Ardern Jacinda: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 29 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I listened with interest to the last speaker Chris Auchinvole before he resumed his seat. He talked about his concerns about throwing money at the arts before he embarked upon what was a very poetic statement. I was not entirely sure how it fitted in but I am sure that quote is going to stay in my mind for years beyond any actual use. Thank you for sharing it with us.But as for concerns about throwing money at the arts I think those concerns seem to be quite misguided. When Labour came into Government an $80 million investment package was put into the arts off the back of what could only have been described at that time as a severe state of decline. The arts needed not just a boost but a recovery package to deal with the significant neglect at that time. National members may describe that as throwing money at an issue but it seems actually that whenever Labour talks about anything to do with investment or bolstering particular programmes or any alternative vision to that of the National Party it is described as throwing money at something. Oh but a billion-dollar tax cut—no that is not throwing money at something. It is not a bribe. That is just good sound political policy-making is it not? So you can see that there is an absolute distinction in the National Party’s thinking on some of these issues. It is an unfair distinction as well.Coming back to the bill specifically we are debating today the final stage of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. All through this bill we have consistently made the point that it is not entirely clear what has driven the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage to go through what is always a very lengthy process to get to the point where you debate through the full stages of the House a structural change like this when it requires primary legislation. It has never been entirely clear what vision the Minister had by this bill. Indeed it has never been entirely clear to me what his vision for the arts is generally.I will concede this one point: there are many other Ministers in the National Cabinet who could have come into the arts portfolio and absolutely gutted it—they could have. They could have come in and just hunkered down stripped out funding from all sorts of sectors and really put us on a backwards path. Chris Finlayson to give him his due has not hollowed out the arts portfolio in that regard but I do not believe that we have seen the arts advance under his leadership. It has been very very clear that there are certain aspects of his portfolio that he enjoys that he is quite happy to support and bolster and there are others that he is quite content to neglect entirely. I would say it is almost as bad to take a vicious campaign against a particular sector as it is to just neglect it and let it fade but not give it any rallying point because everything just looks like it is the status quo while there is a subtle decline. That is the kind of behaviour that means that Labour then has to come in and try to rejuvenate a sector.What this bill does really is just consolidate the council. That is all it really does. It is not a visionary piece of legislation despite the fact that it has been a very onerous process. In fact for many communities it sets back the representation that they have had to date under this status quo. Why has the Minister chosen to do that? Well I would contend that it is because he has issued a jihad on committees.You know we already know that this is a Minister who has declared a jihad on jargon and now we have a jihad on committees within the arts sector but without him actually giving much reason as to why that is. Perhaps these committees mention too frequently in their papers in their work or even in their interactions with the Minister the words “heads-up”. Or perhaps the word “process” entered into their thinking too often. Or perhaps in one too many meetings with the council it used the term “outcome”. You may not be aware of this but these are all words that the Minister’s office has put into writing and declared that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage—indeed no other official that the Minister deals with—is not to use. It is not to use any of those terms with the Minister. He has an absolute hatred of the words “heads-up” “process” “outcome” and “stakeholder”. I do not know what he prefers them to be called—Tracey Martin: How about “step change”?JACINDA ARDERN: “Step change” is definitely out—no “step change”. And the worst yet the biggest sin of all when dealing with Minister Finlayson is to mention the word “community”.“Community” is absolutely at the top of his list of things that shall not be mentioned. Perhaps we then start to see the rationale why for instance the Minister has decided to get rid of the more substantive representation that exists within the Arts Council for the Pacific IslandMāori and ethnic communities. He has taken a leaf from what his self-declared idol who is Margaret Thatcher did—and I am not saying this in a derogatory way. The Minister has proudly stepped forward and said that Margaret Thatcher is his idol. She is framed and on his wall as I recall. I believe I saw a Twitter picture of it—a lovely golden gilt frame—in his office. And of course we know Margaret’s view on community. Perhaps this is why he has taken a leaf from her book and banned the use of the word.Mr Finlayson concludes his requirements to his officials by stating that he has “always preferred the understatement”. He has always preferred the understatement which I am sure was at the centre of his thinking when he declared recently that we are in the golden age of the arts. That of course was not understatement according to Minister Finlayson. No according to him we are absolutely in the golden age even though as my colleague Grant Robertson has pointed out we have seen a decline in our publishing sector. Ask representatives of our authors in New Zealand and they will tell us that despite of course the fantastic works by people like EleanorCatton we cannot let that paper over what is otherwise a sentiment within that sector of the arts that we really have had a decline and that we need the Government to focus its attentions on how to bolster those parts of the sector that are experiencing such a rapid change around them in the digital age.Add to that the film TV and screen industry. Sure at the eleventh hour this Government finally conceded that it had got it wrong when it came to working with those industries and that actually we had seen significant job losses—at the eleventh hour. Actually it was even beyond the eleventh hour because by the time the Government finally listened to those stakeholders and members of the screen industry community it was already too late for groups likeDigipost which was one of the companies that Minister Finlayson heralded as being part of the golden age of the arts. It was a post-production group that was involved in creating the Everest documentary which he was so proud to claim was an indication of how good things were in the screen industry. As he declared that that company was shutting up shop openly. It had told the Government what was happening to its industry.On almost the same day as the Minister declared that he was finally changing his tune on the way that National dealt with the industry and the incentives regimeOktobor Animation was closing its doors. Some may claim that there was ignorance on the part of the Government as to just how bad things had got within that part of our arts sector and industry but Steven Joyce knows that he sat at the table ofOktobor Animation almost 6 months before it closed its doors which is when it told him that it was on the brink. But if the incentive regime had been changed it would have seen some of the biggest production companies in New Zealand giving work toOktobor Animation.DreamWorks wanted to come to New Zealand. Minister Joyce shakes his head as I say that but he knows that he had that piece of information. He ignored it and jobs were lost as a result. It was too late.Claudette Hauiti:Oktobor Animation hasn’t closed.JACINDA ARDERN: It was too late. You can go and visit the empty offices if you like. It was too late for that company. It had every plan to try to rebuild that business but jobs were lost.Oktobor Animation I am sorry to tell you has had to close up shop until it finds its work.Claudette Hauiti: You’ve got the wrong company.JACINDA ARDERN: I have not got the wrong company. The member might like to go and speak to the directors ofOktobor Animation about that particular issue.The point is that we do not have a clear vision from the Minister as to what he is trying to do. Those involved—the communities involved with the Arts Council—have suffered as a result of the Minister’s decision that he does not want the word “community” to be involved any more and communities will suffer as a result.