Chauvel Charles: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2201. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As we have heard one of the key purposes of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill is to replace the four governing bodies of Creative New Zealand including the Arts Council with a single body which itself will be called the Arts Council and as we have heard will have 13 members. That single board will have responsibility for determining the strategic direction priorities and a policy framework for the entire organisation and for funding allocation decisions. 
 I think it is important to record on behalf of Labour a couple of key points that we think need to be made in this debate and which are important as far as understanding the position we take on this legislation is concerned. Arts are the heart and soul of our country. If we look at the way in which the sector flourished particularly in those years when Helen Clark held the arts portfolio—an important way of symbolising the importance of the creative sector to the Government—then we see the truth of this.  
The arts reflect the unique identity of this country. They are how we reflect ourselves and it is obvious from any number of recent events that we could describe that our cultural diversity is one of the drivers of our social and cultural capital. These are intangibles they are difficult to measure but nothing is more important than our cultural patrimony as expressed through the arts culture and heritage sector.  
The reason that the New Zealand Labour Party has real concerns about this legislation relates to the abolition of important sectoral representation inside Creative New Zealand and the attempts to mainstream that representation on one single board. Really the approach we are taking is “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. The Maori renaissance and later the Pasifika renaissance the extraordinary flowering culturally in this country have in part been able to be attributed to the fact that Te Waka Toi and the Pacific committee of the Arts Council have been creatures of those renaissances. They have reflected that cultural flowering they have sponsored it they have understood it and they have ensured that by working in partnership with the sectors they sponsor and for which they are responsible for ensuring continued partnership we see wonderful things happening.  
Our fear is that through the structures that will be put in place by this legislation Pacific Island Maori other ethnic groups and other groups in society will just be overwhelmed by the structure of the proposed so-called streamlined council. This is not a fear that only we hold. We have had many many stakeholders from the sector approach us and express this concern. Some of these concerns came through in the submissions to the Government Administration Committee but many Maori Pacific and other artists have expressed these concerns individually. They are not always willing to come to the Government and express these concerns.  
I think it is important for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage to hear this. I know he himself does not engage in this sort of conduct but there are people out there who are frightened of expressing these perspectives because they do not want to suffer in terms of funding decisions or any other sort of vindictive or petty revenge from his colleagues. I think the fact that that is a live concern that has been expressed by folk in the artistic sector is a real indictment on this Government and in particular on the Minister who has just resumed his seat. The reality of the sector under Christopher Finlayson is very different from the rosy picture he has just tried to paint in his speech.  
Getting rid of the Te Waka Toi committee and replacing it with four persons who will be charged with representing Maori and Maori perspectives on a council of 13 members really invites one to do the maths. There is a real danger that moving from the current structure to four out of 13 will simply lead to that particular perspective being swamped. There is simply no way around the mathematical reality here. We have to ask and look very long and hard at the question of whether we are ready as a society to do this culturally with our arts sector. Our judgment and the judgment of many participants in the sector is it is simply premature. In fact many Maori artists and other Maori with a stake in the sector have told us that this is the case.  
The Minister said in his speech that the four members required to reflect a Maori perspective will be statutorily designated as a committee themselves. They will be able to call themselves Te Waka Toi if they want. Well surely that begs the question: why do away with Te Waka Toi in the first place if his expectation is simply that these four members will immediately re-designate themselves as such as soon as the legislation passes?  
Also disbanding the South Pacific Arts Committee and replacing it with only two members to represent Pacific Island peoples and their culture has a real potential for loss in terms of the distinctive recognition of the differences between the Pacific Island communities in New Zealand and in terms of the unique cultural contribution they make particularly in Auckland the largest Pacific city on the planet but also across New Zealand wherever there are Pacific communities contributing to the sector in a way that currently happens.  
The Minister foreshadowed a Supplementary Order Paper in this area. Obviously it is a pity that we do not have that Supplementary Order Paper yet—and it is a shame that this is becoming the practice of that Minister and this Government. We can only go on what he tells us will be in the Supplementary Order Paper. Well it does not sound as if it will do much to address our concerns but of course we will look at it in the Committee stage.  
If the Minister’s proposal succeeds and these committees are done away with then clearly it will be incumbent on this House to monitor the impact of the loss of the two committees and to review future funding decisions of the council to ensure that they do actually reflect the diversity that is now New Zealand society. We are not convinced that the assessment process by a subordinate panel which is the proposal as I understand it will give due recognition of the cultural contribution that could be made by an applicant for funding. 
 The other concern that arises out of the submissions process and analysis of the bill is that community arts development funding is in real danger because in a recession it has to compete against the demands of funding for professional arts. There is a classic example in Wellington if you look at the theatre sector. You have got essentially a commercial operation at Circa an experimental entry-level experience at Bats and something in the middle trying to do something creative unique and responsive to the changing contemporary audience demands at Downstage. How are those various competing interests going to be dealt with? It is not clear under this bill.  
The concern is that the legislation reflects the perspective and the personality of the Minister. It is a bit elitist it does appear to be for the benefit of a smaller range of artists and it does not appear to be aimed at the broader spectrum that makes up our creative arts community. It is a real concern I think that the bill makes no mention whatever of the importance of project-based funding in infrastructure and capital.  
We are also concerned that the Arts Council is no longer to be required to prepare and publish after public consultation a strategic plan every 3 years. The Minister dismissed all this as red tape. We fear that it is simply again representative of his desire for a top-down approach from the Minister’s office to the sector dictating what will be funded according to his preferences. That is not going to work in our creative sector.  
The approach in the legislation is a concern to us. We compare it with what we saw a couple of nights ago with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill where again you have in a governance sense an attempt to do away with the representatives of ordinary members and replace them with a governance board. So we will be looking very carefully at these changes. We have Supplementary Order Papers we will be putting forward at the Committee stage but we maintain our opposition to the bill for the reasons I have advanced.