Is it possible to get a straight answer out of six campaigning politicians? The answer, especially when it comes to the nebulous world of arts policy, is “well, you can try”. Enter The Great Big Arts Debate. The event was presented in Ōtautahi by the new independent advocacy group Collective Arts Waitaha, and hosted by the Court Theatre on the evening of Monday 12 October. The main auditorium, which seats close to 400, was nearly full. If you dropped a bomb on the theatre you would have knocked out a good portion of the city’s creative leadership.
This is a community that is frustrated, disheartened and struggling, sick of being under-estimated and under-funded, and of being told to do more with less. The arts is often thought of as “whimsy”, as the night’s moderator Ali Jones put it – in return the audience wanted something substantial.
Jones, a broadcaster, advocate and former city councillor, was in fine, scrappy and funny form. The event was billed as “straight talk, sharp questions”, and while a quickfire round robin format intended to keep it on track, it limited answers and prevented discussion among the candidates.
Six political candidates offered their time, and we could commend them for turning up. They were invited to speak quickly and directly in response to convoluted, multi-pronged questions about funding, regional equity, support for Pacific arts and toi Māori, the relationship between wellbeing and GDP, civic recovery, infrastructure, and political action, as well as fluffy questions about favourite artists and ideal dinner party guests. The speakers were constrained by a 40-second time limit that was stretched to a minute, which was still too little. No crosstalk was allowed. This meant that there was little deep engagement with ideas, and with each other, and speakers were incentivised to rehash slogans rather than engage thoughtfully with problems.
Helen Tait, the Wanaka-based Opportunity Party candidate for Waitaki, was there mostly to plug the party’s interest in a universal basic income and a land value tax. She was the least experienced with the format, but got a few good digs in, particularly describing the Amplify strategy as “terrific words” to much laughter.
Labour MP for Christchurch East Reuben Davidson and National MP for Ilam Hamish Campbell are both known candidates who engage consistently with their communities, and who you see often at events. They are confident communicators, and familiar with their policies and the cut and thrust of debates. Both managed to stick to their parties’ lines while fleshing out some specifics.
Green MP Kahu Carter, who is running a two ticks campaign for Christchurch Central, got a rockstar’s welcome. She’s charismatic, and an artist who knows the city’s arts organisations well. More importantly, the Greens have also been engaging with the local arts community directly through ongoing hui about funding and sector sustainability, and that counts for a lot. Less than four weeks out from the election, the Greens are also the only party to have a comprehensive arts policy, although apparently Opportunity's is on its way this week.
Te Pāti Māori’s candidate for Te Tai Tonga, Lisa Maree Merch, was also on a high, having had her moko kauae done that afternoon (a round of applause). She also had some news: TPM had that afternoon announced their intention to establish Toi Māori authority and artist income programme, independent on Creative New Zealand (more applause).
The unexpected star of the evening was New Zealand First’s candidate for Wigram, Bryce Park, who perched on the end (as he had to leave early), highlighted policy statements in hand, looking like a teetotaller at a piss up. Merch, his neighbour, had turned her back to him completely. He blundered through a series of out-of-touch answers and strange, half-memorised talking points – why are we talking about what people will do, when we can talk about the past? What about reinstating the Cathedral as ‘heart of the city’? The answers would have been insulting in their ignorance, as his distaste for supporting Indigenous art was, if they weren’t so comical.
After seeing him drowning, Jones lobbed him a soft ball – who are your three ideal historical dinner guests? This question, presented to everyone, was a complete waste of time in terms of the debate, but Park’s answer – Napoleon Bonaparte, Marcus Aurelius, and Machiavelli – had him literally laughed off the stage. “No women?” someone heckled. “I’m basing this off merit, not gender,” he retorted as he flew away to his next commitment. Farewell, you sweet summer child.
It was a pity to see him go. He was a good foil, and once he left the sass level dropped considerably. It also highlighted the extent of New Zealand First’s ideological opposition to a sector that’s bigger, more profitable, and more impactful socially than the industries it prefers to champion.
Park’s missteps were a highlight in part because there was little meaningful, detailed discussion of policy. The quickfire round robin format, presumably intended to provoke pithy policy-based answers, instead incentivised waffly vibes-based politicking. Complex double-barrelled questions, drawn from community suggestions ahead of time, were impossible to answer meaningfully. The time limits, policed by a little bell, meant the panellists had little opportunity to hash things out.
Merch managed to communicate Te Pāti Māori’s point of difference clearly, but otherwise only a few genuinely pertinent details rose to the top. Labour’s Davidson – the night’s winner, if there was one – spoke about an AI action plan that would involve protecting artists’ IP, while also working with Australia and other Pacific neighbours (“actual crunchy policy!” read my notes). He also highlighted the potential relationship between the arts and the Mental Health Innovation Fund.
Both Davidson and National’s Campbell recognised failings in the Public Lending Right authors’ compensation scheme, with Campbell keen to better publicise New Zealand authors’ work overseas. Campbell also noted the false dichotomy between funding the arts sector and funding roads, but later indicated that a ‘first 100 days’ action post-election would be to implement Amplify, which you’d hope was already in process, and isn’t so easy to simply tick off. I was itching in my seat hoping someone would identify the arts as a form of social and cultural infrastructure, so that a proper conversation could be had.
So what did we learn? Not much. The Great Big Arts Debate was neither an actual debate nor particularly great – an excellent initiative with a lot of potential, but an arguably wasted opportunity. A bit of sizzle, and not a lot of steak. The room was hungry and then grumpy.
In the end, we saw what we already really knew. Most parties struggle to engage with the realities of the sector, even those that are well documented (such as the problems facing literature and the book industry),even when politicians have firsthand experience in these fields. No one can really say where more money will come from (outside of more tax) or how it might be reallocated. Each panellist spoke about their love for some element of the arts or other, and some insisted the arts were a priority, but warm fuzzies don’t pay the bills.
At a party level, National is defending the status quo despite agreeing that it doesn’t work, and can’t even speak well to existing policy, including what Amplify is supposed to achieve and when. Labour has some points of difference but needs to articulate them clearly – when they do, the room lights up. The Greens and Te Pāti Māori are plugged in to arts communities, and are making grassroots / flax roots campaigning work for them.
As for the rest? Opportunity Party is just happy to be here, ACT is nowhere to be seen, and New Zealand First, as we all suspected, thinks a lot about the Roman Empire.
