Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill

I move, That the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill be now read a third time. The Arts Council of New Zealand, which was formed by a National Government in the 1960s, has played an important role in New Zealand’s cultural life. These reforms will ensure that this good work continues, but free of excessive bureaucracy.

The purpose of the bill is to improve the governance structure of the Arts Council, because the existing governance model has proved to be very unwieldy indeed. So under this bill, the resources required to support multiple tiers of governance will instead be directed to the core business of the Arts Council. Let me recap: a single board, to be called the Arts Council, will replace the existing council, two arts boards, and the Pacific Arts Committee. Thirteen members will replace the current 28 appointed members. Instead of having one body responsible for strategic planning and policy setting and three others to consider funding applications, the new Arts Council will be responsible for both functions. As a result, decisions will be better informed by an understanding of current and emerging sector issues. The new structure will deliver clearer lines of accountability from the council to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and between the council and the chief executive.

The complaints by the Labour Party during the Committee stage were unpleasant and hysterical, and showed no understanding of the proposals. The Green Party complaints were not so much unpleasant as just plain hysterical. The changes are in fact less radical than the Rudd Government’s reform of the Australia Council in 2013. The major proponent of those changes was, in fact, Simon Crean. Previously, Australia had a 12-member governing board, seven artform boards, and two committees. The governing board comprised the chair, the deputy chair, the chief executive, two community interest representatives, and the chairs of the seven artform boards. The seven artform boards, most of which had seven members, were the principal administrators of the Australia Council’s funding role, and were the council’s major source of advice on arts policy and grant programmes.

Australia has now reduced the total number of members from 57-plus to a unitary board of 12 and, indeed, section 16(1) of the Australia Council Act 2013 says that the board will consist of the chair of the board, the deputy chair, the chief executive, and not fewer than five but not more than nine other members. So, quite frankly, there is nothing new under the sun. On both sides of the Tasman there has been a study of the Arts Council model and a desire to strip away bureaucracy, strip away flab, and concentrate on the core objectives of what the Arts Council is supposed to do.

This bill delivers very sensible and desirable changes. They have been sought by the Arts Council and the sector and have been broadly supported in submissions to the Government Administration Committee. There was a concern that Māori and Pacific Island perspectives could be diminished. However, I think that the Arts Council’s work in respect of both Māori and Pacific Island arts will, in fact, be improved.

Instead of representation in a subsidiary board and committee, those perspectives and the expertise of both Māori and Pacific Islanders will be represented at the top level of decision making, informing policy, strategy development, and funding decisions. The Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs will be consulted about the appointment of the four Māori board members and the two Pacific Island representatives. These appointments will be on the basis of a robust set of selection criteria to ensure appropriate representation for both Māori and Pacific Island arts. Māori and Pacific Island projects will continue to be assessed by suitably qualified assessors and by knowledgable and experienced Māori and Pacific Island staff.

I particularly refer the House to clause 10(4) of the bill, which provides that at least four Māori appointments will be required. Of course, there is every possibility there will be more than four members of the Arts Council who have an understanding of the role of Māori in the arts of New Zealand. Those members of the council will also be able to meet as a separate committee providing advice on matters relating to Māori arts.

The support for this bill reflects the desire for reform. This bill will enable the Arts Council of New Zealand to meet the expectations of our artists and communities in the 21st century. I am very pleased to have been able to promote these changes. I certainly look forward to working with the Arts Council and the chief executive of this very highly valued Government agency. I was asked to continue to the witching hour, but Mr Grant Robertson is here, so he will have a couple of minutes. It is doubtless it will be unpleasant and off the topic, but over to him.

I am grateful for that introduction from the Minister Chris Finlayson, who has shown his customary dynamism with the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, which first saw the light of day in 2010. Chris Finlayson said: “I want this one to move quickly.”, and here we are, 3 years later—nearly 4 years later—and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage can proudly say that he has made his contribution to the arts in New Zealand, by fiddling around with the boards and playing about with bureaucracy. Well, on this side of the House we say that we know what a good arts Minister looks like. Her name was Helen Clark. Since that time we have had to put up with an arts Minister on the other side of the House belittling the achievements of the Labour Government in the arts area. Well, we can say that we are proud of the achievements we have made, and we do not see that this bill actually particularly adds very much.

I am quite sad that the Minister has described the contributions from Opposition parties in the way that he has. We had hoped that he would engage with us on whether or not this approach was actually justified, and we simply have not heard from the Minister a justification for the kinds of changes he is making. He likes to tell us that Māori and Pacific perspectives will now be heard at the table, but let us take just the example of the Pacific community for the moment. Two members of the Arts Council will now be expected to represent the views of all of the Pasifika communities in New Zealand—two members. It is simply not going to be possible.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.