Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14313] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of my colleague Deborah Coddington who has raised for the people of New Zealand the Prime Minister’s contribution to pride in New Zealand in the sending of a dunny that brays like a donkey to Venice. It is very easy for people in the arts world to despise and reject any notion that the hoi polloi those of us who are not the insiders should have a view on what the Government should pay for by way of art. Of course we are all expected and encouraged to have a view on high art architecture major public buildings and the beautification of roads and other things that are useful and we all welcome the extent of the improvement to our environment that the arts and the artists can create. But this Government turns artists into beneficiaries. It encourages them to feel that New Zealand is a poor country. 
Of course it may be relevant that the average wealth of New Zealanders—the average savings of New Zealanders—is a quarter of that of even the Australians who are not rich and it may be that in an impoverished country there is no one else to sponsor art other than the Government. But it is extremely precious for the people whom the Prime Minister has set out to sponsor and to turn into political clients to complain when New Zealanders have a view on what they are paying for. It is more than precious for them to object that we should simply accept the judgment of the experts. The Prime Minister in her role as patron of the arts should accept that she must be judged on the art they create and on the people whom she puts into power to spend the taxes of ordinary people on these artists. 
We are told by Creative New Zealand that in recent years the members of et al have produced “rich and poetic installations that combine sound text and found objects”—whatever those are—and that the results are “profound and disturbing”. We are all proud to know that New Zealand is going to offer in Venice—“layered and immersive installations which explore the link between science technology and areas of behaviour reformation involving political ideologies and fringe religious practices are particularly pertinent at this time.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What a load of crap. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: What a load of crap. What a load of drivel and we are paying for it. Let me go on further. It states that the project for Venice this year “builds on the success of recent projects. Et al’s sculptural installations create highly charged environments packed with outdated and junked computer hardware and scrawled messages on instruction cards and wall charts. Rows of chairs examination tables computer stations and flickering screens in grey rooms activated with electronic noise suggest a kind of pseudo science as well as a disturbing view of religious fanaticism.” It will “exploit an alluring quality” in the collective’s own work. What is this alluring quality? It is “the absence of the artist”. It is rich enough on its own; it does not need more. 
Then we get an explanation in the footnote of who the artists are that the Government is sponsoring to Venice: “p.mule blanche ready-made trust bud shoop cj (Arthur) craig and sons constance strange L budd Lillian budd lionel b marlenecubewell minervabetts merit groting mythic investments”—I like that; that could be a new summary for the Prime Minister’s entire investment in the arts—“and popular productions.” I think that one was misnamed. 
I ask the Prime Minister what we are about with $500000 of taxpayers’ hard-earned money—from taxpayers who actually do try to beautify New Zealand and the world; taxpayers who build gardens who buy things that they like who buy CDs and who pay to sponsor the music they prefer. What are we doing when this Government sponsors such tripe?