Curran Clare: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13274. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am the final Labour speaker in the first reading debate on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. The previous speaker Nikki Kaye described this bill as “death to process” so it is also possibly death to regional funding for the arts and some of our important provincial centres and other communities. 
I acknowledge my colleague Steve Chadwick for her work in the area of arts culture and heritage and I thank Chris Finlayson for his work on this bill. The Labour Party as other speakers have said will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee with some reservations. We have some genuine concerns as members have heard and at the select committee we will get the opportunity to put Creative New Zealand under the microscope. Labour welcomes any changes to efficiency but we ask whether this structural change is necessary and whether it will be enough. We have some genuine concerns that I want to outline. 
This bill is an example of streamlining and downsizing to the possible detriment of fair representation and Kiwi creativity despite what the previous speaker said. The bill replaces the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa—also known as the Arts Council—and two arts boards with a single board: the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa. The lone board will be responsible for determining strategic direction priorities and a policy framework for the whole organisation and for funding allocation decisions. 
The new structure will supposedly improve the Arts Council’s efficiency and responsiveness and ensure the best investment of resources for the benefit of New Zealand artists arts organisations and all New Zealanders. But Labour has concerns about the representation of the council and it is estimated that this bill will reduce the number of board members from 28 to 13. Although we commend the decision to maintain Maori and Pacific representation on the council we are concerned as members of the House have heard that these communities will not be given a strong enough voice on the council. 
We are already seeing the possible impact of the changes that this will bring. Some of my colleagues who have spoken earlier have said there is quite a lot of concern in places like Palmerston North and Dunedin where it is quite likely that organisations will not receive recurrent funding and that will obviously be detrimental to those communities. At the moment the proposal tells us that there will be support available for three theatre companies only—in Christchurch Auckland and Wellington. In fact this represents problems even in Wellington where currently two theatre companies receive recurrent funding. 
I refer to the concern that is starting to be manifested in my own city Dunedin around this issue. I will read to members an excerpt from an editorial that was published in the  
Otago Daily Times  
on 27 July. It states: “In the appendix on page 17 of Creative New Zealand’s ‘Review of Recurrently Funded Organisations’ it is written in black and white: ‘Support is available for at least three theatre companies to create and present high-quality New Zealand theatre: one in each of Christchurch Auckland and Wellington’. On page 16 under the same ‘Limits on support’ column in the orchestral music category the report reads: ‘Support is available for at least two high-standard orchestras (in additional to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra): one in the North Island and one in the South Island.’ Small wonder that cultural leaders in Dunedin and Otago are alarmed.” 
In response to quite a lot of the coverage that this received in recent weeks a visit was made to Dunedin last week by Creative New Zealand chief executive Stephen Wainwright. Mr Wainwright and Creative New Zealand arts infrastructure services manager Jane Clarke visited Dunedin to address the fears over the body’s new funding regime. They visited the Fortune Theatre the Southern Sinfonia and the Dunedin City Council which was good. In an interview with the  
Otago Daily Times  
it was reported that Mr Wainwright said that facilities in Dunedin were remarkable for a city of its size. “They [Fortune and Sinfonia] do a lot well in a very challenging environment.” he said. Then he said that “Resources may or may not change. We try not to do that in a way that will do harm to the arts community.” Well that sounds good so far. But then he said: “It is only sensible to look again after 20 or 30 years and make sure what you’re doing is relevant. Communities in New Zealand have very different flavours. There are some places where turbocharged changes are happening. For example one baby in two born in Auckland is a Pacific Islander now. We wouldn’t be being responsible if we weren’t planning for those sorts of changes.” 
So that is all good. Then he said that Creative New Zealand’s charter to provide excellence and accessibility remains “an aspirational goal”. Now that is a phrase we have heard before in this House—a lot. Now we are hearing it from Government agencies. Then he said “‘We’re certainly very conscious that there are a lot of areas … where people say: ‘We want to have our own stuff’. But the local authorities also have an obligation for the cultural wellbeing of a community. People want to live in a colourful arts and culture community. We hope these thoughts will crystallise at the council table.” Is that telling us that the council will be responsible for funding the arts in Dunedin? That is a serious concern for the community of Dunedin and Otago but also Southland because the Fortune Theatre and the Southern Sinfonia service the whole of that region. 
I guess we could call this bill classic Think Big National policy where streamlining becomes action without consultation. That is why we want to see the bill go to a select committee because as we have said we are concerned that it will reduce representation and further centralise power in Wellington. I listened quite carefully to what the previous speaker Nikki Kaye said about Auckland being the centre of the arts but there is a lot more to the artistic community in New Zealand than Auckland. Although Auckland is very important the rest of New Zealand is important. Every community matters and supporting the arts in every community matters. That is what I would hope that this Government would be doing not just centralising funding around two or three centres. 
Instead of having funding for artistic endeavours in communities throughout New Zealand we could be left with a slow-moving monolithic entity that serves—I would hate to see this; I hate to think of it—a select cadre of the Minister’s friends and does less to advance Kiwi creativity throughout all communities. Labour is concerned that the Arts Council is no longer required to prepare and publish after public consultation a strategic plan every 3 years and is required to prepare a statement of intent only. That hints that the strategy will come from the Minister’s office and will therefore be very top-down. I do not know what other conclusions one can draw from that. 
The problem with this legislation is that it does not provide any forward thinking; there is no mention in the bill of project-based funding and infrastructure and capital. We are also concerned that the Arts Council will now be charged with the rights of artists and may end up portraying an elitist view and not considering community artists—classic National Government tactics. This Government needs to look at whether other Ministers and ministries should be consulted when appointing the council members. In addition Local Government New Zealand should be consulted about appointments. 
Labour would like to see a clause in the legislation to review the council in 5 years’ time so that there is an assurance that every community and voluntary sector will not be excluded. It is our expectation that the select committee process will address these and other concerns.