Venice Biennale—Creative New Zealand Report

Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s comments in this House on 27 July 2004 when she said about New Zealand’s participation at the last biennale that “… the process has gone awry.” and “… that will have a bearing on my thinking about resourcing levels for Creative New Zealand in the future.”; if so, what action has she taken or will she take?

Pillay Lynne Pillay Link to this

Yes, and the action was this report and the increased funding for Creative New Zealand in this year’s Budget.

What recent reports has the Minister seen on Government support for the arts sector?

I have received a report that acknowledges: “Labour has been very successful in the arts area and the creative area, in persuading the general populace that it’s only the Labour Party that’s interested in these things. And in fairness, they’ve done a great deal to increase funding for the arts, which the National government in the late 1990s should have done.” That quote was from new National Party MP Chris Finlayson in the Sunday Star-Times on 4 June.

Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, who said that when half a million dollars of taxpayer money is involved, key personnel must include the artist, and that those key personnel should undertake ambassadorial and publicity responsibilities?

Yes

Why, when the Prime Minister herself said she had expressed concern about what appears to be a breach of the selection criteria, is the Minister not giving a direction to Creative New Zealand that further changes need to be made to those criteria, in light of the recent report, which recommended only minor changes and more funding?

Creative New Zealand is established by legislation passed by this House. It is not for the Minister to give direction to it about the creative nature of the arts. However, I am very happy to say that the present membership of Creative New Zealand—including the new appointees—is very aware of the Government’s views.

Following on from that answer, is the Minister not aware that Creative New Zealand is an autonomous Crown entity pursuant to section 7 of the Crown Entities Act, and that it must have regard to Government policy when directed by the responsible Minister?

Chris Auchinvole Link to this

However, under the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994, Creative New Zealand has the right to make artistic decisions on its own. We are not Stalinist Russia yet.

Can the Minister confirm that if she attended fewer functions and openings, she could spend more time holding Creative New Zealand accountable for taxpayer funding, when everyone knows she would attend the opening of an envelope?

Before the Minister replies I just remind members of Standing Order 371. I suggest they read that in the future before they ask questions that obviously have matters in them that could be seen as contrary to that Standing Order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I trust you heard what was an attempted question, but I would like to know what the question was, given that it was a vague attempt by somebody who has been irrelevant in this House to point out that he is getting paid for his existence. But it made no sense to me, at all. As for the suggestion of opening an envelope, I mean, how ridiculous is that?

Hon Member

What’s the Standing Order?

Standing Order? That the member should keep his mouth shut when I am making a point of order—that is the first one.

The member has made his point. I understood what the content of the question was; it was just that it was contrary to Standing Order 371. We have a lot of latitude in this House in connection with that particular Standing Order. I am just reminding members of it for the future. I am aware that the question may well have been the first question the member has asked. I am doing that to be helpful to the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You just saw a very good illustration of what these members are doing in the House. They should be silent when a point of order is taken. You distinctly heard that member shout out something—

Yes, I did.

You know that the Standing Orders require him to keep quiet, and therefore he should pick himself up, depart from the House, and wait outside until the end of question time. That is what the usual Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings require, so why does that not apply this time?

Gerry Brownlee Link to this

Yes, the member is right. We are in the last question, and I am trying to be helpful to the House on this occasion. But I know that Mr Brownlee also wants to be helpful with his point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Well, I do. I just point out to you that I think Standing Order 372, which deals with answers from Ministers, is a mirror image of Standing Order 371. If we are being clipped on Standing Order 371, I say that there have been numerous occasions today, particularly, when Ministers should have been pulled up for the way in which they answered the questions.

I agree with the member. Normally, the answers are in response; it was just that this last question went a tad too far in terms of the substance of the question. But I will ask the Minister now to address the question.