Delahunty Catherine: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — First Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13100] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. He mihi nui ki a koutou. Before I start my speech on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill I mihi to the arts community particularly for the loss they experienced last week. I mihi to the whanau of Mahea Tomoana of Ngati Kahungunu who was a friend of mine. Mahea Tomoana and his wife Ngaromoana Raureti Tomoana are examples of artistic excellence. There is an ancient saying from Aotearoa “Where there is artistic excellence there is human dignity”. I mihi to those people; I know that it affected the whole arts community when Mahea died suddenly last week. I put that on the record because these artists have made such a contribution from that whanau to this House. 
I also acknowledge the importance of the Arts Council. I grew up in a family totally committed to the arts. My father and mother were actors in the Unity Theatre in Aro Street in Wellington and I grew up in a house full of literature full of drama and full of writing. I have been a lucky recipient of Arts Council grants for the fiction writing that I have done. I know how hard people struggle to get grants and I know how wonderful it is when one gets a small amount of money when one is a struggling artist. 
I am very happy to be speaking on this issue. Arts and culture is my portfolio—one of about 11. I must say I regret that I have little time as a list MP with 11 portfolios to attend arts events and participate in all the wonderful things that happen. They have to be fitted in between all the other things but every event I have been to has enhanced my commitment to the importance of things like arts councils and properly organised strategically managed funding. 
To return to the bill the Green Party has mixed feelings about the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. We have mixed feelings because of the mixed feedback we have had about the public support for it. We have had a range of feedback from the arts community about the restructuring of the Arts Council nationally and the community arts providers in the regional and local communities. We have decided on balance to support the first reading of the bill because it is a good example of a bill that may or may not improve the delivery of arts funding in Aotearoa. But we are keen to hear from the many voices involved from arts communities particularly tangata whenua and Pasifika arts voices and organisations. 
We have huge concerns around the proposed restructuring. At first glance the restructuring would appear to weaken the ability of tangata whenua to have a self-determining body deciding on the use of putea for Maori arts. The bill replaces Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee which were separate committees for Maori and Pacific artists. They have been separate up till now and had separate moneys from the Arts Council. As a party committed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi we looked at these proposed changes dubiously. Too often the concept of having four designated Maori members and two Pacific nations members in a council of 13 smacks of tokenism. 
We are not sure how this bill will work but we are prepared to see what the voices say at the select committee on this issue. As any of us who have been involved in Treaty work—and I have been for 20 years of my life—know when one is in a minority group that is dominated by the dominant culture it is harder to get heard and it is harder to get resources. So we have to assure ourselves that in the name of streamlining we are not destroying the valuable work that Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee did. 
As people have mentioned already in this House this evening there are other communities too that are not Pakeha but need to be heard. So often Pakeha assume that we are the ones who should speak for all but we cannot. We need to make sure that those voices are at the table—not in a tokenistic way but in a way that they will be heard. I heard the Minister say that clause 11 will address that for tangata whenua but it remains to be seen how the power balances will actually pan out. 
Speaking also about Pacific nations communities this island of ours Aotearoa is a Pacific nation. We float in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa—the great ocean of Kiwa—and we have a Pacific bias. It actually affects all of us who have grown up here. We need to be really strong in making sure that those voices are heard. Much of the most stimulating amazing and interesting art—and I am on the Artworks Committee here in Parliament—comes from Maori and Pacific people. They have had to fight so hard for the money to be able to participate in the public life of the country. They have had to struggle just as they have had to struggle right across the board in every forum to get committees like Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee. We need to listen to their voices. 
We sought to hear from some of those voices and we have not had a clear message yet. We do not know whether we have not heard a clear message because these communities are happy with the streamlining or they have simply given up because they are deflated and alienated by yet another restructure. We do not know the answer to that question and we will not second-guess them. We know who we are and who we are not. It is important that there is a select committee process that allows us to encourage and stimulate all of those voices to be heard and to find out whether this restructuring—from two separate committees feeding into the main council to seats at the main board—will be a better result for them. 
I think it is really important to recognise that the arts community is huge and diverse. There are many many voices in it and it is not simple to sort out the funding. I recognise that the Minister is trying to uphold the importance the value and the resources of the Arts Council but if there is to be a fair and equitable result that will be better for everybody then we need to be convinced that this change is really valuable. We hope that the select committee will hear from the networks and we will encourage the networks to participate. 
Having been involved with arts for years I do not think that making submissions is their favourite thing—surprisingly! In fact a lot of us do not find it very fabulous so it may be difficult for them to feel confident that their style of communication will be heard and valued in this forum. It will not be about how much money they make; it will be about the expression of their voice. If we have an economic analysis we will know that one of the strengths of Aotearoa New Zealand—and one of the reasons why manuhiri come here—is the fantastic arts that this country produces. We have looked at the Arts Council restructuring and we are yet to be convinced although we are prepared to go to the select committee and see. 
Some of the other provisions are interesting. I have been talking to community arts providers and community councils; like many people I spent a lot of my time in small communities before I came to Parliament and I go back to a small community. It is interesting what those community arts organisers and networkers say. They say that this bill might be positive but it might not. They are looking for a clearer definition about who will get the money and how the restructure will be an improvement on the way things are currently managed. 
I also agree with comments about the loss of a strategic plan because these community arts providers can have their funding cut off if they do not meet the intent of the national body. If there is no long-term strategic plan for that body those community providers will be second-guessing. Anyone who has spent years doing funding applications knows that second-guessing is very difficult when one is in a town like Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa—Gisborne—or a town at the top of the Coromandel and is trying to work out what the Arts Council wants in those applications. What language is it looking for? What is the jargon? What is the buzz? We all know that if people do not use the right language they do not get the money. It is quite complex if there is no long-term strategic plan. 
They also raised issues about the main relationship being with local government and about the statement of intent. I was also concerned that many of these people said that this bill may be all right on its own terms but it does not address the key problems of bureaucracy that we are facing. We face a lack of strategic clarity and we do not know whether the direction will improve or change. We are playing a waiting game. 
Therefore the groups we have talked to in communities have had very mixed views. At the same time I have not heard an outcry. Often with bills if there is an outcry then we know for sure it is time to say no at its first reading. We have not heard that outcry yet although it may be gathering steam. We will see; we will certainly be interested in seeing it stimulated. Wherever we see a change to a structure that results in people being marginalised by the nature of their culture or where there is a potential breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi we have to ask questions. We have to ask whether it will really be in the best interests of Aotearoa New Zealand as a whole because it is as a whole that we will function best as an arts community. 
It is a highly competitive field. Many many people are used to doing everything on the smell of an oily paint rag or whatever their art form is and they have to struggle to get money. It is not easy stuff. If there is to be change and if we are to maintain artistic excellence and human dignity we need to have the clarity that goes with that. 
The Green Party debated this bill quite vigorously but we came down on the side of sending the bill to a select committee. Again I say that I am hopeful that we will hear a lot of voices on this bill because change for change’s sake will not necessarily improve arts funding. I hear the Minister talk about the wonderful work that the Arts Council has done in the past and that is true. It is a vibrant part of what it means to be in this country.