Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill

It is my pleasure to resume the debate on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. This was being hotly debated when we, unfortunately, had to cease our last opportunity to discuss the changes that Minister Finlayson wants to make to the way that creative arts are governed. This is essentially what this bill does. It shakes up the administration side of Creative New Zealand’s four governing bodies.

Just to recap, if I may, for the benefit of everyone watching—potentially from the community arts sector, which is particularly affected by this bill—the purpose of the bill, according to the Government, is to replace Creative New Zealand’s four governing bodies, which currently include the Arts Council, with a single board called the Arts Council, and it comprises 13 members. That is probably the most significant element of this bill—that it will be a significant consolidation of the membership, and that is something that, in particular, we have expressed serious concerns about. Our significant concerns relate to the voices of, in particular, Pacific Island, Māori, ethnic, and young artists who contribute to the vision of Creative New Zealand, which is currently governed by four bodies and will go down into just a single Arts Council. That concern was something that was supported by those who made submissions on this bill.

In particular, replacing the Te Waka Toi committee with just four qualified persons to represent Māori was something we had significant concern over. We have spoken to that in particular. The response that came from the Minister in the chair at that time, as I recall, was that the legislation allowed the ability to set up subcommittees. So, for instance, he clarified through questions that it would be possible for a pseudo Te Waka Toi committee—a faux Te Waka Toi committee, as it were—to be established under the bill anyway, which begs the question: why, then, is there the need for the legislation, if the legislation empowers the council to be able to do that anyway? Well, I think what we will find is that it will not have the same standing as that previous committee. In fact, obviously, it is strongly weighted instead to effect a reduction, through its requiring four qualified persons to represent Māori on a council of 13 members instead.

But the appointment process for those individuals is something worthy of discussion. I think we should always put scrutiny into these processes, given in the past we have seen, for instance, that the appointment process for the Families Commission since this Government has come into play has meant that we have literally ended up with a “National Party Family Families Commission”, where at least two of the members are direct relatives of Cabinet Ministers. They may well be qualified, because they are family members, for the Families Commission. But I think that just demonstrates the importance of keeping rigour in these appointment processes, particularly when you see a significant reduction in the representation of these groups. The same goes for the South Pacific Arts Committee, which has been replaced by two members, who are then given the weighty job of representing their community on the council. That is also something that we should give heed to—just the weight of those particular roles for those six individuals.

But I want to come, speaking specifically, to Part 2’s community arts provider provisions, which set out in clause 14 that the “Arts Council may designate community arts providers”. Clause 14(1) states: “Any body involved in community arts, including any local authority, may apply in writing to the Arts Council to be designated as a community arts provider.” This begs, then, a couple of questions. To what extent do we believe that this initiation by local authorities themselves is likely to take place? There are certainly councils that I know for which this is not a high priority in terms of delivery. Secondly, in fact, it is not really included in the well-being. Well, the well-beings are not included—let us be honest—for local government. So I am not sure how realistic the notion of this being instigated by local councils will be, when you see such variation in their beliefs about their role in the provision of the arts, or even, indeed, in recreation—more so, recreation.

In fact, we have seen a real shift over time, I think, in the way that at a local body level there has been a decision to move away from considering the arts in that overall well-being element of local body provision. Now we see a real separation of recreation being maintained—that is, sports and solid things like grounds and engagement in activities like that—to the detriment of involving, for instance, in amongst all of that provision, things like dance, which is the eighth-most participated-in sport or recreation form in New Zealand. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders participate in dance in some form in New Zealand.

💬 Grant Robertson: Interpretive dance.

Interpretive dance.

💬 Grant Robertson: Friday nights.

I do not think cutting shapes on the dance floor is factored in. There literally is a robust survey that tells us that New Zealanders do participate in that form of creative expression. To what extent is that really being captured by local councils now? And to what extent should we be leaving it up to local authorities’ instigation to make an approach to the Arts Council to be designated a “community arts provider”?

I want to use a specific example here. Tauranga City Council, for instance, in some elements of council provision is strong. It has a fantastic gallery space. It really pays homage to Nigel Brown in that area, and there is a lot of local pride there. On the flip side, the council wants to charge for library books. You see a real division in the way that some of that council decides to treat what we would consider public good and the well-beings. Another example is Morrinsville. The Matamata-Piako District Council there has the benefit, the blessing, of the Wallace Gallery, a fantastic collection, which has had significant funding—as you well know, Mr Chairperson Tisch—via that wonderful donation by Sir James Wallace to that township. What provision has the council made for that wonderful facility? In fact, I know it is a highly contentious facility now because the council does not necessarily believe that it is within its core duty to provide that facility.

That is one of our concerns with Part 2 of the bill, and that is why one of the things that we want to see enhanced is the ability of community arts to be bolstered by the Arts Council and not left to chance. It is something that we have got some significant concerns around. As for the extent to which we need to put a little bit more robust guidance around community arts development, I ask to what degree will we see an even-handed approach in the way that that decentralised level of funding is meant to be treated, particularly given a community arts policy is yet to be completed, as far as I know. These are some of the issues that we remain concerned about, because, yes, we do support decentralisation and the ability of communities to drive what they desire to see in their local areas around community arts provision, but to what extent are the provisions in this bill really satisfying that?

How many of those local areas will be able to meet the threshold test to be designated as a community arts provider if they do not, for instance, have the support of their local council? The locals there may have a huge amount of enthusiasm and desire, but if the Arts Council is able to designate a body as a community arts provider only if it is satisfied that “(a) the body complies with any guidelines set by the Council for community arts providers; and (b) the body represents, in relation to the arts, either a specific geographical area or a defined community of interest.”, you would imagine that it would be interested in the local council’s view on that. If they do not have the support of the local council—again, perhaps the Matamata-Piako District Council would not support a move like that—then what happens to them? I have heard some argue that that just demonstrates there is not enough desire in the community and not enough backing and, therefore, so be it, but how fair is that on those who are living in those geographic regions not to have access in that way?

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We will be voting against this bill, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. Our concerns are predominantly around the voice of community inside this legislation.

In particular, there is Supplementary Order Paper 35 in my name, which deals predominantly with Part 2. It would change the heading of clause 14 to “Arts Council to designate community arts providers” to make it a definitive statement that it will designate community arts providers. If one goes to clause 15(1), it would change to “The Arts Council must allocate funding to a designated community arts provider.” Clause 16(1) would change to “The Arts Council must establish community arts councils in relation to specific geographical areas.” We believe that without a directive for this to be done, the creation of this Arts Council and the removal of several bodies—two in particular, the Māori representative body and the Pasifika representative body—is really a centralisation of this decision making.

I quote the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in his second reading speech, when he said: “The bill … 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 start again. It was an utter waste of time.” That was the Minister in his second reading speech.

It is the very voice of community that is the reason why New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. The Minister in that statement talked about strategic plans, along with the designated desire to distribute these funds down to a community level. A strategic plan means you have to go out and you have to talk with communities, the people of New Zealand, whose money it is. This centralisation in this way, through this bill, puts the decision making into the hands of a very select group of selected people—selected by the Minister—and now with no requirement to do a strategic plan that goes out for any public consultation. There is no actual requirement. They “may” establish community arts councils. They “may” allocate funding. They “might” do this and they “might” do that, but there is no requirement for them to do so.

Once again it will be rural New Zealand that misses out. It will be rural New Zealanders in places like Warkworth—who are going to have, with the funding that it received through the arts funding, through this grant, in the last few years the most amazing mosaic town clock in the centre of their town, and they deserve it, just like any other taxpayer of New Zealand deserves it. But it will be those rural communities whose voices, we are concerned, will not reach this committee, and hence that is why we are seeking to change Part 2 through my Supplementary Order Paper.

My colleague will address some of the other concerns we have when she seeks a call later on. But we just want to reiterate that without a strategic plan, how can the people of New Zealand really know where this council is going to go to? Without a strategic plan and the consultation around it, how truly can this council gain the voice of New Zealanders—the New Zealanders on the ground who pay their taxes every day, who want to see Tutus on Tour, and who want their waterfronts to have surprise art all over them, just as much as anybody in the centre of Auckland or anybody walking down on the Wellington waterfront? Without this Supplementary Order Paper change, these are the voices that we believe will be cut out of this equation.

We also do not feel—and this will be expanded on by my colleague—that the four seats for Māori and the two seats for Pasifika are adequate. Without any community voice anywhere else inside this legislation, the removal of these seats not only lessens but tips that balance of input from those communities, which we all recognise and respect for their cultural input to the arts and cultures that make us as New Zealanders. Some of the things that we are famous for overseas, some of the reasons why we are actually at the top—

It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I know that I am not allowed to refer to the absence of members, but the participation of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in this particular part of the debate would be useful, not only because, obviously, we all enjoy his company in the Chamber but also because I have a number of questions around Part 2 that I think the Minister might be able to shed some light on.

Part 2 deals largely with community arts providers, and I want at the outset of my contribution to make clear that the Labour Party is a strong supporter of community arts councils. We believe that at the grassroots level community arts councils play a critical role in providing opportunities for local communities to participate in the arts, to provide support and funding for that, and to ensure there is coordination of arts activities at a local level. Right throughout the history of New Zealand’s artistic and creative endeavours, community arts councils have played an important role, so we strongly support them.

But the language that is contained in Part 2 of this bill is, at times, confusing, vague, and weak. I actually agree with Tracey Martin about the fact that if, as set out in clause 18, we are going to have administration of community arts councils by local authorities, let us just say it. Let us just say that is what we are going to do. At the moment we have this odd, permissive phrasing in clause 18(1): “The Arts Council may appoint a local authority to have administrative responsibility for a community arts council,”. But it might not, as well, and what happens in the situations where it does not? In fact, the whole clause is full of negative language about what will happen when funds are allocated and how funds can be taken away from community arts councils. But it does not go into much detail about what community arts councils are there for, what they should be doing, and how they can be supported. So I think there is lack of directness in Part 2, and it raises a series of questions that I intend to work through in a couple of calls.

The first of those is when we come to the beginning of this, which is clause 14, “Arts Council may designate community arts providers”. It lists in clause 14(2)(b) that the Arts Council can create one of these if “the body represents, in relation to the arts, either a specific geographical area or a defined community of interest.” One question I would be asking the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, to take a call on—or, indeed, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, if he is listening to us—is this. One of the submitters to the bill was the Taieri Community Arts Council from Dunedin. It made a very brief submission to the Government Administration Committee, but it was quite pointed.

I will read just the beginning of it. The “Taieri Community Arts Council is in the process of winding up its business and ceasing to exist.” Bear in mind that the Government sat on its tush on this bill for so long that that was in 2010, so we can make a fairly sound assumption that the Taieri Community Arts Council did wind up its business. It said: “This is because Creative New Zealand have decreed that no Community Arts Council may ring fence funding for an area within a local authority.” My understanding of this is that the Taieri Community Arts Council sits within the Dunedin City Council boundaries, and presumably Creative New Zealand and the Dunedin City Council were saying that they could not agree to funding an area like the Taieri Community Arts Council within that local authority.

My question for the Government is whether this change in Part 2 allows an organisation like the Taieri Community Arts Council to operate in the way that it wanted to before it wound itself up. What it was saying was that it had a defined area of interest, which is the Taieri Plains area around the township of Mosgiel, for those who come in from Dunedin Airport. The Taieri Community Arts Council was providing opportunities in that area that it did not feel were being provided by the local authority, and it wanted to be supported for doing that. Like a lot of community arts providers, it also then went on to say that it felt that Creative New Zealand over the years had let community arts dissipate and that there was too much concentration—in its words—on “high art”. We know that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson, is a great fan of high art, and that is all very well, but community arts councils do operate at the core of arts provision in New Zealand. So that is a question for the Government. Would an organisation like the Taieri Community Arts Council have the ability to be able to operate and ring-fence funding for an area within a local authority? That is a question that we would like answered.

I then want to go on to clause 16 of the bill, which talks about the establishment of community arts councils in relation to geographic areas. This is where Tracey Martin is absolutely right that if you—

💬 Tracey Martin: Cool.

I know; there is a first time for everything.

💬 Tracey Martin: Ha, ha!

No, no! This is where Tracey Martin is correct: community arts councils are here being established under clause 16 for specific geographical areas, but then, if we flick over to clause 18, suddenly we are giving local authorities an administrative role. So which is it? Is it both? How do they work together? I am uncomfortable passing a law that is so vague in this regard.

I think that when this passes into law, it will end up causing more confusion for local authorities and more confusion for existing community arts councils as to how they are meant to operate in this new regime. Bear in mind that this bill repeals the previous Act, so this is it. There is nothing else. Clauses 14 through to 18 are it for community arts councils, and I simply do not believe that there is sufficient guidance in here for community arts councils and local authorities as to how they should behave in this part of the law. So there are some questions there for the Government that I believe it should answer.

If it cannot answer them, I think it should support Tracey Martin’s Supplementary Order Paper 35 because at the very least that gives some certainty that it is local authorities that will be doing this. I would want within that the assurance that there is flexibility for sub-areas within a local authority to be able to form a community arts council. I think that probably that flexibility is contained in the other clauses here, but at the moment I think this is an extremely vague and confusing area of the bill. Unless the Minister in the chair is able to explain what the Government is actually up to here, we certainly cannot be supporting Part 2 of the bill.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on one aspect of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill that pertains to the accessibility of funding through decision making for minority groups, particularly for Pacific peoples. It is quite a concern for me when I look through this bill. I am also very pleased to hear that the Labour Party is actually supporting my colleague Tracey Martin’s Supplementary Order Paper 35.

This bill contains exclusionary provisions that are not transparent and that limit the ability of certain communities to access the available funding at the right level because their voices will have to be channelled through another layer of bureaucracy. They have to go through a different layer because their voices are not considered good enough for them to be sitting round the same table or sitting on the same council as those whom the Minister has elected to be part of the Arts Council.

Although New Zealand First supports the appointment of the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban as chair of the council, we are concerned about how this bill will be perceived by those who really need it the most. The restrictive process of attaining funding will inevitably make the process of accessing crucial funding more difficult. That funding could go a long way for the communities that need it the most. I am talking about the Pacific community here. Their arts, their crafts, and their dramas have been recognised by New Zealand in order to sell or to market itself at the international level. These restrictive provisions will make this bill futile and will create a barrier for many people that will stop them taking up funding opportunities that they deserve.

I can see the vision that this bill aims to support, but the vision is inconsistent with the bill we have before us today. If the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage wants to create more funding opportunities, then this bill should require some reassessing or reviewing in the area of allowing the voice of Pacific Island people at the decision-making table. But if the point of this bill is to make it more restrictive and exclusionary towards potential providers and community networks, then the Minister is going about things the right way. That is the way that this bill is presented to us.

I will read from the bill. In Part 1, clause 3(2)(c) and (d) states: “recognise the arts of the Pacific Island peoples of New Zealand; and … recognise and uphold the principles …”. It talks about principles. Which principles is the Minister referring to, when he is not even considering the people or the voice of the Pacific Island people being part of this decision making? Also, in order to get the distribution of funding to the right level of the community, Pacific Island peoples are going to have to go through a different layer.

I think that I must call it a con artist attempt, because that is what it is all about. There are many people out there who recognise Pacific arts as unique and who consider them invaluable to New Zealand’s culture, yet this bill takes away the opportunity for ordinary Pacific New Zealanders to have fair access to the decision-making process of funding at the right level. This bill is nothing but a layer of con bureaucratic attempts that is being used to stop Pacific communities from having a voice through a committee. This bill aims to justify the Government’s efforts to eliminate Pacific organisations from being able to expand on their skills in Polynesian arts and also to recognise the culture and the unique contribution that they have made to this country for many years. It is appalling to see ethnic groups like Pacific people being treated so unfairly. I am saying “unfairly” because they have worked really hard for this country. They have made this country their home, and yet their culture and their arts are just being used and taken for granted.

The Ministers boast about the uniqueness of Pacific arts—if it is not music, it is dance, or drama, or through a poem. One thing that I want to make clear is that the Pacific is not there for the purpose of exploitation. The Pacific people are resourceful, and they have the innate abilities that often generate adequate resources of income. It is certainly an area that is fast becoming a platform for others to learn from. New Zealand has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that our Pacific people in New Zealand receive the means to be self-reliant, self-efficient. Our Pacific people in Aotearoa do not want a handout; all they want is a hand up. That is what they want. This bill will fundamentally ensure that Pacific Islanders will require a platform from which to prosper and benefit from economic growth and development.

This bill should be reviewed to avoid Pacific artists being marginalised and overwhelmed by the new structure the Arts Council is actually introducing. That is the reason why we believe Supplementary Order Paper 364 in the name of Jacinda Ardern, which used to be Supplementary Order Paper 34 in the name of Charles Chauvel, is a good Supplementary Order Paper and that it should be supported. It really recognises the loophole that this bill has created. I am going to be absolutely astounded if the bill passes as it is. It is a con artist in action, and it has no regard for the benefit of the ordinary Pacific artists of our country. Thank you.

Ngā mihi nui ki te whānau whenua o te Paremata i tēnei pō. It is nice to have an opportunity to speak briefly on this Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill because we agree with many of the sentiments that we have heard tonight from New Zealand First and from the Labour Party. We will not be supporting the bill as written. My colleague Asenati Lole-Taylor was just referring to the marginalisation of Pacific people through the overall process of the bill. But we are on Part 2, so I am going to address my comments primarily to Part 2 and to tautoko the comments of some of my colleagues about the confusing nature of it.

The first statement in clause 14(1) of Part 2 seems clear that the Arts Council may designate community arts providers. “Any body involved in community arts, including any local authority, may apply in writing to the Arts Council to be designated as a community arts provider.” That statement is quite clear. After that the whole thing goes to hell, and I do not understand it. It is incredibly contradictory and confusing. You do not know whether the community arts provider is part of the Arts Council or part of the local council, or whether the local council is part of the arts provider. It is, honestly, very badly structured, and I am sure the Minister had something in mind, but I do not know what it is.

I think that if we are going to reform Arts Council structures in funding, it is very important to recognise the flax-roots and grassroots dimension. I think that my colleague Grant Robertson talked about support for the higher arts, but for those of us lowly people who spend a lot of time in small communities, where the arts are a thriving part of our unique identity, the way in which arts funding is structured is a critical matter. It is not clear exactly who is relying on whom here, but we have changed the powers of local authorities in other pieces of legislation from this House. We have stripped the well-beings as a key priority for local authorities, which is where the arts used to fit, and we are now focused on a very narrow definition of the responsibility of local authorities.

The fear that I hear from other parties and from the Greens, is that when we do that we lose that sense of the vitality of the local arts as an essential part of what a local authority might be responsible for. If a local authority is not responsible for it, then we need a local arts council or arts provider that is. We need to know clearly how that is going to work, who is going to fund it, and who gets to decide who is on it. A centralised process is not going to work. In order to make sure that everything that happens at our flax-roots, grassroots level—from kapa haka through to community painting, murals, drama, cultural contributions from all of the tangata whenua me tauiwi katoa in our communities—is going to be vibrant and successful, it cannot happen from a centralised authoritarian perspective, and we really need that vitality.

It may be that something is envisioned, but I have been reading through these clauses and trying to figure it out. There seem to be more clauses about how to get rid of these bodies if they are not performing than there is clarity about what their performance, relationships, and jurisdictions actually are. It is disturbing to see all of these clauses that talk about how to get rid of community arts councils if they do not fit with the Arts Council’s national criteria. I really am at a loss to see why this is a step forward.

We have concerns about the bill overall, but we would have liked to support it. We are great believers in the arts. We passionately believe that the success of our communities is through the success not just of sports and economic activities but also of the arts. They are an economic activity in themselves and provide an incredible amount to communities, but they do often need that small grant, that seeding funding.

I have been a recipient of arts funding grants myself, in the Mahurangi area. I know how important it is to community organisations to get these grants. In the Hauraki, where I live, I know how important it is to our communities that this money is made available in ways that are transparent and accountable—not just nationally through this bill, where they can shut you down if you are not doing it according to their rules, but from a local perspective. This money is highly contested. It is sought after. People sweat blood over what might be only $1,000, but for them it is the difference between participating in the local kapa haka competition and not participating, and between doing the community mural with the children on the foreshore and not doing it. They want to know that they have some accountability here. They want to know that they will be able to say who is going to decide about this.

It is a shame that we do not know more about what Part 2 actually means and who is going to end up with the resources and the power. I think these questions of power are very important in all bills and in all types of issues, but particularly for arts at the community level because often they are marginalised. [Bell rung] I just want to take a short remaining call on this. If, at the community level, community arts providers end up being disenfranchised and people who are active at that level feel that they have less power than before, then Parliament will have failed. It will have failed to do something that could be useful, which is to look at the arts sector and ask whether it is working and for whom it is working.

Those are critical questions. Unfortunately, from reading Part 2 I cannot give a critical answer to those questions because I do not think it is well drafted, and I do not think it is clear. The word “may” appears in virtually every clause. There is not a direction. The Arts Council “may designate a body” and “may, if satisfied”, do this; it “may establish community arts councils” that “may apply in writing …”. If we restructure and get rid of all other legislation pertaining to community arts, there needs to be a lot more rigour, a lot more accountability, a lot more clarity, and a lot more commitment to making sure that the flax-roots and the grassroots have the power.

At this point, Part 2 to us is something that we absolutely cannot support. At the moment we cannot support the rest of the bill either. It is with regret that we express that, because community arts are the lifeblood, the identity, the meaning, and the uniqueness of being a citizen in a group of other citizens, creating your own reality. We should be supporting that in a coherent manner. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.