minister who makes references using words like “laser-like” to clauses in a bill and who calls Dame Anne Salmond names, you would be a little bit worried about the form of retaliation that you might get from a Minister like that. We may not have even got to the bottom of people’s concerns about this bill, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, at the Government Administration Committee.

Speaking specifically to what is happening to, for instance, Te Waka Toi and its reduction in representation, the Minister tried to claim that it would still have the ability to have input. A committee of the Arts Council could, for instance, be renamed. He flippantly said in his second reading speech that he believed that we could just rename a committee of the Arts Council “Te Waka Toi” and still have the same thing. We will not. We absolutely will not have that, because clause 11 in Part 1 specifically states that although the Arts Council can establish a committee itself, which it could, obviously, make up from members it would then choose, the functions are very specific. They are set out in clause 11(2), which states: “The functions of that committee are—(a) to give advice to the Arts Council on matters relevant to the functions of the Council in relation to Māori arts; and (b) any other functions that the Arts Council delegates to the committee.”

My question to the Minister is very specific. Advice is what a committee is legislated to provide. Could the Arts Council delegate to a committee powers around funding? Is it possible for the Arts Council to delegate to a committee the ability to make funding decisions? If the council can do that, why was it not put specifically in the primary legislation? Why did the Minister not stipulate that? Then we would know that we could establish a replica body that is in line with Te Waka Toi. If it is not stipulated specifically, is that because the Minister does not want a committee to make funding decisions? I think we need some clear ministerial guidance from the Minister as to whether he wants a committee of the Arts Council to make funding decisions. If he does not, now is his opportunity to state that. If he does not mind, then I would implore any future Arts Council to take heed of the fact that the Minister has no issue with that happening, and then perhaps he may well be correct that it has the power to set up an equivalent of what we currently have. Then I would question what, in fact, would be any different from what we have now. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister in that regard.

I want to come back to another element of Part 1, and that is clause 8, “Restriction on Ministerial direction”. The reason that I want to ask a question here is because what has become very clear under this Minister since he has been in charge of arts, culture, and heritage is that he has some very specific areas of interest. The arts community is under no illusion that there are only particular areas that the Minister has any interest in being a patron of or has shown any interest in attending or engaging with. I do not say that because he has implied it or been subtle about it; he has actually said it. He has actually told people: “Don’t bother inviting me. I will not come.” At least he has been clear. We know that he is a great supporter of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and I believe that he has an interest in the Royal New Zealand Ballet, but beyond that it gets a little patchier in terms of his engagement.

The reason that I am raising this is because the Minister heralded the fact that under these changes there would be no requirement for the Arts Council to set out a strategic 3-year plan that would be published and shared. The fear that I have is that that therefore means that we could have an Arts Council that is very much dictated by the whims of the Minister. He may claim that clause 8 stops that from happening. Clause 8 says: “The Minister may not give a direction to the Arts Council in relation to cultural matters.” Why does it not stipulate that he cannot give a direction in relation to funding matters? I would be really interested to hear from the Minister in that regard because I would say that there is probably a bit of a concern amongst the arts community given his very specific areas of interest. I recall that during the review of the structure of the orchestras in New Zealand, he may have made a statement that over his dead body would funding for those organisations be touched. Well, why are there no restrictions on ministerial directions to the Arts Council more broadly when it comes to funding? Is it over his dead body for every single sector of the arts community or just the ones he really, really likes?

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: His body’s not dead.

I try not to talk about corpses too often in my contributions in the Chamber, even in reference to Minister Finlayson. So I would like some specific feedback from the Minister in regard to funding also.

I want to be clear that although I have referred to Te Waka Toi, I do not want to forget, of course, that the same fate has been met by the South Pacific Arts Committee.

That was a very disappointing inaugural contribution from the new Labour arts spokesperson, Jacinda Ardern. It makes me hope that one day the associate spokesperson Darien Fenton will be the Holy Spirit of this rather sad triumvirate, because she is apparently the third person. But, quite apart from the fact that Ms Ardern does not seem to realise that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Royal New Zealand Ballet are actually not funded through the Arts Council, that they are direct-line funded, why personalise it on me? I think it is important when one is debating these sorts of things in the Committee stage to get away from personalities and focus on the words of the bill, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill.

I say this to Ms Ardern, because she obviously has a few problems with reading a bill. If we go to clause 11(2)(b), one sees the functions of any committee established as a committee of the Arts Council may do: “any other functions that the Arts Council delegates to the committee.”

💬 Grant Robertson: So that means funding?

Indeed, it could be. So take this hypothetical. Mr Robertson, one must learn to listen as well as to ask questions. I am trying to answer your questions so please do me the courtesy of listening—for the first time in his life. What I would say is this: there could be a range of bodies that at the present time may be funded by Te Waka Toi—take, for example, Te Matatini as an organisation, or there may be a range of project funding applications that come through twice a year when the Arts Council does its funding rounds. It could well be that the Arts Council determines that it will continue to fund the performing bodies, the theatres, Te Matatini, or whatever—although Te Matatini is in fact direct-line funded, I am using that simply as a hypothetical example—but may give to Te Waka Toi, or the new body that follows it, the responsibility of determining funding applications for project funding.

So what we are trying to do in this legislation is not be unduly prescriptive but provide general powers, particularly marrying them up with what is contained in the Crown Entities Act, and thus enable the Arts Council to exercise its functions for the best purposes and in the interest of the arts. So that is really what it is about—not being too prescriptive. But certainly the answer to Ms Ardern’s question is, yes, of course any body established under clause 10(4) may be able to fund.

The way that Labour is speaking tonight, and to a lesser extent the other parties that have made contributions, you would think there had been a tsunami of concerned submissions. But one should look to the commentary—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How many were there, Minister?

I say to Mr Auchinvole, as a result of that very incisive contribution from him, that actually the Government Administration Committee received and considered 15 submissions from interested groups and individuals. And guess what? It heard three submissions. So after all the noise—after all the noise—what did Horace say? “The mountains labour and a ridiculous mouse is born.” That basically is what we have had from Labour tonight—all the noise in the world, but a ridiculous mouse is born because there were only three submissions.

I am pleased to take a brief call on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. But, first, I simply say that I am not an expert in this area, at all—before the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage starts to pillory me, as he often does. But if he does, he will get it back double, I promise him.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

If he does, that is a promise, Minister. But I am prepared to wear my colours on my sleeve. I know very little about the various art forms, the performing arts, etc. I do know what I like, and sometimes I cannot even explain why, but at least I like it and I appreciate it, and I go to see it or buy it, etc. I do not know a great deal about the arts. I am happy to bow to the superior knowledge of the Minister and of my two colleagues here as well who have spoken eloquently about what is wrong with this bill.

But what I do know something about is what is happening to New Zealand society—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Oh God.

I do, and if the member opposite does not appreciate that, I am surprised. I want to make most of my comments on clause 10. I do know that our society is diversifying. It is diversifying at a rate of knots. It started quite early, but since the mid-1980s this has grown to the enormous proportions at the moment where it touches every aspect of our lives, particularly in the larger cities. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. The various forms of the arts are very critical to our vibrant communities, our ethnic communities, etc. This is not a small community now. It numbers half a million people, so it is a sizable community in New Zealand. What they have brought with them is a whole range of different art forms.

The concern I have is that there is nothing in clause 10 that addresses their representation in the new structure—the so-called streamlined structure that the Minister is organising here. That is a source of disappointment, and I do not know what the explanation is. Maybe what is contained in Part 2 actually addresses that, but I do not think it does it well enough. Why is it that no attention has been paid and no appreciation given under clause 10 to the experts in our new communities—not just Chinese and Indian but many others, as well—and their inclusion as members of the Arts Council? To do so would have, even this late in the piece, demonstrated an appreciation that our ethnic communities and the diversity that is now New Zealand and its pluralism actually do also come out through the various art forms. It is there for us to see. So it is a source of disappointment that that representation has not been included.

A former colleague of mine Dr Ashraf Choudhary, when he was in the House, did purport to provide advice to the Minister by issuing a press statement in 2010 about this particular matter and that at least there was a need to pay attention to this, because it was an omission. Melissa Lee retorted that this bill is not about ethnicity. It is not about ethnicity—that was the retort. Well, actually, it is about New Zealand’s diversity. That diversity comes through and is celebrated every day in our communities through the various art forms of our respective ethnic communities. It is a disappointment, I say to the Minister, that this is missing. Maybe the Minister would like to take a call and explain why that has happened.

💬 Grant Robertson: Don’t encourage him.

Well, if the Minister can give a straight answer without kind of having a go at anybody on this side—

💬 Grant Robertson: No, not possible.

No, it is not possible. I do notice that the Minister cannot take lots of criticism—only he gives a hang of a lot of criticism. So there is that. It is a personality flaw, I am sure. But sometimes the arts can provide a cure for those particular flaws. Maybe the Minister might take—

I move, That the question be now put.