Cosgrove Clayton: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call in this debate but I felt compelled and challenged by a member whom I consider a living work of art in this Chamber in political terms— 
Melissa Lee 
: Thank you.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No no not you. I was referring to John Hayes not to that member over there. That member would be akin to you know some of the Egyptian art that we now see some of that political archaeology over there. For the record I think we should make it plain that the former—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Groser I think has said “a dinosaur” and that is a very good analogy for that member sitting in the corner who just spoke.  
 But I think it is good to set the record straight because when it comes to resourcing the arts no Government can do better than the previous Clark Government did in that respect. I remember when  
The Lord of the Rings 
 was being proposed and schemes of arrangement were put in place by the then Clark Government the cries of derision from those members who now sit on that side that this was PC gone mad and all sorts of other things. I remember going to many meetings and after  
The Lord of the Rings 
 was progressed by Mr Jackson there was the realisation that because of the Clark Government’s schemes of arrangement in respect of the arts and the film industry we now have a film industry in this country. We now have jobs for editors for lighting technicians and for actors. There is now an industry. They do not have to whip across the Ditch as they are doing at 1000 people a week in all the other sorts of sectors or over to the United States to become famous and professional to contribute and to have a career and a lucrative career. They can now do it in New Zealand.  
But there were cries of derision from that side as we increased the arts budget. I remember Bill English having a really good go as we increased the arts budget saying that this was wasteful expenditure. Now of course we are left with this the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill.  
I am trying to think of some art terms to describe this piece of legislation. I am sure Mr Groser who is I am told a doyen of the arts and an expert—in fact there was suspicion and I am told that historians did look closely at the record that he may have painted the  
Mona Lisa 
; it may have been Mr Groser—would agree with me. This bill is sort of like a Jackson Pollock painting. Jackson Pollock did some amazing paintings I am reliably advised and the  
Blue Poles  
was one. He would not have a strategy in his mind when he faced the canvas. There was no strategy. He would simply pick up the paint and hurl it willy-nilly at the canvas and great art would materialise. I acknowledge Jackson Pollock’s great contribution to the arts world. But I am told by art historians that there was no strategy. This was sort of impulse. You know pick up some paint—a bit like the National Government’s economic policy—hurl it at the canvas and it will sit where it hits. That is what this bill is very similar to.  
I see Mr Groser is nodding as a person who knows far more about the arts world than I do know or will ever know. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He’s cruised a lot of art galleries that boy. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Exactly! Another great artwork that I was thinking of that could describe this bill and the authors of it is that famous work by Munch called  
The Scream 
. You will know this. It is a— 
Hon Member 
: Expensive. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a very expensive painting  
The Scream 
. It is of a person holding their hands up screaming in anguish. It reminded me of John Banks. It reminded me of John Banks when the boom was lowered on him in respect of his dodgy dealings around Kim Dotcom. It was this sort of scream. In fact the visual image—I am wondering if Munch had a premonition many years ago when he painted that and he thought of Johnny Banks. That may have been an inspiration for him. 
Andrew Little 
: John Banks went to his birthday party. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “John Banks went to his birthday party” my colleague said. Well anything is possible but Mr Banks of course would not be able to remember.  
I say this. The reason we are opposing this bill is that it is not well-thought-out. The speaker from New Zealand First I think made some very very valid points around representation. If we are really truly wanting to embrace our communities our diverse communities such that they are—and they are far more diverse than they were 20 30 or 40 years ago; we even have people like Mr Hayes here—then we should have appropriate representation on these arts bodies. That not only makes common sense but also makes a lot of sense in terms of having artistic sense. It makes sense because those communities are represented. As other speakers have said they are our Pacific Island community our Maori community our ethnic communities our young people—they all come to the arts world from a different perspective. 
Simon O’Connor 
: Old people middle-aged people healthy people sick people middle-class people—just keep going. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sorry? 
Simon O’Connor 
: It’s your speech. Just keep going. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am just wondering. Did somebody pull that member out of the crypt did they—sort of like an old canvas? Did they pull him out dust him off and then shove him back because he is not up to standard? You know these new guys are showing some enthusiasm. Obviously the John Hayes tutorials are working.  
But we oppose this bill because it does not make sense. It is not good policy. It has not been thought out. Again I say that like the Jackson Pollock artwork Mr Finlayson has got up thrown a bit of paint on the canvas sloshed it around a bit and now he is trying to flog it off to the New Zealand people as one of the grand masters. Well sorry it does not work. Those communities that have been left out in the cold and that are not represented well on this make massive contributions.  
I recall Mr Groser making a valid comment last week about the Maori language te reo. I think he made some very valid points. The same could be said for representation in the arts community for our ethnic communities for our indigenous communities and for others.  
So the question I pose to those relics on the other side the sort of political version of archaeology we have over there who are leaving the country with economic archaeology as they take over is why is it that these people are being limited in their representation? No speaker has got up. Maybe “Mr Goldfinger”—sorry Mr Goldsmith—could tell us because he I am sure has made a contribution to the arts world in a literary sense as a biographer authorised and unauthorised of John Banks. I am told that there is another piece of literary prose on its way from Mr Goldsmith and that is Mr Banks’ final weighty tome: his obituary. Mr Goldsmith is labouring long and hard into the evening to write with great artistic finesse and great literary substance the final chapter “The Rise and Fall and Fall and Fall of John Banks”.  
So maybe Mr Goldsmith could tell us—or Mr Borrows could being a Minister—why it is that this representation has been so limited why it is that the National Government has slashed the budgets in the arts community and why it is that it will not actually follow its fine words— 
Andrew Little 
: Yes they’ve painted themselves into a corner. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —with fine actions. My colleague said: “Yes they’ve painted themselves into a corner.” excuse the pun. Well done Mr Little. I thought that was a cracker. Maybe those members could tell us why it is that fine words are not followed by fine actions. Oh silence. Silence. That is very interesting is it not? Silence.  
Hon Members 
: We’re all asleep. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they have woken up again. Mr Hayes made history today by making a shorter speech than Mr Bakshi.  
I just say we oppose the bill but we oppose it on good grounds. We oppose it because we have gone out and talked to those within the arts community and listened to what their needs and concerns are. We make an offer to the Government. We believe that this legislation can be improved if Mr Finlayson is willing to listen and willing to cooperate and take account of new ideas from our communities. We make that offer to him because there should actually be no politics in this but we draw the line in that we do not support invalid limited legislation that does not actually do the job.  
Yet again we see a nice little political pamphlet here that will be paraded around the country by some but the problem is when those members go to the art galleries and when they go and talk to the communities as they are practising their skills around the country the communities will see through this. Those members will have to explain what they have not explained to this Parliament: why the limit on representation? Why not break it out and widen it to all those in our community? Is that not what art is about—you know getting it out into the roots of our community and getting those talented people to unleash their skill and make a contribution? These are the sorts of words that National likes to trumpet occasionally but again fine words are never followed by appropriate or substantive actions.  
So I put that to those members and I invite the next speaker whomever that may be to paint us a verbal canvas in political-speak and simply answer this. Answer the questions that have been put to you. Why the limit on representation why will the Government not widen it and why will it not support legislation with resources appropriately tailored to our communities?