Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill First Reading, Thursday 5th of August 2010

Kia ora tātou. I do not have too much to contribute, because like my colleague David Garrett it is not as if I am an “artiste”, but Māori performing arts—that is where some of the action is at. In fact last week we had the kapa haka competitions in Te Arawa. Te Arawa came second, but that is alright—we came second. I do want to make a couple of important points with respect to the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill.

As we know, and as I think the Minister pointed out, this bill replaces the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994, which established a council known as Creative New Zealand. Under the 1994 Act the governance structure is made up of a seven-member council and two boards: the Arts Board with seven members, and, secondly, Te Waka Toi with seven members. This bill replaces the old structure with a single board, to be known as the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa, the Arts Council. Catherine Delahunty alluded to one matter that we have a concern about, although having said that, as we try to do with most of the first readings of all bill, let them have some air. Let them go out to public debate for consideration.
One of the issues we want to raise is around the make-up of the council, and in particular, I suppose, the relegation of Te Waka Toi in terms of membership and status. This bill determines that the Arts Council will consist of 13 members who will be appointed by the Minister, and that at least four persons must be acknowledged as people who have qualified for appointment because they have at least a regard for, or understanding and knowledge of, Te Ao Māori, tikanga Māori, and Māori arts. Bearing in mind that Te Waka Toi has been an important part of Māori art and creativity for a period of time, I cannot but reflect on some of the discussion that has come back to us from those people who have been involved in this particular area.

As someone who has been at least involved in the Toi Iho branding exercise, as well as being involved in Te Waka Toi—aside from what Catherine Delahunty said about not having much feedback—I can say that the Māori Party has had some feedback from some of the people involved. To be truthful, many of them were trying to work out any benefits that might come from the change from having a Māori board of seven people serviced by its own unit of Māori staff, to a mainstream council where Māori are but four of thirteen people who may form an Arts Council committee.

She talks about the fact that the proposed new structure destroys a Māori icon and a successful, positive arts model for and by Māori. It takes away a body that has its own whakapapa, its own history that is identified with whānau, hapū, and iwi, and urban Māori authorities, significant Māori individuals, tohunga*, artists, and communities. So there is the rub.

She continues that when she heard about the changes she believed that it meant that the vital and important entity of Te Waka Toi would be lost to us for ever, and she could not see the reason for it. She was not at that point convinced that there was any good for Māori, New Zealand, or, indeed, the international communities who identify the Te Waka Toi brand with high-quality Māori art and culture. So there is an issue that hopefully will be considered by the select committee.

The second issue is around the protection of Māori quality, which Toi Iho, the Māori brand, was all about: maintaining the quality and authenticity issues. The feedback that we have had is concern about an inability of the Government to protect, in particular, Māori concepts and symbols. In fact, we see many cases of them being misused, misappropriated, and mistreated. I cite the incident, for example, of a Māori face moko kit promoted on an American Halloween store website. I cite the incidents of the use of Māori designs by a person by the name of Philip Morris on cigarette packaging, and a baker’s advertisement in which gingerbread men performing a haka are flattened by a giant bag of white flour. I cite the incidents of the copyright use of Māori names by the Danish toy company Lego, and the use of the so-called Māori warrior in the Sony game. I also cite the designs that featured in Vogue from Jean-Paul Gaultier’s collection, in which the use of the moko is combined with images that, from our perspective, were culturally offensive—namely, a female model with a moko is posing sitting with her legs open, and the other images convey a theme of cannibalism.

As soon as some of these images hit the headlines we know that Māoridom certainly waits and shakes, and therefore we hope to find some mechanism that allows those sorts of images to be protected; in the past, Te Waka Toi was that. We hope that there is some mechanism that protects those particular images where possible, and we hope that in the select committee process those points are made to allow this to happen. With that, I say thank you very much. Kia ora tātou.

ENDS

© Scoop Media