Martin Tracey: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Martin Tracey: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2208. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I am a little mystified by the speaker before me John Hayes. I am not quite sure whereabouts in the bill is the finance part but I am hoping perhaps that is part 2 which is coming or part 3 or part 4 because the bill that I read actually did not really relate to what that speaker was talking about. But never mind we will get back to the bill in question.  
The purpose of this bill I say for the benefit of the last speaker is to streamline the governance structure of the Arts Council of New Zealand otherwise known as Creative New Zealand. So we all know that. It is to take four governing bodies and reduce these down to one it is to take a total of 28 appointed members down to 13 and this new entity is going to be called the Arts Council. We are pleased to see in the provisions of this bill the allocation of four seats for specialists in the area of tikanga Maori and Maori arts and two seats for those with knowledge of the traditions cultures and arts of Pasifika. We do share some of the concerns of the Labour Party and the Green Party that this could result in the loss of a distinctive Maori or Pasifika identity but we see that this could be preferable to the continuation of two separate entities and the resources required to support them.  
Now at this point I would like to make the statement that New Zealand First was not here for the first reading nor were we on the select committee for the submissions so during the period between readings New Zealand First will be taking that opportunity to go and talk to our arts communities to our Maori to our Pasifika and to all the other members of our communities that actually input into the arts in our various communities. We have confidence—we do have confidence—that any Maori and Pasifika appointees will continue to consult with their broader communities through hui and fono but we stress that there will be a need to identify and to resource their ability to do this inside any funding model that the new Arts Council receives. Perhaps some of the savings around having fewer entities and fewer people will be funnelled into that facility so that there can be greater consultation from that period.  
I think it is a great shame that the Minister who brought this bill to the House does not think strategic planning is valuable. We have a concern around the removal of the requirement to produce and to consult on a strategic plan. The reason given for this removal—apart from the interesting reasons that the Minister gave today like they are too much trouble and you have to be doing that consultation all the time—is that under the Crown Entities Act 2004 the Arts Council is required to produce a statement of intent. Now why do we feel concern about this? That is because a statement of intent is about what you intend to do now—in the now in the here in the present—and it outlines how the entity intends to interact with other entities—corporates or stakeholders. It outlines the method with which it is going to do business by which it will achieve its goals. But again that is very much in the present in the here and now.  
The purpose of a strategic plan is to provide organisational direction and I have got to say it might be new to the Government benches that facet of a strategic plan. It is about having some vision. It is actually about reaching out for let us say some aspirational goals and creating those aspirational goals through consultation with communities. So the process of creating a strategic plan draws all parties together and sets them all working towards a common goal. We note that the Minister said in his address during the first reading debate that “Stakeholders can expect to continue consultation through the annual letter of expectation” and I would argue that this still does not provide long-term vision or the corporate sense of direction that would be created from a 3 to 5-year strategic plan. If the Minister does not like the fact that he has to do it every 3 years make it a 5-year strategic plan—that is fine. But have some vision and have some consultation around that vision.  
I want to draw the House’s attention to clause 3(2)(d)(ii) which recognises and upholds the principles of access “by supporting the availability of projects of merit to communities or sections of the population that would otherwise not have access to them;”. We want to make a special comment around the area of youth access to and participation in the arts. In Rodney Helensville and the southern end of the Northland electorate we have no public transport. This is something that those who argue against roads tend to forget. Many of us do not have the luxury of stepping outside our front door and a few paces down the street to a bus stop nor do we live on a kerbed and channelled street where we can ride our bikes over smooth sealed roads in relative safety. Many of our cyclists take their lives in their hands on our narrow unsealed or unedged country roads.  
My point here is that the continuation of Creative New Zealand funding for projects such as Tutus on Tour which performed in Warkworth and Wellsford late last year providing for many of our children and youth the first and only opportunity to see ballet of such a high standard is vital. Or the dance groups that come to our schools and take a day of dance and movement classes for hundreds of students or supporting events such as later this year when the National Youth Orchestra will play in the Helensville Community Centre. Without this funding and the commitment to send the arts out so to speak our young people would often never have the opportunity to see what is possible. New Zealand First strongly supports the principles espoused in this clause the clause around access.  
If we move on to Part 2 “Community arts providers” we note that in the first reading of this bill the honourable member Grant Robertson drew attention to some of the concerns from parts of the community-based arts sector that the model of the funding of the arts or the decision about the arts would move to a more city or urban-centric decision-making base. Again coming from the Rodney electorate which just 20 months ago found itself dragged kicking and screaming into the amalgamation of Auckland this is a situation that on many levels we have ample experience advocating against. It is interesting to note that arts funding has been one of the areas where Rodney has had to brace itself against the onslaught of the large urban populations to retain its decision-making powers. I was pleased to be part of the process in which local artists submitted projects for funding support under the legacy partnership between the now extinct Rodney District Council and Creative New Zealand but saddened that due to the grave danger of having funds withdrawn from our local area for allocation over the wider Auckland with the decisions on that distribution being made in the Auckland Town Hall the Rodney local board was required to abandon the policy of core funding retention and interest allocation thereby losing the security of the future of this funding pool. But to every cloud there must be a silver lining and in this instance the legacy Rodney district will gain some substantial art pieces and projects developed and delivered by a variety of local artists containing that local feel and flavour that this fund has as one of its core deliverables.  
The point we wish to make however is that we need to safeguard the local input into art decisions delivered at a local level and we would advocate that clause 14 should be amended to read “that the Arts Council will designate community arts providers” and that this sentiment permeate not only through this clause of the bill but also clauses 15 16 and 18. I am not suggesting the specifics around numbers of community providers or dictating the criteria of those community providers because that would drop out of a strategic plan. That is the sort of thing you work on in a strategic plan but by changing this wording the Arts Council would be committed to addressing local delivery via local communities.  
I could give you a few examples but I am running out of time so I am going to skip to the end of my comment today. We are unhappy about the removal of the word “local”. It is interesting how many people are having a conversation these days in procurement policies or other policies about what “local” means but again in a strategic plan that would probably drop out.  
In closing New Zealand First sees more positives than negatives in this bill and we will be supporting it to third reading but we signal at this time our intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper addressing the areas where we believe this bill can be improved. Thank you.