Debate resumed from 5 August.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
I am very proud to speak on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill this evening. It is an excellent bill from, I think, New Zealand’s finest-ever Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson.
Chris HipkinsThat member may laugh. I remind my colleagues opposite that they should think back to just 18 months ago, to the mess that they left us. Labour left us an economy that was in financial strife, an absolute administrative mess, a $2 billion shortfall in the accident compensation scheme, and a whole lot of other problems. In the 9 years that Labour was in power, real after-tax wages in New Zealand grew by only 3 percent in total. The Labour members might say this has nothing to do with the arts, but I will tell this House that it is fundamentally important.
The economy is a fundamental part of the Wairarapa cultural and heritage arts strategy. I can assure members that the Wairarapa is a wonderful place in which to live, and I will be perfectly happy to live there in another 20 years when I retire from this House. It is rich with interest and strong with involvement, and we celebrate a highly visible arts culture in every one of our towns, whether it is Waipukurau, Waipawa, Carterton, or Masterton, particularly centred around the Aratoi Museum. Economic matters are important, because if we have a strong economy we can give strong support to the arts. We can support artists, and we can support arts-related activity. That is why the economy is so important.
I will come back to the point that I began with. In the 9 years to 2008, annual inflation was frequently running at 3 percent per annum, and power prices jumped by 70 percent. How could someone afford to go out and buy a painting, for example, or a piece of sculpture? In September 2008 annual inflation was 5.1 percent, with no compensation for that paid to anybody. Labour spent 9 years in office without cutting taxes, which made sure that nobody had money in the pocket to go out and support the arts. In September 1999 people who were on the average wage paid 19 percent of their income in tax, and by September 2008 they paid 22 percent. That was Labour’s legacy. That was absolutely its legacy. We had a bad economy, so what did people do? They left this country in droves. Where did they go? They went to Australia. Those who stayed worked as public servants. We inherited more public servants, local and national, than this country could afford.
That is why we are changing things. John Key and his excellent band of Ministers are leading this country forward, so that we can give a lot more support to the arts and arts-related activity in our communities. Part of this suite of measures is that we have to also streamline bureaucracy. The Minister suggests that we streamline Creative New Zealand’s four governing bodies into a single board with the responsibility for determining strategic direction, priorities, and a policy framework for the whole organisation, and for funding allocation decisions. It stands to reason that if we can come down to having one streamlined board, requiring fewer resources, fees, and staff, we can focus on what is important: artists, arts organisations, arts development, and an economy that enables all of us to support the arts through our pockets. The Minister proposes that we pass this streamlining legislation because it will save us at least $200,000 per annum through the benefit of freeing up staff to concentrate on core responsibilities to the arts sector, rather than on servicing the bureaucracy. This will be extremely significant.
I am very pleased to be able to support this bill. I am very pleased that it is coming to the Government Administration Committee, and with those words I support the bill and end my speech here. Thank you.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this
If that is the best the Government can do on a very important bill, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill, then it is a tragedy, really. I will begin, as I intend to carry on, by saying that the value of arts to New Zealand society is critically important for the well-being of people in communities. At the moment we have a Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage who loves the arts; I will give him that. But in no way could he match the calibre of the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who over 9 years put in an arts recovery package after the previous National Government spent nothing on the arts and never understood the economic value of the arts, let alone the social well-being of the arts. Helen Clark said that she was going to lead an arts recovery in this country and she did. She went around the country and met every group, not just the few elite but the many involved in the arts. She led a resurgence in the arts in this country.
Labour will support this bill to the Government Administration Committee, but with reservations. The previous speaker, John Hayes, talked about streamlining, but this legislation is not about streamlining bureaucracy. I tell Mr Hayes that it is offensive to say that Alistair Carruthers, who is the chair of the Arts Council, Dame Judith Binney, Helen Kedgley, Professor John Davidson, Ērima Hēnare, Anne Rush, and Jimmy Wallace are bureaucracy that is being streamlined. That is how little that member understands of the arts in New Zealand society.
Arts are the soul of the country. They reflect our unique identity, and they are also how we express and reflect ourselves as New Zealanders. Everybody in this House values that. The cultural diversity in our country is the driver of social and cultural capital, and we understand that economic value.
Because of research done on the value of arts to society, we value any structural changes that will give efficiency, but I feel that this bill will marginalise input into this newly structured council. What was once a pipeline of applications into Creative New Zealand has been narrowed to a little straw. The arts community—the arts developers, the artisans, and the artistes of this country—have very little say on what the previous speaker said is a streamlining of the bureaucracy of arts funding in this country. What nonsense.
The Minister has carried over everything that was in the previous legislation about the value of arts to New Zealand and the purposes of Creative New Zealand. He has rationalised board membership and replaced the Arts Council, which we know as Creative New Zealand. It was a council of 27 members, and it goes to seven members, with two arts boards. This is the offensive bit. Te Waka Toi, which was a fine brand in New Zealand, no longer exists. That is offensive. It is as offensive as having no Māori representation on the super-city in Auckland. Te Waka Toi as we know it, as every community in the regions of New Zealand knows it, no longer exists. Do members know what? The seven members of Te Waka Toi are now replaced by four Māori members on the Arts Council—four. They have their own board now, and answer to huge funding. In fact, in the last 3 months $600,000 of funding went out to dance, to literature, to moving image, and to visual arts, and this will now be managed by only seven members on the new council. I know that those voices will be marginalised. There is no way that four Māori members on the new board—and there were seven members on Te Waka Toi—can ever represent the diversity and the demand that is coming from the growing arts community of Māori.
The South Pacific Arts Committee has also gone. Where are the Pacific voices on this new council? Where are they? Where is the ethnic representation on this new council? It is not stipulated, at all. Yet the Government is talking about growing diversity in the ethnic communities. Where are those communities stipulated as being represented on this new council? They are not, and that is worrying to many in New Zealand. I think that taking away the brand of Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee for a $200,000 gain per annum is simply offensive.
Tim MacindoeHon STEVE CHADWICK Link to this
I just remind the member opposite that this Minister has only just held arts funding. There is no new funding. He has just held arts funding, so with the CPI adjustments he has not done as well as one might think. The funding has gone backwards.
This rationalisation of membership will marginalise people on the margins of the arts community. They saw under Labour that they had a voice, and outsider art felt it had a place. Where now will we see Arts Access Aotearoa, the Artists Alliance, and mental health providers providing wonderful programmes for people recovering from mental health conditions and illnesses? Those providers use arts as an outlet for recovery. Where will children’s art houses get funding? Where will those little non-governmental organisations in the arts community, like the brass bands, and the recreational organisations, like spinners and weavers, get funding? Does the Government think that their voices will be heard on this council? No, it marginalises arts access for the community. It turns New Zealand art lovers into just an audience, and takes away their right to participate creatively.
There is another worrying little aspect about this bill. The Minister does not require a strategic plan of this new organisation, the Arts Council of New Zealand. He requires only a statement of intent, which means he will tell them to do his bidding with the bit of funding that they get—he did well to get the same level of funding for the Arts Council—but not to develop a strategic plan for the country or the arts community in New Zealand. They should not bother with that! The Minister has done away with the strategic plan, which gave some certainty to organisations like children’s art houses, like Arts Alliance, like those marginalised arts groups that can get a voice heard on the current council.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The deputy leader of the Labour Party has just made an insinuation that I take personal offence to. It is completely unfounded, and I ask her to withdraw and apologise.
Hon Annette King
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I say to members that it is not appropriate to make comments about people having had a drink, or telling them to have another drink, which is what I heard. The member will withdraw and apologise.
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to take account of the fact that that member has given a barrage of abuse—and what I consider not to be the truth about the previous Labour Government’s policy—across to this side of the House. When he is doing that he might consider that he may get something back.
The deputy leader of the Labour Party is aware of the fact that I have been in the House for most of this evening. Therefore, the suggestion that I may have been drinking is absolute rubbish. My interjections during the course of the speech being made by the member sitting beside her have been based on the fact that I consider the contribution she has been making to be completely wrong. I am inviting the Labour Party to go and look at the facts of where the funding went under the Labour Government.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
That is a debating point. Firstly, the member was OK up until he started to go over the point that I had ruled on. The member sought a withdrawal and an apology, and I granted that. The member is not entitled to go back over that ground; let us be very clear on that. I say to the Hon Annette King that if, in fact, the member finds the interjections from the other side of the House to be objectionable, she should raise a point of order. Let us recall that this is a House of robust debate and people are entitled to interject, but not unreasonably so.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK Link to this
I come back to the point that I was about to make. The functions have been simply carried over from the old Act into this new bill. Those functions are about encouraging, promoting, and supporting all New Zealanders and promoting the New Zealand identity. I thank National for carrying on with the Labour brand.
In summary, we want this bill to go to the select committee so that we can call for submissions and put Creative New Zealand under the spotlight to see how successful it has been in funding those very arts services that Tim Macindoe said we failed to provide funding for. That will certainly come out in the Government Administration Committee. We are concerned at the reduced representation of Māori, Pacific Island, and ethnic people on this new council. We are also concerned that it will be a long time before the funding guidelines are put in place, so that the council knows how to operate within the new funding guidelines.
We have some genuine concerns about this bill. We are not opposed to reorganisation if it gives efficiency, but we want to see advocacy of the voices that have just started to flourish in the arts and we want them to still feel that they have a place that is valued and treasured in the arts community.
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this
I am pleased to support the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I will start by acknowledging Minister Finlayson, and I also acknowledge the previous speaker, Steve Chadwick. I see her at a number of arts functions held within my electorate of Auckland Central, which I would call the heart of the arts community.
I want to make a couple of other comments. I disagree with a lot of what Steve has said tonight. The first reason I do so is that this evening I rang someone who is very prominent within the arts community. I will not name the person, but I will repeat a comment that was made to me. I asked them what this legislation was about and I was told that it was about making the Arts Council responsive to the arts community. That really resonated with me, and I believe at the heart of that is something called freedom. The concern I have about the comments of the previous speaker is that a lot of what we are doing is ensuring that as much money as possible goes to these creative professionals—I think we estimated that about $200,000 will be freed up for these creative professionals—but also it is about ensuring that the arts community drives the policy, not necessarily a whole lot of people who think they know best. I think there is a philosophical difference between what Labour members in the House believe in terms of this legislation and what the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is trying to do.
There is another exciting aspect, which is aligned with what we are trying to do in this legislation. There are changes happening in Auckland. Since we completed the legislative process on the Auckland Council, I have had some pretty amazing feedback about the opportunity, particularly within the spatial plan, to start to come together with a cohesive strategy for arts and culture, both the infrastructure and the policy development within Auckland. So we are seeing legislation that is finally putting more focus on the strategic direction of the Arts Council, which is absolutely aligned with what we are doing with other legislation such as the Auckland Council legislation and the spatial plan, and having a cohesive plan in terms of arts infrastructure and arts policy development in Auckland.
The second point, which the previous speaker made and I disagree with, is that this is not about marginalising certain voices. There will be representatives in terms of Māori and Pacific Islanders on the Arts Council. I am a member of this House who does not believe that numbers necessarily equate to better representation. I believe that this legislation will give possibly $200,000 back to the arts community and we will still have that representation. I believe that is a good thing for the arts.
The other point that the previous speaker raised was on community voices, and I note there are clauses in this bill particularly around the provision of funds to the community. So I think the legislation has dealt with that issue. Another important point is independence. I acknowledge that a very important principle is retained in this legislation, and it is on the independence of the provision of policy from the Minister. That is very important, and again it comes back to that philosophy from this side of the House about ensuring that the arts community gets as many funds as possible to those creative professionals, that the independence is preserved, that it is being driven by the arts community, and also that we are being as efficient as possible from both a structural perspective and an economic perspective.
Another point I will make is on accountability and transparency, which is at the heart of this legislation as well. I know that within this bill there is a requirement for the Arts Council setting guidelines for the collection of funding. That is also a very important aspect, and it is aligned with other legislation that this National Government has brought in.
The final point is on the arts community and the contribution that it makes. The previous speaker touched on the economic contribution of the arts in this country. I know that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is doing a number of works in this area, because a number of the contributions that are made are often intangible. But it is my belief that we have never had proper recognition of that economic contribution. I see examples of that all the time in my electorate. I do not think it matters whether it is New Zealand Fashion Week or films. I do not believe that this House has adequately understood the contribution of the arts to the economy. I believe that strongly, and I know there is work happening in that area. I know how important that is to so many community groups, because often that is a key criterion for any access to funding. So that is something that I really care about.
I make a wider point, which is very relevant to this legislation. Someone said it to me, and it came up during the Auckland governance reforms as well. In this country we have built a web of bureaucracy in many areas, in my view. I believe that there are members on both sides of the House who would agree with that. When I was first elected someone said to me: “Nikki, the job that you have to do in this House—it’s about death to process.” We are, as a nation, extraordinary innovators; we often think outside the square. But, unfortunately, there are areas of our Government that have been absolutely built up in terms of bureaucracy. That person said to me that it was about death to process.
So I am very pleased to support this bill. In my view we are pushing those funds back to the creative professionals who deserve them, and we are breaking down some of those bureaucratic structures. I am very pleased to support this legislation. Thank you.
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) Link to this
I am the final Labour speaker in the first reading debate on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. The previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, described this bill as “death to process”, so it is also possibly death to regional funding for the arts and some of our important provincial centres and other communities.
I acknowledge my colleague Steve Chadwick for her work in the area of arts, culture, and heritage, and I thank Chris Finlayson for his work on this bill. The Labour Party, as other speakers have said, will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, with some reservations. We have some genuine concerns, as members have heard, and at the select committee we will get the opportunity to put Creative New Zealand under the microscope. Labour welcomes any changes to efficiency, but we ask whether this structural change is necessary and whether it will be enough. We have some genuine concerns that I want to outline.
This bill is an example of streamlining and downsizing, to the possible detriment of fair representation and Kiwi creativity, despite what the previous speaker said. The bill replaces the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa—also known as the Arts Council—and two arts boards with a single board: the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa. The lone board will be responsible for determining strategic direction, priorities, and a policy framework for the whole organisation and for funding allocation decisions.
The new structure will, supposedly, improve the Arts Council’s efficiency and responsiveness, and ensure the best investment of resources for the benefit of New Zealand artists, arts organisations, and all New Zealanders. But Labour has concerns about the representation of the council, and it is estimated that this bill will reduce the number of board members from 28 to 13. Although we commend the decision to maintain Māori and Pacific representation on the council, we are concerned, as members of the House have heard, that these communities will not be given a strong enough voice on the council.
We are already seeing the possible impact of the changes that this will bring. Some of my colleagues who have spoken earlier have said there is quite a lot of concern in places like Palmerston North and Dunedin, where it is quite likely that organisations will not receive recurrent funding, and that will obviously be detrimental to those communities. At the moment the proposal tells us that there will be support available for three theatre companies only—in Christchurch, Auckland, and Wellington. In fact, this represents problems even in Wellington, where currently two theatre companies receive recurrent funding.
I refer to the concern that is starting to be manifested in my own city, Dunedin, around this issue. I will read to members an excerpt from an editorial that was published in the Otago Daily Times on 27 July. It states: “In the appendix on page 17 of Creative New Zealand’s ‘Review of Recurrently Funded Organisations’ it is written in black and white: ‘Support is available for at least three theatre companies to create and present high-quality New Zealand theatre: one in each of Christchurch, Auckland and Wellington’. On page 16 under the same ‘Limits on support’ column, in the orchestral music category, the report reads: ‘Support is available for at least two high-standard orchestras (in additional to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra): one in the North Island and one in the South Island.’ Small wonder that cultural leaders in Dunedin and Otago are alarmed.”
In response to quite a lot of the coverage that this received in recent weeks, a visit was made to Dunedin last week by Creative New Zealand chief executive, Stephen Wainwright. Mr Wainwright and Creative New Zealand arts infrastructure services manager, Jane Clarke, visited Dunedin to address the fears over the body’s new funding regime. They visited the Fortune Theatre, the Southern Sinfonia, and the Dunedin City Council, which was good. In an interview with the Otago Daily Times it was reported that Mr Wainwright said that facilities in Dunedin were remarkable for a city of its size. “They [Fortune and Sinfonia] do a lot well, in a very challenging environment.”, he said. Then he said that “Resources may or may not change. We try not to do that in a way that will do harm to the arts community.” Well, that sounds good so far. But then he said: “It is only sensible to look again after 20 or 30 years and make sure what you’re doing is relevant. Communities in New Zealand have very different flavours. There are some places where turbocharged changes are happening. For example, one baby in two born in Auckland is a Pacific Islander now. We wouldn’t be being responsible if we weren’t planning for those sorts of changes.”
So that is all good. Then he said that Creative New Zealand’s charter to provide excellence and accessibility remains “an aspirational goal”. Now, that is a phrase we have heard before in this House—a lot. Now we are hearing it from Government agencies. Then he said “‘We’re certainly very conscious that there are a lot of areas … where people say: ‘We want to have our own stuff’. But, the local authorities also have an obligation for the cultural wellbeing of a community. People want to live in a colourful arts and culture community. We hope these thoughts will crystallise at the council table.” Is that telling us that the council will be responsible for funding the arts in Dunedin? That is a serious concern for the community of Dunedin and Otago, but also Southland, because the Fortune Theatre and the Southern Sinfonia service the whole of that region.
I guess we could call this bill classic Think Big National policy, where streamlining becomes action without consultation. That is why we want to see the bill go to a select committee, because, as we have said, we are concerned that it will reduce representation and further centralise power in Wellington. I listened quite carefully to what the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, said about Auckland being the centre of the arts, but there is a lot more to the artistic community in New Zealand than Auckland. Although Auckland is very important, the rest of New Zealand is important. Every community matters, and supporting the arts in every community matters. That is what I would hope that this Government would be doing, not just centralising funding around two or three centres.
Instead of having funding for artistic endeavours in communities throughout New Zealand, we could be left with a slow-moving, monolithic entity that serves—I would hate to see this; I hate to think of it—a select cadre of the Minister’s friends and does less to advance Kiwi creativity throughout all communities. Labour is concerned that the Arts Council is no longer required to prepare and publish, after public consultation, a strategic plan every 3 years, and is required to prepare a statement of intent only. That hints that the strategy will come from the Minister’s office, and will therefore be very top-down. I do not know what other conclusions one can draw from that.
The problem with this legislation is that it does not provide any forward thinking; there is no mention in the bill of project-based funding, and infrastructure and capital. We are also concerned that the Arts Council will now be charged with the rights of artists and may end up portraying an elitist view and not considering community artists—classic National Government tactics. This Government needs to look at whether other Ministers and ministries should be consulted when appointing the council members. In addition, Local Government New Zealand should be consulted about appointments.
Labour would like to see a clause in the legislation to review the council in 5 years’ time so that there is an assurance that every community and voluntary sector will not be excluded. It is our expectation that the select committee process will address these and other concerns.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this
I stand to support the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. This bill streamlines Creative New Zealand’s four governing bodies into a single entity. Art and culture depict the history of a country. This Government is very serious about preserving the art and culture of this country. If one wants to terminate the culture of a country, one does not need to burn books but one has to stop people reading them; one has to stop them from practising their culture. This bill will ensure that the high artistic and cultural ethics of the citizens of New Zealand are preserved.
Most important, this bill will result in the saving of approximately $200,000 per year. The benefit of this is that staff will be able to wholly concentrate on the arts sector. The Arts Council board will be responsible for policies, strategy, and funding allocation. There will be 13 members instead of the 28 members currently serving on the board.
Mahatma Gandhi once said that no culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive. To ensure that the new council is fully acquainted with a knowledge of Māori art, four members of the Māori heritage will be appointed by the Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage in consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs. By the same token, at least two members will be appointed who have equal awareness and understanding of Pacific Island people in New Zealand. Those members will be selected in consultation with the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs.
Rather than spending vital time and resources preparing a strategy plan, every 3 years the Arts Council will be required to prepare a statement of intent. This will ensure that staff can concentrate on creative work rather than servicing bureaucracy.
The key significance of the bill is the elimination of duplicate functions. This will permit the council to focus its approach totally on strategy and funding for the arts sector, which receives its funding from Creative New Zealand. The Government will no longer influence which bodies are funded. This bill will allow the Arts Council to make such decisions. Therefore the people of New Zealand will benefit greatly from this bill. It will give them a superior selection and better-funded variety of regional symphonies, theatre companies, and arts-related events in New Zealand. I congratulate Chris Finlayson, who has great passion for art and culture, on bringing this bill to the House. I fully support it.
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this
I move, That the Government Administration Committee consider the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill , that the committee report finally to the House on or before 3 December 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).