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: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to resume the debate on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. This was being hotly debated when we unfortunately had to cease our last opportunity to discuss the changes that Minister Finlayson wants to make to the way that creative arts are governed. This is essentially what this bill does. It shakes up the administration side of Creative New Zealand’s four governing bodies.Just to recap if I may for the benefit of everyone watching—potentially from the community arts sector which is particularly affected by this bill—the purpose of the bill according to the Government is to replace Creative New Zealand’s four governing bodies which currently include the Arts Council with a single board called the Arts Council and it comprises 13 members. That is probably the most significant element of this bill—that it will be a significant consolidation of the membership and that is something that in particular we have expressed serious concerns about. Our significant concerns relate to the voices of in particular Pacific Island Māori ethnic and young artists who contribute to the vision of Creative New Zealand which is currently governed by four bodies and will go down into just a single Arts Council. That concern was something that was supported by those who made submissions on this bill.In particular replacing the Te Waka Toi committee with just four qualified persons to represent Māori was something we had significant concern over. We have spoken to that in particular. The response that came from the Minister in the chair at that time as I recall was that the legislation allowed the ability to set up subcommittees. So for instance he clarified through questions that it would be possible for a pseudo Te Waka Toi committee—a faux Te Waka Toi committee as it were—to be established under the bill anyway which begs the question: why then is there the need for the legislation if the legislation empowers the council to be able to do that anyway? Well I think what we will find is that it will not have the same standing as that previous committee. In fact obviously it is strongly weighted instead to effect a reduction through its requiring four qualified persons to represent Māori on a council of 13 members instead.But the appointment process for those individuals is something worthy of discussion. I think we should always put scrutiny into these processes given in the past we have seen for instance that the appointment process for the Families Commission since this Government has come into play has meant that we have literally ended up with a “National Party Family Families Commission” where at least two of the members are direct relatives of Cabinet Ministers. They may well be qualified because they are family members for the Families Commission. But I think that just demonstrates the importance of keeping rigour in these appointment processes particularly when you see a significant reduction in the representation of these groups. The same goes for the South Pacific Arts Committee which has been replaced by two members who are then given the weighty job of representing their community on the council. That is also something that we should give heed to—just the weight of those particular roles for those six individuals.But I want to come speaking specifically to Part 2’s community arts provider provisions which set out in clause 14 that the “Arts Council may designate community arts providers”. Clause 14(1) states: “Any body involved in community arts including any local authority may apply in writing to the Arts Council to be designated as a community arts provider.” This begs then a couple of questions. To what extent do we believe that this initiation by local authorities themselves is likely to take place? There are certainly councils that I know for which this is not a high priority in terms of delivery. Secondly in fact it is not really included in the well-being. Well the well-beings are not included—let us be honest—for local government. So I am not sure how realistic the notion of this being instigated by local councils will be when you see such variation in their beliefs about their role in the provision of the arts or even indeed in recreation—more so recreation.In fact we have seen a real shift over time I think in the way that at a local body level there has been a decision to move away from considering the arts in that overall well-being element of local body provision. Now we see a real separation of recreation being maintained—that is sports and solid things like grounds and engagement in activities like that—to the detriment of involving for instance in amongst all of that provision things like dance which is the eighth-most participated-in sport or recreation form in New Zealand. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders participate in dance in some form in New Zealand.Grant Robertson: Interpretive dance.JACINDA ARDERN: Interpretive dance.Grant Robertson: Friday nights.JACINDA ARDERN: I do not think cutting shapes on the dance floor is factored in. There literally is a robust survey that tells us that New Zealanders do participate in that form of creative expression. To what extent is that really being captured by local councils now? And to what extent should we be leaving it up to local authorities’ instigation to make an approach to the Arts Council to be designated a “community arts provider”?I want to use a specific example here. Tauranga City Council for instance in some elements of council provision is strong. It has a fantastic gallery space. It really pays homage to Nigel Brown in that area and there is a lot of local pride there. On the flip side the council wants to charge for library books. You see a real division in the way that some of that council decides to treat what we would consider public good and the well-beings. Another example is Morrinsville. The Matamata-Piako District Council there has the benefit the blessing of the Wallace Gallery a fantastic collection which has had significant funding—as you well know Mr Chairperson Tisch—via that wonderful donation by Sir James Wallace to that township. What provision has thecouncil made for that wonderful facility? In fact I know it is a highly contentious facility now because the council does not necessarily believe that it is within its core duty to provide that facility.That is one of our concerns with Part 2 of the bill and that is why one of the things that we want to see enhanced is the ability of community arts to be bolstered by the Arts Council and not left to chance. It is something that we have got some significant concerns around. As for the extent to which we need to put a little bit more robust guidance around community arts development I ask to what degree will we see an even-handed approach in the way that that decentralised level of funding is meant to be treated particularly given a community arts policy is yet to be completed as far as I know. These are some of the issues that we remain concerned about because yes we do support decentralisation and the ability of communities to drive what they desire to see in their local areas around community arts provision but to what extent are the provisions in this bill really satisfying that?How many of those local areas will be able to meet the threshold test to be designated as a community arts provider if they do not for instance have the support of their local council? The locals there may have a huge amount of enthusiasm and desire but if the Arts Council is able to designate a body as a community arts provider only if it is satisfied that “(a) the body complies with any guidelines set by the Council for community arts providers; and (b) the body represents in relation to the arts either a specific geographical area or a defined community of interest.” you would imagine that it would be interested in the local council’s view on that. If they do not have the support of the local council—again perhaps the Matamata-Piako District Council would not support a move like that—then what happens to them? I have heard some argue that that just demonstrates there is not enough desire in the community and not enough backing and therefore so be it but how fair is that on those who are living in those geographic regions not to have access in that way?