Robertson Grant: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I just want to start my contribution to this Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill by reflecting on the speech that the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage gave when he introduced the second reading into the House. Mr Finlayson cannot get through a speech in this Parliament without being nasty towards the Opposition parties and I want to do something now that Mr Finlayson himself seems incapable of doing. I want to acknowledge Christopher Finlayson’s contribution to the arts in New Zealand. He is somebody who was on the Creative New Zealand board during the term of the last Labour Government he is somebody who has personally contributed to the arts in Wellington certainly and at a nationwide level as well—sometimes with his own resources—and I think that is something that is to be applauded. It would be nice if similarly Mr Finlayson were able to acknowledge that funding of the arts did not start during Keith Holyoake’s time pause whenever a Labour Government was elected and then restart when he came down from heaven to beneficently look after the arts community in this country.  
I think that Mr Finlayson would be well served to actually reflect on his time on the Arts Council when a Labour Government was in place when many many millions of dollars were reinvested in the arts sector which had been struggling during the 1990s—the so-called arts recovery package which was necessary because funding had not followed the good intentions of the Jim Bolger - led Government. So Mr Finlayson is somebody who can stand proudly on his record as a funder and contributor to the arts scene but who could perhaps just bring a little good grace to the House every now and then and reflect on the things that have been done by others in this area.  
The bill that is in front of us has already been outlined by the Minister and by Charles Chauvel. The essence of Labour’s concern with this bill relates to the changes that have been made in terms of the composition of the Arts Council and the disestablishment of Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee. I am going to come back specifically to them but I want to note a contribution that the Human Rights Commission made in its submission on the bill. What it said was that the newly formed Arts Council the 13 people who will now be responsible for all of the funding decisions and all of the overall decisions of Creative New Zealand would need to make up for the loss of the distinctive identity of Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Council. That is a very very difficult thing for that group to be able to do.  
The Human Rights Commission went on to say that councils should endeavour to actively retain the special character of the former entities. I put it to the Government that that will not be possible with a body of 13 people. Te Waka Toi has had a particularly specific role in doing exactly what the Human Rights Commission told the select committee needed to happen and that is to actively retain the special character of the work that it does. If we actually look at Te Waka Toi’s purpose it is specifically to consider applications for funding through Creative New Zealand by Maori for Maori and the world as well as managing its own awards and scholarships. I do not believe that the role Te Waka Toi has undertaken will be undertaken in a way that protects the distinctive characteristics which is what the Human Rights Commission asked for. Despite having four representatives whom the Minister appoints who have some knowledge of tikanga Maori I simply do not believe that Te Waka Toi’s distinctive character will be able to be kept up and that is one of the fundamental reasons why Labour continues to oppose this bill.  
There are some changes that could be made to the way Creative New Zealand runs to the way the Arts Council runs to make it more efficient. But I think that disestablishing Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee has gone too far. I believe that the body of 13 that has now been created will struggle to continue to ensure—as everyone I think in this House agrees and certainly as the former Arts Council legislation and this legislation says—that the arts are for all New Zealanders. The ability to create a system that can deliver on that promise is not easy and I am certainly not saying that the Minister in going into this exercise thinks he has come up with an easy option. He has come up with a streamlined option which I do not believe will allow for that purpose—the arts being for all New Zealanders—to be delivered on.  
In general the organisations that came to the Government Administration Committee raised these concerns and hoped that there would be changes made by the committee to deal with these concerns. There have been some small changes and we should acknowledge them. The Human Rights Commission recommended to the select committee that clause 10(5) be altered to allow a person with knowledge of the Pacific arts and knowledge of the cultures and traditions of Pacific communities to be appointed. That is a useful change in terms of the bill but it does not actually provide for the kind of knowledge and distinctive identity that the South Pacific Arts Committee has previously put forward.  
As my colleague Charles Chauvel said it is of the nature of these kinds of bodies that many of the people with concerns about these issues do not actually put submissions in because they are the very people who need to get funding from these bodies. Certainly I have received comment from a number of Maori artists in particular who are very concerned about the demise of Te Waka Toi and do not believe that the new Arts Council will be able to deliver on promoting the distinctive identity of Maori arts in New Zealand.  
One of the other changes that was made relates to the definition of community arts and again the Arts Participation New Zealand Charitable Trust came before the select committee and asked for the definition of community arts to be widened and the committee agreed with that. That is also a useful change but it again begs the question whether a body of 13 people will be able to sufficiently support community arts. Many many New Zealanders have their interaction with the creative world through community arts organisations. New Zealanders are amazingly active at a local level in the arts and Creative New Zealand is tasked with an incredibly difficult job of trying to fund things from Mr Finlayson’s higher art through to community-level arts programmes. That is a very difficult mandate and anything that can be done in the legislation anything that can be done in the way we structure the Arts Council that supports community arts we should be doing in my view. I believe that this bill does not capture that.  
So specifically for those three reasons—the fact that the distinctive character of Maori arts cannot be upheld by a 13-member board; that the South Pacific Arts Committee has been disestablished which means that those issues will not be upheld by the board; and that community arts are not sufficiently supported and identified in the bill—I do not believe that the Arts Council is going to be able to fulfil the role we want it to fulfil.  
There are some other issues which we can come to during the Committee stage where we have some specific concerns but in summary it would be fair to say that we are all looking for an Arts Council—Creative New Zealand as it is colloquially known—that is a body that can uphold New Zealanders’ interest in the arts. What we want is a structure that ensures that all New Zealanders can look at that body and say: “My applications will be fairly treated. My interests will be developed and fostered.” The structure that the Minister has put in front of us today although it might be in his mind an answer to those questions does not I believe get it right. What changes there are that will be useful are unfortunately overwhelmed by the taking away of representation— 
Andrew Little 
: Which electorate chairman has been lined up for it? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
:That is a very interesting point that Mr Little makes. By restricting the board to 13 members we run the risk that once again from this National Government the hint of cronyism will arise the hint of who will be appointed to this very significant body. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Hint? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is only a hint at the moment. We have certainly seen plenty of examples of cronyism in other areas. In this area we have seen good Arts Council boards in recent years. I would hate to think that by changing the structure it will move more towards the concerns we have seen with New Zealand On Air.  
The Labour Party is unable to support these changes to the Arts Council structure because we do not believe that the new body will be able to fairly provide for the purpose of this bill arts for all New Zealanders and support the distinctive cultures—Maori Pacific and other—in New Zealand.