Ardern Jacinda: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13673. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I have got many questions for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the first of which I would like him to address at the end of my speech. It is how he would be any different from Paul Foster-Bell standing in Wellington Central in terms of his ability to take on Grant Robertson.We have had this incredible suggestion for some time now from the Minister that we have somehow moved into this “golden age for the arts” under his leadership. The question I have for the Minister is how many members of the arts community have taken on this mantra which he has proclaimed from his lofty office that we are in the golden age for the arts? How many have accepted thathashtag on Twitter other than comedians of course who found it extremely witty or perhaps writers of fiction who used it as a motif for the tired and the delusional? I have heard “golden age for the arts” quoted twice—once by Minister Finlayson and once by Paul Foster-Bell at a debate at Weir House last week. I have yet to see the evidence of the golden age for the arts.In fact I think what we are seeing is a sad state of affairs where Minister Finlayson has yet to acknowledge that the golden age for the arts was indeed under Helen Clark and that he has been living bitterly in the shadow of that period for some time. He has tried to battle his way and carve out his own legacy. He has tried by focusing on the thing he loves—himself. He still thinks that CNZ stands for Chris rather than for Creative New Zealand. As a result of the fact that he cannot battle his way out from under the shadow of Helen Clark’s legacy in the arts he lashes out angrily at Opposition members and just cannot cope with the fact that we have chosen to give the arts the rightful place it deserves and to acknowledge that in arts culture and heritage there is a range of issues. We want to give these areas due credit in time and we are unashamed about the fact that we have three members who are willing to take on that challenge—absolutely unashamed.When it comes to the golden age for the arts I do think that perhaps it is time to acknowledge that in fact we are in an ice age for the arts. Perhaps Minister Finlayson thinks it is golden but in fact it is a lemon snow cone. When it comes to the Arts Council we are I think seeing the equivalent of the super-city approach being applied to it. I am loath to liken Chris Finlayson to Rodney Hide but the idea that you replace four bodies with a single board—you call it efficient you call it empowering to people and you say you are reducing bureaucracy but how does simply lessening the number of people likeMāori and Pasifika individuals who represent important groups in and of itself reduce bureaucracy? If the Minister stood up and referred to what my colleague Grant Robertson talked about including the mountains of bureaucracy that we have to acknowledge arts organisations do have to battle through every time they make a funding application that would be something but all that Minister Finlayson referred to was simply lessening the number of people.I want to come specifically to concerns that were raised by submitters and in fact to concerns that were not raised by submitters. We have to acknowledge that when it comes to issues like this you will not always get people giving their frank views transparently at a select committee out of concern over what might happen to their own individual funding. I do not blame them for that. When you have a Minister who makes references using words like “laser-like” to clauses in a bill and who calls Dame Anne Salmond names you would be a little bit worried about the form of retaliation that you might get from a Minister like that. We may not have even got to the bottom of people’s concerns about this bill the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill at the Government Administration Committee.Speaking specifically to what is happening to for instance Te Waka Toi and its reduction in representation the Minister tried to claim that it would still have the ability to have input. A committee of the Arts Council could for instance be renamed. He flippantly said in his second reading speech that he believed that we could just rename a committee of the Arts Council “Te Waka Toi” and still have the same thing. We will not. We absolutely will not have that because clause 11 in Part 1 specifically states that although the Arts Council can establish a committee itself which it could obviouslymake up from members it would then choose the functions are very specific. They are set out in clause 11(2) which states: “The functions of that committee are—(a) to give advice to the Arts Council on matters relevant to the functions of the Council in relation toMāori arts; and (b) any other functions that the Arts Council delegates to the committee.”My question to the Minister is very specific. Advice is what a committee is legislated to provide. Could the Arts Council delegate to a committee powers around funding? Is it possible for the Arts Council to delegate to a committee the ability to make funding decisions? If the council can do that why was it not put specifically in the primary legislation? Why did the Minister not stipulate that? Then we would know that we could establish a replica body that is in line with Te Waka Toi. If it is not stipulated specifically is that because the Minister does not want a committee to make funding decisions? I think we need some clear ministerial guidance from the Minister as to whether he wants a committee of the Arts Council to make funding decisions. If he does not now is his opportunity to state that. If he does not mind then I would implore any future Arts Council to take heed of the fact that the Minister has no issue with that happening and then perhaps he may well be correct that it has the power to set up an equivalent of what we currently have. Then I would question what in fact would be any different from what we have now. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister in that regard.I want to come back to another element of Part 1 and that is clause 8 “Restriction on Ministerial direction”. The reason that I want to ask a question here is because what has become very clear under this Minister since he has been in charge of arts culture and heritage is that he has some very specific areas of interest. The arts community is under no illusion that there are only particular areas that the Minister has any interest in being a patron of or has shown any interest in attending or engaging with. I do not say that because he has implied it or been subtle about it; he has actually said it. He has actually told people: “Don’t bother inviting me. I will not come.” At least he has been clear. We know that he is a great supporter of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and I believe that he has an interest in the Royal New Zealand Ballet but beyond that it gets a little patchier in terms of his engagement.The reason that I am raising this is because the Minister heralded the fact that under these changes there would be no requirement for the Arts Council to set out a strategic 3-year plan that would be published and shared. The fear that I have is that that therefore means that we could have an Arts Council that is very much dictated by the whims of the Minister. He may claim that clause 8 stops that from happening. Clause 8 says: “The Minister may not give a direction to the Arts Council in relation to cultural matters.” Why does it not stipulate that he cannot give a direction in relation to funding matters? I would be really interested to hear from the Minister in that regard because I would say that there is probably a bit of a concern amongst the arts community given his very specific areas of interest. I recall that during the review of the structure of the orchestras in New Zealand he may have made a statement that over his dead body would funding for those organisations be touched. Well why are there no restrictions on ministerial directions to the Arts Council more broadly when it comes to funding? Is it over his dead body for every single sector of the arts community or just the ones he really really likes?Dr Rajen Prasad: His body’s not dead.JACINDA ARDERN: I try not to talk about corpses too often in my contributions in the Chamber even in reference to Minister Finlayson. So I would like some specific feedback from the Minister in regard to funding also.I want to be clear that although I have referred to Te Waka Toi I do not want to forget of course that the same fate has been met by the South Pacific Arts Committee.