Martin Tracey: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We will be voting against this bill the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. Our concerns are predominantly around the voice of community inside this legislation.In particular there is Supplementary Order Paper 35 in my name which deals predominantly with Part 2. It would change the heading of clause 14 to “Arts Council to designate community arts providers” to make it a definitive statement that it will designate community arts providers. If one goes to clause 15(1) it would change to “The Arts Council must allocate funding to a designated community arts provider.” Clause 16(1) would change to “The Arts Council must establish community arts councils in relation to specific geographical areas.” We believe that without a directive for this to be done the creation of this Arts Council and the removal of several bodies—two in particular the Māori representative body and the Pasifika representative body—is really a centralisation of this decision making.I quote the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage in his second reading speech when he said: “The bill … removes the requirement for the Arts Council to provide a strategic plan every 3 years—a pointless exercise if ever there was one. This requirement is considered to be an unnecessary duplication of the obligation to provide a statement of intent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. I remember from my time in Creative New Zealand that no sooner had one completed one strategic plan the whole exercise had to start again. It was an utter waste of time.” That was the Minister in his second reading speech.It is the very voice of community that is the reason why New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. The Minister in that statement talked about strategic plans along with the designated desire to distribute these funds down to a community level. A strategicplan means you have to go out and you have to talk with communities the people of New Zealand whose money it is. This centralisation in this way through this bill puts the decision making into the hands of a very select group of selected people—selected by the Minister—and now with no requirement to do a strategic plan that goes out for any public consultation. There is no actual requirement. They “may” establish community arts councils. They “may” allocate funding. They “might” do this and they “might” do that but there is no requirement for them to do so.Once again it will be rural New Zealand that misses out. It will be rural New Zealanders in places like Warkworth—who are going to have with the funding that it received through the arts funding through this grant in the last few years the most amazing mosaic town clock in the centre of their town and they deserve it just like any other taxpayer of New Zealand deserves it. But it will be those rural communities whose voices we are concerned will not reach this committee and hence that is why we are seeking to change Part 2 through my Supplementary Order Paper.My colleague will address some of the other concerns we have when she seeks a call later on. But we just want to reiterate that without a strategic plan how can the people of New Zealand really know where this council is going to go to? Without a strategic plan and the consultation around it how truly can this council gain the voice of New Zealanders—the New Zealanders on the ground who pay their taxes every day who want to see Tutus on Tour and who want their waterfronts to have surprise art all over them just as much as anybody in the centre of Auckland or anybody walking down on the Wellington waterfront? Without this Supplementary Order Paper change these are the voices that we believe will be cut out of this equation.We also do not feel—and this will be expanded on by my colleague—that the four seats for Māori and the two seats for Pasifika are adequate. Without any community voice anywhere else inside this legislation the removal of these seats not only lessens but tips that balance of input from those communities which we all recognise and respect for their cultural input to the arts and cultures that make us as New Zealanders. Some of the things that we are famous for overseas some of the reasons why we are actually at the top—