Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill

Honourable members, when the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill was last being debated, I think my cousin the honourable member Grant Robertson had 8 minutes remaining to speak.

Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, how long have I got left?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Robertson, you have 8 minutes remaining.

Excellent—very, very good.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I move for an extension of time.

Well, that is right, before I have begun—that is a good idea. I think we should start by first saying that the Assistant Speaker and I do indeed share a last name, and I admire the Robertson tartan tie that he is wearing—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

—distantly related as we are.

When I was talking last night I had come to what is one of the Labour Party’s principal concerns with the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, and that is the disestablishment of Te Waka Toi, which is the Māori arts funding body, and the Pacific Arts Committee. Both of those organisations, which have a long history of funding the arts in New Zealand, disappear from view tonight. In fact, as we discovered in the Committee stage, “Te Waka Toi” is now a banned phrase. Nobody is allowed to use the phrase “Te Waka Toi” from this moment onwards, as a result of one of the clauses in this bill. So not only is the bill expunging Te Waka Toi from its job and its work but it is taking the name out and saying that it actually cannot be used. That is just how far this Government is going with this bill.

It is not true to say that the Arts Council or Creative New Zealand are perfect bodies. There is always room for improvement. There is always room for streamlining of governance structures. But the problem with this bill is that it takes a sledgehammer to that issue and it says that there will be one body, that there will be four people who will be responsible for making sure that Māori perspectives are covered, and that there will be two people making sure that Pacific perspectives are covered. On this side of the House we simply do not believe that that is an adequate representation for Māori and Pacific arts in New Zealand.

The truth is that Māori and Pacific arts have flourished under the model that has been working through the Arts Council in the last few years. Māori artists believe in the Te Waka Toi brand. They believe in the fact that they will be supported as Māori artists by a body that understands them. The Pacific Arts Committee has overseen the development of Pacific artists like Jonathan Lemalu, like Victor Rodger—people who have contributed so much to New Zealand—and that leadership goes tonight with this bill. We on this side of the House simply do not agree with that approach.

The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has told us that it will be perfectly possible for the Māori members or those with knowledge of Māori custom who are on the new Arts Council to form their own committee and potentially make funding decisions. That is what he told us in the Committee stage. Well, if that is the case, just leave Te Waka Toi in place and let it get on with doing its job. But, no, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, who knows so much better about the arts than anybody else—

💬 Moana Mackey: And everything else.

—and everything, in fact—says to us that this is the structure—

💬 Maggie Barry: More than you, that’s for sure.

Maggie Barry, another member of the arts scene over the back there—

💬 Hon Member: The brains trust.

That is right.

💬 Maggie Barry: Jealous and unpleasant, as usual.

You should not talk about Chris Finlayson like that. Maggie Barry should not talk about Chris Finlayson like that. Calling Chris Finlayson jealous and unpleasant is a terrible, terrible thing to do in this House tonight.

💬 Moana Mackey: An understatement.

It could be an understatement, Moana—it could be.

In addition to the complete destruction of Te Waka Toi and the Pacific Arts Committee, this bill is also confused in several areas. One of those is in the future of community arts and the name of the community arts councils. In the Committee stage we were simply unable to get a clear answer from the Minister as to what the future of community arts councils is. It is quite clear from those who submitted on the bill that they also were concerned about this. It now seems that the name “community arts council” is potentially available to people from outside a region to come into a region and call themselves a community arts council, but the control of that name is also now kept within the Arts Council.

To me, this speaks of a Government and, in particular, a Minister who does not understand the importance of community arts, who does not understand what grassroots communities need when it comes to fostering creativity. It is a Minister who thinks that arts start and end at the symphony orchestra and the ballet, and he might chuck Neil Diamond in on a good day. That is the arts to Chris Finlayson, and that is not enough.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Come on, don’t be mean to Neil.

Oh, there are some Neil Diamond fans on this side of the House, so I withdraw and apologise for saying that. But it is fair to say that this Minister does not have an understanding of the arts beyond the narrow field that he believes constitutes what should be funded.

We have at this time, for instance, a crisis in the publishing industry in New Zealand. It is a fantastic thing to see Eleanor Catton up on the world stage, but the reality is that support for authors, writers, and publishers in New Zealand is at an all-time low, and they are struggling.

💬 Maggie Barry: Rubbish!

Maggie Barry says that is rubbish. Go out and talk to people in the publishing industry and actually listen to what they say—actually listen to what people in the publishing industry say. They say that this National Government does not support them. Independent publishers want to know where the support is for them. Authors want to know where the support is for them. This is a Government that has overseen the end of a publication that has been published annually for 20 or 30 years—Sport magazine—which publishes new authors every year. It is gone under this Government because this Government does not understand the importance of arts and literature beyond the narrow field that its Minister sees.

This bill, unfortunately, will pass tonight because it has been unthinkingly put through by this Government. I expect that in years to come we will return to a different model, a more inclusive model, of arts funding, because this is not the answer. The Arts Council of New Zealand has funded fantastic things over the years. This Minister has decided that his great legacy will be to tinker around with the bureaucracy. That is not good enough. We need a Government that will support arts, from the community level right up to those who go overseas, like Lorde and like Eleanor Catton—

💬 Maggie Barry: You had your chance and did nothing.

Oh, Maggie Barry says that we had our chance and we did nothing. Maggie Barry says that. We had to put in an arts recovery package because Maggie Barry’s party was so hopeless in the arts. We had to put $80 million in.

Helen Clark led the arts in this country. When Labour gets back into Government again, we will ensure that the arts recover, and Maggie Barry will see what a real arts Minister looks like.

What a crescendo the last speaker, Grant Robertson, ended with—what a crescendo he ended with. He did not, however, say or conclude his little story of throwing money at the arts with the bit about reminding them there was GST included, which caused considerable stress to the recipients of the funds.

It is a privilege to be speaking at the third reading of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. Here we are in Wellington, the arts capital of New Zealand, a good location to be discussing the future of one of New Zealand’s—as National perceives it—most important arts sponsorship organisations, the Arts Council of New Zealand. We will talk shortly about the purpose of this bill, but did I hear a tinge, just a sense, a touch, a pinch of envy from the members on the other side when they speak about this bill?

💬 Maggie Barry: Jealousy.

Jealousy? Perhaps jealousy or perhaps they wish this was their bill that they could introduce, because it is what should have been done. They will deny that, but we know, as Labour members do in their heart of hearts, that they wish this was their bill, hence the impassioned plea, because they did get a tinge, just a touch, through the activities of their previous Prime Minister, of working with the arts. Then, though, they neglected the structure. The purpose of this bill is to streamline the fundamental organisation, saving $200,000 per annum, and making a leaner single council of 13 members, including four representatives with specialist knowledge of tikanga Māori and two representatives with specialist knowledge of Pacific arts.

When Minister Finlayson began speaking about this he described the previous structure as a series of tiers, and that put me in mind of the wonderful quote of Dylan Thomas when he said: “Cardiff is built like an onion, tier upon tier. And you can spell ‘tier’ however you like.” I guess it was the same with the previous council structure here.

With the representation of New Zealand as the guest of honour at the Frankfurt Book Fair, New Zealand experienced a coming of age internationally, recognised for its myriad of authors, actors, musicians, as well as the living oral tradition of Māoritanga. To maintain such a presence over such a long period as the guest of honour was a tremendous tribute to the organisation that Mr Finlayson oversees. So the timing of the adjustment to the Arts Council can be seen as a coming of age and a chance to recognise that the strength and functionality of the arts sector in New Zealand is another vital way of recognising New Zealand’s increasing status as an emerging leader in the international arts world. I am sure every member of this House can reflect with pride on some of the achievements that have been given status lately.

Technical adjustments to the funding body of what is currently known as Creative New Zealand include making a single council composed of 13 members under a single Minister so that communications are clear and, just as important, timely, allowing decisions about upcoming projects to be made in plenty of time. This bill not only includes but actually enshrines Māori and Pacific representation, allowing the all-important self-representation of these living arts traditions. The bill removes the necessity of providing a strategic plan every 3 years, which absorbs so much of experts’ time, so that the fine minds hired by this organisation can be used to discuss the arts, artists, and their current and future projects, as opposed to the joys of being mired in renewing the debate on updating committee principles or the didactics of rewording the company philosophy.

There is also a focus on arts projects for youth, such as the Original Scripts Youth Company, which funded 16 to 19-year-olds in Christchurch to write a play as a reaction, a response, to the earthquakes, allowing young talent to get the kind of coverage that would be hard to replicate without the support of a group such as the Arts Council. Whether discussing the Indian Ink Theatre Company, which wrote the popular Krishnan’s Dairy; the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra; or the new plans for Te Papa in Auckland, it is impossible to avoid mentioning a project sponsored by the Arts Council.

By passing this bill, increasing the efficiency and ensuring the longevity of this important arts organisation, we will strengthen this leader in New Zealand’s international arts representation. I commend this bill to the House.

I listened with interest to the last speaker, Chris Auchinvole, before he resumed his seat. He talked about his concerns about throwing money at the arts, before he embarked upon what was a very poetic statement. I was not entirely sure how it fitted in, but I am sure that quote is going to stay in my mind for years beyond any actual use. Thank you for sharing it with us.

But as for concerns about throwing money at the arts, I think those concerns seem to be quite misguided. When Labour came into Government, an $80 million investment package was put into the arts off the back of what could only have been described at that time as a severe state of decline. The arts needed not just a boost but a recovery package to deal with the significant neglect at that time. National members may describe that as throwing money at an issue, but it seems actually that whenever Labour talks about anything to do with investment or bolstering particular programmes, or any alternative vision to that of the National Party, it is described as throwing money at something. Oh, but a billion-dollar tax cut—no, that is not throwing money at something. It is not a bribe. That is just good, sound political policy-making, is it not? So you can see that there is an absolute distinction in the National Party’s thinking on some of these issues. It is an unfair distinction as well.

Coming back to the bill specifically, we are debating today the final stage of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. All through this bill we have consistently made the point that it is not entirely clear what has driven the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage to go through what is always a very lengthy process to get to the point where you debate through the full stages of the House a structural change like this when it requires primary legislation. It has never been entirely clear what vision the Minister had by this bill. Indeed, it has never been entirely clear to me what his vision for the arts is generally.

I will concede this one point: there are many other Ministers in the National Cabinet who could have come into the arts portfolio and absolutely gutted it—they could have. They could have come in and just hunkered down, stripped out funding from all sorts of sectors, and really put us on a backwards path. Chris Finlayson, to give him his due, has not hollowed out the arts portfolio in that regard, but I do not believe that we have seen the arts advance under his leadership. It has been very, very clear that there are certain aspects of his portfolio that he enjoys, that he is quite happy to support and bolster, and there are others that he is quite content to neglect entirely. I would say it is almost as bad to take a vicious campaign against a particular sector as it is to just neglect it and let it fade but not give it any rallying point, because everything just looks like it is the status quo while there is a subtle decline. That is the kind of behaviour that means that Labour then has to come in and try to rejuvenate a sector.

What this bill does, really, is just consolidate the council. That is all it really does. It is not a visionary piece of legislation, despite the fact that it has been a very onerous process. In fact, for many communities it sets back the representation that they have had to date under this status quo. Why has the Minister chosen to do that? Well, I would contend that it is because he has issued a jihad on committees.

You know, we already know that this is a Minister who has declared a jihad on jargon, and now we have a jihad on committees within the arts sector, but without him actually giving much reason as to why that is. Perhaps these committees mention too frequently in their papers, in their work, or even in their interactions with the Minister the words “heads-up”. Or perhaps the word “process” entered into their thinking too often. Or perhaps in one too many meetings with the council it used the term “outcome”. You may not be aware of this, but these are all words that the Minister’s office has put into writing and declared that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage—indeed, no other official that the Minister deals with—is not to use. It is not to use any of those terms with the Minister. He has an absolute hatred of the words “heads-up”, “process”, “outcome”, and “stakeholder”. I do not know what he prefers them to be called—

💬 Tracey Martin: How about “step change”?

“Step change” is definitely out—no “step change”. And the worst yet, the biggest sin of all when dealing with Minister Finlayson, is to mention the word “community”.

“Community” is absolutely at the top of his list of things that shall not be mentioned. Perhaps we then start to see the rationale why, for instance, the Minister has decided to get rid of the more substantive representation that exists within the Arts Council for the Pacific Island, Māori, and ethnic communities. He has taken a leaf from what his self-declared idol, who is Margaret Thatcher, did—and I am not saying this in a derogatory way. The Minister has proudly stepped forward and said that Margaret Thatcher is his idol. She is framed and on his wall, as I recall. I believe I saw a Twitter picture of it—a lovely golden, gilt frame—in his office. And, of course, we know Margaret’s view on community. Perhaps this is why he has taken a leaf from her book and banned the use of the word.

Mr Finlayson concludes his requirements to his officials by stating that he has “always preferred the understatement”. He has always preferred the understatement, which I am sure was at the centre of his thinking when he declared recently that we are in the golden age of the arts. That, of course, was not understatement, according to Minister Finlayson. No, according to him, we are absolutely in the golden age, even though, as my colleague Grant Robertson has pointed out, we have seen a decline in our publishing sector. Ask representatives of our authors in New Zealand and they will tell us that despite, of course, the fantastic works by people like Eleanor Catton, we cannot let that paper over what is otherwise a sentiment within that sector of the arts that we really have had a decline and that we need the Government to focus its attentions on how to bolster those parts of the sector that are experiencing such a rapid change around them in the digital age.

Add to that the film, TV, and screen industry. Sure, at the eleventh hour this Government finally conceded that it had got it wrong when it came to working with those industries and that, actually, we had seen significant job losses—at the eleventh hour. Actually, it was even beyond the eleventh hour, because by the time the Government finally listened to those stakeholders and members of the screen industry community, it was already too late for groups like Digipost, which was one of the companies that Minister Finlayson heralded as being part of the golden age of the arts. It was a post-production group that was involved in creating the Everest documentary, which he was so proud to claim was an indication of how good things were in the screen industry. As he declared that, that company was shutting up shop, openly. It had told the Government what was happening to its industry.

On almost the same day as the Minister declared that he was finally changing his tune on the way that National dealt with the industry and the incentives regime, Oktobor Animation was closing its doors. Some may claim that there was ignorance on the part of the Government as to just how bad things had got within that part of our arts sector and industry, but Steven Joyce knows that he sat at the table of Oktobor Animation almost 6 months before it closed its doors, which is when it told him that it was on the brink. But if the incentive regime had been changed, it would have seen some of the biggest production companies in New Zealand giving work to Oktobor Animation.

DreamWorks wanted to come to New Zealand. Minister Joyce shakes his head as I say that, but he knows that he had that piece of information. He ignored it, and jobs were lost as a result. It was too late.

💬 Claudette Hauiti: Oktobor Animation hasn’t closed.

It was too late. You can go and visit the empty offices, if you like. It was too late for that company. It had every plan to try to rebuild that business, but jobs were lost. Oktobor Animation, I am sorry to tell you, has had to close up shop until it finds its work.

💬 Claudette Hauiti: You’ve got the wrong company.

I have not got the wrong company. The member might like to go and speak to the directors of Oktobor Animation about that particular issue.

The point is that we do not have a clear vision from the Minister as to what he is trying to do. Those involved—the communities involved with the Arts Council—have suffered as a result of the Minister’s decision that he does not want the word “community” to be involved any more, and communities will suffer as a result.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. He mihi nui—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There are two members interjecting on each other.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare i tēnei pō.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively the House this evening.]

I would like to start my speech in this third reading with a couple of whakataukīOne of them is: he toi whakairo, he mana tangata [artistic excellence is human dignity]. The other one, which is more appropriate to the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, is “It’s a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The Green Party is opposing the third reading of this bill with regret. We are passionate supporters of the arts and getting the best possible structure for the administration of arts funding and arts promotion. We think that every form of art, from murals on the street to the Te Matatini competition, Pasifika Festival in Auckland, Shakespeare in the Park, Play It Strange Trust, Arts Access Aotearoa—you name it—deserves its share of the funding, as well as opera and sculpture. The highbrow and the lowbrow are all part of what makes us a creative country. Although I did not agree personally with everything Helen Clark did, we cannot deny that she backed the arts like no one else as a Prime Minister or even as a Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage before or since. That is a legacy we should be proud of rather than trying to tear it apart.

However, we have four issues with this bill. The first is the change to the structure of the Creative New Zealand bodies into a single body, which will have 13 members. The concern that has been raised with us is that Te Waka Toi will be subsumed into a single body and lose its identity and ability to provide tangata whenua artistic achievement. Te Waka Toi will be replaced by four members who will be “qualified” by their knowledge of tikanga Māori and Māori art—four out of 13. The argument has been made to me by some people I respect that this is timely and appropriate. It is said that we have matured as a country, so that Māori art and artists will never again be marginalised by being subsumed into a single arts body.

However, I am not sure that the national cultural consciousness has matured to that point. It is very optimistic. It is not what we have heard from Māori artists. Māori artists have told us in simple language that they are still struggling to get a share of the resources and that they would prefer to keep the iconic Te Waka Toi because it is their waka. It is their waka and it is for them to say what happens to it. That is actually what Te Tiriti o Waitangi means. It means that to uphold article 2 the Crown does not second-guess tangata whenua and decide to disestablish their specific and unique arts body without their full endorsement. The Green Party stands by that principle, and we are yet to be convinced that those four out of the 13 people on the board are an expression of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

It is certainly true that the Government Administration Committee had a very small number of submissions, which made the job of the rest of us harder. It is difficult to evaluate the merits of a bill when there has not been much input, but we need to face the reality that some people will never come to the select committee to make a submission. They are actually intimidated. That does not mean that their voice is not important. We need to approach rōpū and networks in the arts sector and gather their views, listen to what they say. The select committee is not the only place where we should gather opinion and it is not necessarily the best place to gather opinions from many sectors. The select committee is only one place, and the select committee remains a very Pākehā, very formal—except for the Māori Affairs Committee—and very parliamentary, Westminster way of assessing an issue, so I know why some people did not show up.

Of equal, if not greater, concern to us is the disbanding of the Pacific Arts Committee, replacing that with two Pacific representatives on the single body. These unfortunate two people are meant to represent, and be the advocates for, the huge diversity of Pacific communities in Aotearoa, which includes Polynesians, Melanesians, and Micronesians. And within each part of the Pacific there are many different countries and ways of approaching art. It is quite correct to assert a wide diversity within that label of “Pacific Islander”. I would like to pay tribute here to a great Pacific arts promoter, who was also a great friend of mine, whom we lost less than 2 years ago, Mr Jim Vivieaere from Mangaia in Rarotonga, and to acknowledge all the struggle and legacy of curators like Jim who, in forging the Pacific arts identity, always respected that diversity. I know that the preference of those arts leaders and curators was for clarity around the role of Pacific art and a particular resourcing of that and around the value of a strong, independent committee. If that is lost, some of the power to support the emerging Pasifika artists—because the emerging artists are the most vulnerable—as well as the well-known artists of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, will be diluted and undermined. And there are also other migrant cultures that need to be provided for. So, rather than subsuming everything into one group, we believe not so much in a tiered system but in a double-hulled waka, where the waka is joined and everybody has their own place and they come together to discuss things, but they have their own committees if that is their choice.

There are also real concerns from small communities and rural communities about what exactly is proposed for community arts providers. Like Grant Robertson and others, I have struggled to get clarity about what the goal of these provisions is, because they are really opaque and weird—that is the only way to explain them. It would appear to be a centralisation and an opening up of local arts funding to anybody from other parts of the country, and that is not going to help community arts. I am putting a caveat on that because none of us could really get it clear what is being suggested for community arts providers, and that is going to be bad law. If we cannot get it and it is not clear to us, how the hell is the community going to understand it? The community arts are the seedbed of some of the great talents in Aotearoa, as well as playing a critical role in making smaller communities culturally vibrant. When a national talent like Bella Kalolo and her band showed up in my valley in the tiny Kauaēranga Hall last year, fresh from their appearance at Glastonbury, it was an amazing moment for us. I felt the power of Creative New Zealand, which had helped such tours animate our small communities.

When my partner started working on a community project with nationally renowned artist Michael Smither in Thames, painting the footpath along by the sea, I had first-hand experience of the value of artists who work in the community, as the community now comes by every day to check on what they are doing, to talk about it, and to engage with it. This is very much about our small town expressing itself. There are many volunteers—people are not paid, but there are donated paints—but there is a need for some support for the management of it. But if art is alive and reviving our community, there does need to be local and specific community arts funding. Some wonderful people are trying to restore kapa haka in the Hauraki at the moment, but they are struggling to get cash for the most basic things. I think that the role of Te Waka Toi and others can be important for that. The problem that has been identified is that community arts providers will not be able to ring-fence their funding for their local area alone. If the small and unsophisticated have to compete with a large, urban voice, we will see the unravelling of community arts in the regions. That is actually where quite a few people live, and quite a bit of culture lives, and quite a bit of reality actually develops. And much of the content of the greatest art that we produce comes from those communities, let alone the people.

Finally, the fourth point that we were concerned with was Minister Finlayson’s dismissive approach to 3-year strategic plans for the new Arts Council. If the strategic planning approach is an apparent waste of time—and I can agree with the possibility that strategic planning can be a waste of time if it becomes an end in itself, rather than becoming a road map to ensure direction and coherence—let us not dismiss the idea of a coherent plan just because some strategic planning can be very badly managed and inward-looking. We are actually talking about the whole country and we would like to see a coherent, strategic plan.

So, overall, we are disappointed that the restructuring has been designed but it is very unclear who will actually benefit, except people who want—as the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, said—to get rid of committees and ban words like “community”. Therefore, we are not able to support the bill at this point. I was interested in the previous speaker’s comments about language, because language is very powerful in the arts community, and what language Minister Finlayson will accept. In my office we have other rules about language. It is not so much about banning words; it is about making whatever we communicate understandable to everybody we are talking to and everyone in the community, and making sure that everything that we say is about respecting and welcoming people to participate—not trying to intimidate them by using Latin and words of more than one syllable. If we are going to have a country where everyone can participate, we need to look at ourselves in this House and ask how we are communicating. Art is about communication. This bill does not cut it. We cannot support it. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker, and a happy New Year.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

I stand to support the third reading of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. This bill streamlines Creative New Zealand’s four governing bodies into a single entity. This bill replaces the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994, which established a council known as Creative New Zealand. The single Arts Council board will be responsible for the policies, strategies, and funding allocation, replacing the present divided council. There will be 13 members, down from 28 under the present structure.

The new council will have a minimum of four members with a knowledge of Māori art. These members will be appointed by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs. At least two members with a knowledge of Pacific arts will be appointed. These members will be appointed in consultation with the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs.

The bill does not continue the requirement for the Arts Council to prepare and publish, after public consultation, a strategic plan every 3 years. Under the Crown Entities Act 2004, the Arts Council is required to prepare a statement of intent. This bill will result in savings of about $200,000 per year, and will therefore secure the benefit of staff being able to wholly concentrate on the arts sector.

Rather than spending important time and resources on preparing a strategic plan every 3 years, the Arts Council will be required to prepare a statement of intent. The key significance of this bill is to eliminate bureaucracy and red tape. This bill will permit the Arts Council to concentrate entirely on the strategy and funding of the arts sector.

I do not agree with previous speaker, Catherine Delahunty, that the select committee process is very formal. I think this is one of the best processes, where every New Zealander is invited to participate. With these words, I support this bill.

I call the honourable member Tracey Watkins. Tēnā koe.

💬 Tracey Martin: I’m not—I’m not Tracey Watkins.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): How could I get it wrong? Tracey Martin.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I accept your apology.

One day, before you leave this House, you will get my name right.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will keep trying.

Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. Originally, New Zealand First did actually support this bill, with reservations, because we saw the streamlining and we thought we saw what was an intent to actually improve the processes around this and save money that could be reinvested into the Arts Council for redistribution to our communities and to the arts in New Zealand.

However, we then had an opportunity to go away—because this bill was introduced some time ago, prior to New Zealand First, unfortunately, not being in this House for a short period of time. So we had an opportunity to then go away and discuss with members of our community—the Māori, Pasifika, general Pākehā, and other ethnic group communities—the proposals here. We came back and we tried to talk to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. We put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table because we were concerned about the complete, 100 percent removal of consultation with the people of New Zealand, with the communities of New Zealand, on what their money would be spent on with regard to the arts.

From 2010 to 2013 I had the privilege of actually being a member of local government. One of the duties that I had there was to participate in the submissions process around the distribution of arts funding for the Rodney Local Board area. What I found during that process was that many people inside the bureaucracy of the arts—those deciding what is worth funding and those deciding what is not worth funding—although they were lovely, lovely people, were incredibly snobby with regard to what the general public wanted in the arts with their money.

There is something to be said for a level of understanding, and perhaps for presenting a new art form or a new artist to expose the public to such works. But then there is also another side to the arts, which is that this is actually the place where these people live. This is actually their money, at the end of the day. So, therefore, individual communities, the wider community of New Zealand, should have some opportunity to place their voice inside the decision making on what their money is spent on.

The Minister in his third reading speech yesterday said that “These reforms will ensure that this good work continues, but free of excessive bureaucracy.” What he means by “excessive bureaucracy” is consultation. What he means by “excessive bureaucracy” is what he termed the waste of time of strategic planning. I can understand that the Minister might be frustrated at having to consult with people, because it is always easier to just do what you like and to get other people to do as they are told. This Government has a particular penchant for that.

Perhaps 3 years is too short a time frame, which is why New Zealand First put down Supplementary Order Paper 35 suggesting that a strategic plan for a 5-year period be made, because during that strategic plan process the voice of the general public would be heard by the council. The Supplementary Order Paper was subsequently not supported by the Government. So, therefore, the strategic planning will be dropped. The members on the Government benches say that strategic planning is not necessary because there is a statement of intent. What that statement of intent could turn out to be is actually a group of really snobby people telling the rest of us what we will like about art, and then going ahead and spending that money, which is our money at the end of the day.

So New Zealand First believes that it is this lack of consultation—this lack of concern about the ability of our communities to continue to have a voice inside, in terms of what their arts money will pay for. I note also that the Minister in his speech yesterday said that “This will enable the Arts Council of New Zealand to meet the expectations of our artists and communities in the 21st century.” My question still is how you will know what their expectations are. Because at no stage is there any commitment to asking them. So, again, New Zealand First will have to oppose this bill. We cannot support something that completely takes away the voice of the public about the spending of their own money. As my colleague Catherine Delahunty said, it has been so unclear. There are interesting statements inside the bill that the council may or may not consult. If it feels like it, it will consult, and if it does not, it will not. That is just not good enough for New Zealand First.

I am not going to take much more of a call, because that is the major point. The voice of the people is not inside this bill, and the Minister reminds us of the Medici family, taking complete control over arts in New Zealand, and he will decide what we will all see and do—

💬 Darien Fenton: He’s a bit snobby too, isn’t he?

And he is slightly snobby too, I have got to say, when it comes to these things. So New Zealand First hopes that we are not now witnessing the death knell of arts funded projects in rural New Zealand.

But before I finish my contribution here today, I would like to share with the House that the last arts grants that were placed in the Rodney Local Board area were given to the Rodney District Council prior to the amalgamation of Auckland, and they had to be allocated prior to the district council being absorbed into the Auckland Council. One of the projects that was consulted on with the community of the Rodney Local Board area was around the Warkworth town clock. That clock was built by a young, unemployed labourer working with more experienced engineers and masons back in the 1950s and 1960s. Right now it stands in the middle of that town. It is white. It is discoloured. It is in the centre of its town, yet from the visual perspective it carries no mana. When the designs went forward to the arts specialists who were consultants to the Rodney Local Board, they called the design chosen by the people of that town visual pollution and historic vandalism of what is a concrete clock built in the middle of that town.

On 3 February the clock will begin its transformation by a local artist, Joy Bell, who is a mosaic artist. I wanted to share with the House the design that the people of Warkworth chose for their clock in their town, because it represents the things that are important to them, with the backdrop of the Mahurangi River. This would never have gone forward on the advice of the arts professionals who have been sent to local councils or who may very well decide what will be funded for the communities of New Zealand. Regardless of what any other town or what any other arts specialists think, this is what the people of Rodney wanted. This is what the people of Warkworth want in the middle of their town. It is their money from their taxes. They should get the right to say. We will oppose the bill.

Ni hao, xiexie. Efficiency is what this bill, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, will achieve. It is in line with the National Government’s priority of delivering better public services. Efficiency will be achieved by establishing a streamlined unitary board that will require fewer resources and will free up staff so that they can focus on what is important, including the arts, artists, arts organisations, and, of course, arts development. So, for that reason, community arts will benefit from this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Thanks.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise with disappointment to oppose this Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. My colleagues have spelt out that we have concerns around this bill regarding representation for Māori and Pacific ethnic groups, youth, people with disabilities, and, of course, local communities.

When you work your way through the bill—Part 1 talks about the purpose of the bill—you cannot really disagree with any of it. It all makes quite a lot of sense, really. It talks about continuing the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa. It talks about recognising the cultural diversity of the people of New Zealand. It talks about recognising in the arts the role of Māori as tangata whenua and recognising the arts of the Pacific Islands peoples of New Zealand. It talks about upholding the principles of “(i) participation … in the arts; and (ii) access, by supporting the availability of projects of merit to communities … and (iii) excellence and innovation, by supporting activities of artistic and cultural significance that develop the creative potential of artists and art forms; and (iv) professionalism … and (v) advocacy …”.

No one can disagree with the purpose of the bill. In fact, Labour certainly does not disagree with the overall purpose as described by the bill. In fact, there is much in the bill that is hard to disagree with. The fundamental issue for Labour is that tonight we are in a rationalisation process that is completely unnecessary. It will see the end of an entity called Te Waka Toi, which has provided support to Māori organisations through Creative New Zealand, and of a Pacific Islands representation arts board. What is worse is that no one else can ever own or use that name—Te Waka Toi—to describe an arts activity in New Zealand.

I think that all of us value and understand the importance of art in this country, whether we have artistic backgrounds in any of the performing arts or creative arts or whether we do not. It is the lifeblood, the soul, of our country. It is about how we describe ourselves. It is about our unique identity. New Zealand arts and performing arts are different from those in any other country. There is no other country in the world that produces the kind of artistic talent that we have here. The arts are about reflecting ourselves and our cultural diversity, and I do not believe that anyone here would disagree with the importance of the arts in this country.

What does puzzle me, however, is why we are doing this bill. I have spelt out a little bit our objections and our concern about representation, and also about why this bill was introduced in 2010 in the last Government before the last election—2010. It is a rationalisation—very important. I would also remind the House that before Christmas—I think it was on the very eve of the House rising before Christmas—we were debating the Committee stage of this bill almost 4 years after it was introduced. I do not understand why, if the Arts Council and Creative New Zealand have survived thus far as they are without this rationalisation and without the removal of the right for Māori, Pasifika people, and ethnic communities to be involved, we have to do this 4 years later.

💬 Tracey Martin: $200,000—that’s nothing.

That is right—$200,000 is nothing. Absolutely. This Government just throws money at all sorts of other things, yet wastes the House’s time on this pitiful little bill, which has caused so much concern to artists and arts communities. I know that the Government Administration Committee heard from those communities. I was not on the select committee, but I know that the parties that opposed this bill have heard from those communities. Those who were involved in the consultation process expressed their concern to us in no uncertain terms but also told us that they were quite nervous and they even felt afraid of expressing that view in front of the select committee in case the organisation might be adversely affected. Is that not a sad state of affairs? Do we not hear that so often when it comes to anything that is funded in the community by this Government?

I am sure that my colleagues have heard exactly the same story from community organisations that rely on the beneficial hand—the handouts, I should say—of Paula Bennett. I wanted to call her “Paula Benefit”, but, anyway, I did not. I did not. I resisted the urge. Oh!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The lights have gone out. The power has gone.

The power is off.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may continue, mind you, but there is no—

I think I will not, Mr Assistant Speaker, because it is kind of creepy. It is kind of creepy. You cannot see the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Honourable members, I think that, given the circumstances, I should suspend the House until such time as the lighting resumes.

And the lights are back.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Ask and it shall be given.

It is really quite a strange atmosphere. Is this emergency power we have got now?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, it is.

Is it? OK. You see, I was being so forceful and impressive that I put the lights out. It was the mention of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. That is what it was. Yes, it must have been the Minister, you know. That is why. He is being a scrooge. He must have been turning the lights down, I think.

However, I heard the member for North Shore, Maggie Barry, yelling across the Chamber earlier in the debate about how Labour had its chance and did nothing. Well, I just want to let that member know that she needs to go and visit some of the community arts organisations in the North Shore community, including the Depot Artspace, that have written to her and written to others to talk about their deep, deep concern about the parlous state of community arts groups throughout New Zealand, and their concern about funding that is being cut by the Minister for arts courses at Unitec and in poor communities like Rāwene, whose people depend on these types of courses. They have written about how important the involvement of community arts is.

What we have here is a Government that does not really believe that arts have any value unless you can put a money value on it. That is what we hear from Minister Joyce all the time. That is why we are seeing cuts to creative courses at Unitec and others. I met a young woman tonight who has just finished a degree in performing arts, in acting. I was asking her what she will be doing. She knows that her life is going to be a struggle because the value placed on her education is completely ignored by this Government. Anything to do with the arts and anything to do with music, unless it is the ballet or the opera, is ignored and seen by this Government as worthless.

💬 Tracey Martin: They pat themselves on the back for Lorde, though.

Oh yes, of course, the Government had to say something about Lorde, although I cannot say that Christopher Finlayson had anything to do with her success—or, for that matter, the member for North Shore, Maggie Barry. Lorde goes to school in her electorate.

That is the unfortunate thing about this bill. The Government does not value the arts. It sees them as a cost; it does not see the benefit to the communities. The Government is passing a silly bill that did not need to be passed. What the Government needed to be doing was investing more in the arts. It needed to be making sure that there is a Māori, a Pacific, and an ethnic voice in community arts. It needs to be encouraging and supporting community groups up and down New Zealand that do wonderful things. We need to be celebrating the artists and the performing artists in this country. We need to be giving them the message that we value them. Labour values them and that is why we cannot support this bill.

Honourable members, just to advise you, as I have been advised, there was a power surge, and as a result the lights went out. But I am advised that the lights are all starting to come back on. So who is next?

On account of the fact that I cannot read my notes, I will commend this bill, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, to the House.

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is this a split call?

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Does it have to be?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): In that case, I call the honourable member Rino Tirikatene.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to speak in this final reading of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I have listened to and I have followed the debate on this bill, which we oppose.

I was prepared to give the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Christopher Finlayson, the benefit of the doubt—almost prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt—that this piece of legislation would live up to the rhetoric that has been coming from the other side: that this bill is about efficiencies and it is about changing the governance structure of the Arts Council so it can make things more streamlined. But we know that the passage of this bill just in this House alone has taken nigh on 3½ years. So much for the streamlining and the efficiency that the Government wants to drive through for the Arts Council, when it has taken 3½ years to get this far. We know that this priority area for the Government was announced in its 2008 manifesto—it was announced way back then. So it has taken some 5 years—we are nearly into the sixth year—for this bill to come to fruition. It does not live up to the rhetoric.

I was really disappointed in the Minister’s remarks last night. There were a couple of things that I really took offence to. Yes, we know that there has been a delay in the passage of this legislation. Yes, we know that there is a full-on onslaught that has been ravaged against the Māori committee, against the Māori arts community, and against the Pacific arts community, through the disbandment of their identifiable respective committees. But the Minister really offended me last night when he said that he is adopting this streamlined structure because he wants to take on the Australian model. Apparently, the Australian equivalent has gone through a similar streamlining or the creation of a flat, single governance structure for the arts there. Lets us think about that. How dare the Minister take on an Australian model, when we all know very well how good the Australians are with their indigenous affairs?

💬 Darien Fenton: Exactly.

It is absolutely appalling, and yet this Minister is looking to Australia as the model that we should be following. How much support do the Australians give to their indigenous communities and their indigenous arts? Very little, I would say, and yet this Minister was holding up the Australians as a grand example that we should be following. It is absolutely disgraceful. But then the Minister went on and said that under this streamlined, efficient, flat governance structure we will take care of the special interests of Māori and Pacific arts communities by giving them seats at the table. Have we not heard that before? They will be sitting at the top table. It is no different from what we hear from the Māori Party—[Interruption] Absolutely! The Māori Party should have a seat at the table. We all know how Māori have benefited from those seats—we all know.

What I really want to know is—there is this so-called illusion that by having seats at the table it will transform the interests of Māori and Pacific arts communities to being real power players. But then I am really disappointed because when they get to the top table, the table is always very, very big. There are a lot of seats around that table, and the Māori seats and the Pacific seats are always just—well, they never actually get to the point of being equal power partners around the table. So, unfortunately, the disbanded Māori committee, Te Waka Toi, will be replaced with four committee members. They will be sitting at this table, but they will be only four—four out of 13. This Government likes to say “Oh, but there will be at least four. You will have at least four.” That, actually, is meaningless when you do not have power equivalence in terms of the discussions and the decisions that are made. So sitting at the table is really nonsense.

What I would like to know is what shape is this table that they are sitting at? Is it a round table, where all the voices will have an equal say and they will all meaningfully contribute to the decisions that have to be made at that table? I do not think it will be. It is not that. It is not going to be a nice round table like that, because we know that the brown faces, the Māori and the Pacific, will always be in the minority. We also know that this table is one of those big rectangular tables with the big throne chairs at either end, because that is where the power resides. It does not reside with those interest groups being at the table.

I also want to make another comment, because there is a huge, glaring omission from the structure of this new governance body, and that is the complete disregard for our ethnic communities. It is great that Māori have four seats; Pacific people, you get two seats; ethnic people, you get none. And yet they are the fastest-growing demographic group in our country. They have a huge contribution to make to our arts communities, and they have absolutely no recognition at all—let alone the pressure.

Can you imagine the pressure that the people who are appointed to this body will be under, to represent such a broad area? Four Māori—well, they do not actually have to be Māori. They can be just any person with a knowledge of Māori arts and culture, which is even more pathetic. These people have to take into account the broadness of the Māori arts, and I am talking of all traditional and modern arts, and all different iwi. The entire breadth, the completeness, of toi Māori has to be taken into account, and the pressure will be on those people.

But I guess those people will be able to conduct their jobs, because the Minister will be appointing them. We know that the Minister of Māori Affairs will be appointing the Māori representatives, and the new Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, Sam Lotu-Iiga, will be helping to make the decision to appoint those respective representatives. But, again, it is just lip-service, and it actually weakens and demeans the role of Māori and Pacific people in the arts in New Zealand. It is especially disrespectful with the complete absence of an ethnic voice on this new committee structure.

I also want to take this opportunity to do a poroporoaki, as we do in Māori—a farewell. You might wonder what the purpose of this is. This bill, when it comes into force, will spell the end of some iconic names and some iconic labels and brands that have been bestowed upon the arts bodies—what was the Arts Council of New Zealand. Those include terms such as “Te Waka Toi”. Te Waka Toi is going to be put to bed. People out there will no longer see Te Waka Toi once this legislation is enacted. So we must say to Te Waka Toi: haere, haere atu rā ki tua o te ārai, tū Te Waka Toi [go, go beyond the veil, Te Waka Toi has beached.] Likewise, Creative New Zealand—that is going to be put to bed. So we will give a haere rā to Creative New Zealand. The Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council of New Zealand is also getting tucked away, but I do not think too many people will miss that one. But those iconic labels, those great arts organisations, and those names—which flourished under the former Labour Government and the greatest arts Minister that this country has ever had, the Rt Hon Helen Clark—will be no longer. They will be resurrected only if the Arts Council chooses to do so. It would be very unfortunate if those—especially Te Waka Toi; you know, iconic, poetic terms like that in Te Reo Māori—were never to be used again. That is what will take place under this bill. And so I bid those terms—those names—farewell. But I do hope that they will be resurrected.

But, in a sense, where is the originality in having to go through this whole restructuring process, change all the names, and then bring them back again? It defies logic, in my opinion, and it speaks to a complete muck-up, really, from this Minister. Maybe that explains the delay. Maybe that explains why it has taken 3½ years—nearly 5 long years—to get this through. The Minister has had no problem zipping through plenty of Treaty settlements, but, unfortunately, this is a really disappointing piece of legislation. The disdain that the Minister has shown to the arts community has been really disappointing, as evidenced by this bill, and we definitely oppose this bill. Kia ora tātou.

I am very pleased for my colleagues who have really shone the light on this particular bill, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. So I do not find myself needing to say anything, and I proudly support this bill.