Martin Tracey: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 29 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15683. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I accept your apology.TRACEY MARTIN: One day before you leave this House you will get my name right.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will keep trying.TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. Originally New Zealand First did actually support this bill with reservations because we saw the streamlining and we thought we saw what was an intent to actually improve the processes around this and save money that could be reinvested into the Arts Council for redistribution to our communities and to the arts in New Zealand.However we then had an opportunity to go away—because this bill was introduced some time ago prior to New Zealand First unfortunately not being in this House for a short period of time. So we had an opportunity to then go away and discuss with members of our community—theMāori Pasifika generalPākehā and other ethnic group communities—the proposals here. We came back and we tried to talk to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. We put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table because we were concerned about the complete 100 percent removal of consultation with the people of New Zealand with the communities of New Zealand on what their money would be spent on with regard to the arts.From 2010 to 2013 I had the privilege of actually being a member of local government. One of the duties that I had there was to participate in the submissions process around the distribution of arts funding for the Rodney Local Board area. What I found during that process was that many people inside the bureaucracy of the arts—those deciding what is worth funding and those deciding what is not worth funding—although they were lovely lovely people were incredibly snobby with regard to what the general public wanted in the arts with their money.There is something to be said for a level of understanding and perhaps for presenting a new art form or a new artist to expose the public to such works. But then there is also another side to the arts which is that this is actually the place where these people live. This is actually their money at the end of the day. So therefore individual communities the wider community of New Zealand should have some opportunity to place their voice inside the decision making on what their money is spent on.The Minister in his third reading speech yesterday said that “These reforms will ensure that this good work continues but free of excessive bureaucracy.” What he means by “excessive bureaucracy” is consultation. What he means by “excessive bureaucracy” is what he termed the waste of time of strategic planning. I can understand that the Minister might be frustrated at having to consult with people because it is always easier to just do what you like and to get other people to do as they are told. This Government has a particular penchant for that.Perhaps 3 years is too short a time frame which is why New Zealand First put down Supplementary Order Paper 35 suggesting that a strategic plan for a 5-year period be made because during that strategic plan process the voice of the general public would be heard by the council. The Supplementary Order Paper was subsequently not supported by the Government. So therefore the strategic planning will be dropped. The members on the Government benches say that strategic planning is not necessary because there is a statement of intent. What that statement of intent could turn out to be is actually a group of really snobby people telling the rest of us what we will like aboutart and then going ahead and spending that money which is our money at the end of the day.So New Zealand First believes that it is this lack of consultation—this lack of concern about the ability of our communities to continue to have a voice inside in terms of what their arts money will pay for. I note also that the Minister in his speech yesterday said that “This will enable the Arts Council of New Zealand to meet the expectations of our artists and communities in the 21st century.” My question still is how you will know what their expectations are. Because at no stage is there any commitment to asking them. So again New Zealand First will have to oppose this bill. We cannot support something that completely takes away the voice of the public about the spending of their own money. As my colleague Catherine Delahunty said it has been so unclear. There are interesting statements inside the bill that the council may or may not consult. If it feels like it it will consult and if it does not it will not. That is just not good enough for New Zealand First.I am not going to take much more of a call because that is the major point. The voice of the people is not inside this bill and the Minister reminds us of the Medici family taking complete control over arts in New Zealand and he will decide what we will all see and do—Darien Fenton: He’s a bit snobby too isn’t he?TRACEY MARTIN: And he is slightly snobby too I have got to say when it comes to these things. So New Zealand First hopes that we are not now witnessing the death knell of arts funded projects in rural New Zealand.But before I finish my contribution here today I would like to share with the House that the last arts grants that were placed in the Rodney Local Board area were given to the Rodney District Council prior to the amalgamation of Auckland and they had to be allocated prior to the district council being absorbed into the Auckland Council. One of the projects that was consulted on with the community of the Rodney Local Board area was around the Warkworth town clock. That clock was built by a young unemployed labourer working with more experienced engineers and masons back in the 1950s and 1960s. Right now it stands in the middle of that town. It is white. It is discoloured. It is in the centre of its town yet from the visual perspective it carries no mana. When the designs went forward to the arts specialists who were consultants to the Rodney Local Board they called the design chosen by the people of that town visual pollution and historic vandalism of what is a concrete clock built in the middle of that town.On 3 February the clock will begin its transformation by a local artist Joy Bell who is a mosaic artist. I wanted to share with the House the design that the people of Warkworth chose for their clock in their town because it represents the things that are important to them with the backdrop of theMahurangi River. This would never have gone forward on the advice of the arts professionals who have been sent to local councils or who may very well decide what will be funded for the communities of New Zealand. Regardless of what any other town or what any other arts specialists think this is what the people of Rodney wanted. This is what the people of Warkworth want in the middle of their town. It is their money from their taxes. They should get the right to say. We will oppose the bill.