The bombastic news about Creative New Zealand’s funding devolution to regional partners has been followed with news that the organisation will also be restructured and 29 roles to be cut. The reduction in roles is prompted by the loss of funding from central government in the latest budget, with CNZ’s baseline funding cut by $1.3million over four years, and the wider Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage cut by a whopping $27million. As we in the arts know, any cut to Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage is compounded by decades of a static budget (notwithstanding the Covid-era injection), which, when measured against inflation, exacerbates the funding lost to the sector.
During Parliament’s scrutiny week, the de-investment in the sector was inadvertently put to Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Paul Goldsmith, as covered in RNZ’s House on Sunday. Goldsmith was asked by his colleague about the $17.5 billion that the creative sector contributed to the NZ economy. As host Phil Smith shared:
“That’s billion with a B, about the same amount as the GDP contribution of the finance and insurance industries … and it spun on its head the idea that government support for the arts is a soft donation for fluffy things. Instead, it seems, it’s a small investment with a massive economic return, though more often for the country than the artist. And what size return? Well, arts and heritage gets about $460 million, though that covers much beside the arts. But even if you don’t separate that out, the return on investment would be about $34 earned for every dollar spent. And that’s huge. IRD was crowing recently about an $11 return for increased compliance funding. And that also is big, but it’s not even a third of the arts’ return.”
Toi Ora Strategy 2025-2030, which was released at the end of March, has the dream of: “Ngā toi Māori and ringatoi Māori are visible everywhere and highly valued as part of the distinct identity of Aotearoa, which is admired globally.” This moemoeā is broken into five focus areas, each with their own goals and five-year priorities. There is also a guiding principle ‘by-for-with’ which honours CNZ’s responsibilities under te Tiriti o Waitangi. The opening foreword given by the Chair of the Arts Council and the two co-chairs of the Kōmiti Māori of the Arts Council, acknowledges how Toi Ora delivers to CNZ’s long-term vision and strategy, Tū Mai Rā, which extends to 2040. Barely five pages in and I’m acutely aware of never having worked in policy, the palimpsest of documents prompts a frustrated ‘can we just get to the point?’ Alas, there are more goalsfocusareaprioritystrategies to come.
The origins of Toi Ora are given as, in part, the 2023 Toi Ora Summit, “where Māori arts leaders, ringatoi and practitioners gathered to speak openly about the future of ngā toi Māori.” Helpfully, the Summit’s website is still live and hosts both the Stimulus paper produced to inform the summit, and the report written at the conclusion of the Summit. The purpose of the Summit given on the website differs to how it is represented in CNZ’s strategy, shared instead as: “Toi Ora 2023 is a Māori-Crown engagement opportunity to discuss matters of importance for Ngā Toi Māori.” This two-day wānanga is mentioned as a significant reference point in Toi Ora, but what was it?
At the time of the Summit, I was working at the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) as the Senior Historian, Mātauranga Māori and curiously, my awareness of the Summit came from the work I do in the sector not from my workplace. In my time there, MCH prided itself on employing policy generalists meaning teams writing policy can have no arts background whatsoever. The assumption is that generalists can’t get dragged into working their interests into government policy, but in reality this means that officials have weaker relationships to the sector and little understanding of its inner workings. At the time of the Summit, there were no Māori working in the arts policy team and very little experience of the wider sector in the policy team. Who would be at the Summit to receive the aspirations from Māori arts professionals? Aspirations that would feed into not just Toi Ora but be raised with the Ministry, evidenced by an August 2023 meeting with then Associate Minister Willow-Jean Prime noted on the MCH website, and shared in the Toi Ora Wānanga 2023 Report.
Officials who attended included members of the team that was outwardly engaged with Māori, whether that be as Post-Settlement Governance Entities or at community capacity. The Deputy Chief Executive Māori-Crown Relations of the time was present but she has since moved on and the responsibilities of that role have been subsumed into another leadership position, MCH having also been slimmed down during the great culling of the public service. The Associate Minister who received the Toi Ora Wānanga 2023 Report is also new given the change in government later that year. This is where I believe the generalist approach fails this process which was aimed at Māori-Crown relationships. If the Crown keeps changing, then who are Māori meeting with?
My focus on the Summit may seem overblown but it is mentioned six times in the Toi Ora strategy’s 23 pages, so clearly its importance is in how its findings are given effect. It was billed as a two-day wānanga where Māori artists and art leaders from across the motu gathered to talk about the future before then communicating needs and aspirations to the Crown. However, there was a preceding one-day meeting of ‘Ngā Manukura’ who set the talking points for the first day of the wānanga. Who are these Manukura and who appointed them? This isn’t mentioned in the documents but as Toi Ora affects all ringatoi Māori and the wider arts infrastructure, where was the transparency in who was invited as Manukura? Indeed, why is it only ‘leaders’ who get to have a say in determining the future aspirations for us all? What was the gender and age representation? Where was the teina voice? And should a single report from one wānanga be loaded with such importance?
As for how these pātai along with other CNZ strategies coalesce in Toi Ora, well, I have more pātai. Strategies have the ability to imagine new futures, which can be really exciting until you gaze into one and see how unwieldy it is. An example here being Toi Taiao: “Tiaki taiao (environmental guardianship) within ngā toi Māori is activated to ensure the protection of the environment to maintain Māori artforms and mātauranga toi.” Undoubtedly this is an important goal, and one I know a lot of ringatoi are conscious of and practice within. What this goal intersects with is whenua, moana, everything that grows in or on it. One exercise I undertake with the students I teach at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa is to walk through, in practical steps, what it means to restore a whare. After condition reporting, how does a marae replace their tukutuku panels? Where are they getting their materials from? Who knows how to harvest and dye? Prep and make? Who knows what colours are to be used and what the patterns mean? And who is passing this all on to the next generation? What becomes very apparent, very quickly, is not just how little is known but how few people know where to source kiekie or angiangi. How will this Toi Ora aspiration be realised? Who will partner with the arts to make it happen? Extrapolate this one marae example out over a country and this incredibly important goal becomes a behemoth undertaking.
In contrast to this colossal goal, are some very specific goals. Under Toi ki te Ao is the aim to foster global relationships with Indigenous peoples and attendance at FestPAC. Alongside boundless environmental aims, why the specifics here? Why only Indigenous relationships? Ringatoi Māori should be working with anyone whom they are inspired by. As much as I could query the goals within Toi Ora or the path to its inception, my biggest gripe is how futile it feels to document these aspirations, to take years of input, to be considered in the choice to have it underpinned by te Tiriti o Waitangi, only for it to be at risk because the Crown keeps changing.
I want the best for ngā toi Māori and ringatoi Māori, and I know everyone at CNZ and in the wider arts sector does too but ‘the best’ feels impossible. Toi Ora was conceived of and birthed over the period of at least two years and in the invocation of te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is drawing on a commitment that is 184 years old. The intervening years since the signing have seen umpteenth breaches to that commitment but Māori continue to expect it to be honoured. Toi Ora is commendable for that alone, for taking the time to write a policy that will outlast this government, potentially outlast the officials at MCH tasked with communicating it to the minister of the time, and compel the next government to uphold their side of te Tiriti. And if that isn’t enough to bring them to the table, will money talk? Perhaps a helpful reminder that investing in the arts is an investment in Aotearoa.
More coverage of CNZ strategies released in 2026
Leaders, artists, and critics on CNZ’s new 15-year strategy, Tū Mai Rā, Toi Aotearoa.
The devolution of Creative New Zealand: Mark Amery reports on Regional Partnerships.
