Creative sector report too Hot for comfort

Arts editor GILBERT WONG looks at how the Government is at odds with the arts community.

Government reports rarely arrive fully formed or unscathed. And so it was with the Heart of the Nation report on the future of the creative sector, finally released last week.

Those who attended the regional forums will attest to the genuine excitement from creative individuals that they were given the chance to have their say about the development of the sector, albeit mediated through the HotNation panel.

Their brief was wide: "The strategy will also constitute a base document for Government when reviewing its policies, considering its funding patterns and reshaping the present administrative machinery within the cultural sector."

And plainly stated.

The real story since its release is how it has been interpreted. The report runs to more than 60,000 words. It does advocate bold shifts in arts administration and policy-making. It does not suggest that the creative sector should be restructured.

Instead the focus of debate has been on the replacement of Creative New Zealand by a Creative Industries Development Agency to provide a strategic overview and support for the many industry organisations that already exist, like the Writer's Guild, Pen, Spada (Screen Producers and Directors Association), the Artists' Alliance, the Designers' Guild.

Other agencies would channel state funding to creative individuals and groups, monitor the transparency and performance of the sector and unify and market the country's heritage to wider audiences locally and overseas.

Here's what those with vested interests in the report had to say on some of the key issues raised as the flak flew.

Convenor Hamish Keith said in the report's preamble: "We believe this is a sensible plan. It is not a structure arbitrarily imposed upon the cultural sector, but instead a coherent architecture already emerging within it. If the sector is to grow and realise its potential into the next century, things cannot stay as they are."

Associate minister of Culture, Heritage and Arts Judith Tizard: "The Government will not be embarking on major restructuring of the sector. Abolishing Creative NZ and establishing new bodies in its place would be both very expensive costing many millions of dollars and highly disruptive.

Hamish Keith in the report: "The establishment of a Creative Industries Development Agency is not intended to float a raft of committees and bureaucracies. Instead it will coordinate and provide a focus for existing commissions, industry associations and councils and encourage those kinds of groupings and relationships where they do not already exist. Its model is to be found in the existing and very successful creative industry clusters, which a few enlightened territorial local authorities have begun to encourage and support."

National culture spokesman Simon Upton last week: "The proposed Creative Industries Development Agency would create a new avenue for political meddling. It is a monstrous proposal that should worry anyone who fears that their views might not be fashionable in the eyes of the government of the day."

Creative New Zealand chairman Peter Biggs last week: "We're already a catalyst for new initiatives. We're advocating. We're working for partnerships and arts employment projects."

Keith from the report: "Some organisations might feel themselves excluded. They should be reassured that if excluded by name there is no intention to exclude them by place and instead of outrage they should take a moment of quiet reflection to see where they best fit in."

Biggs last week: "I don't want to be defensive. We embraced the project because we thought it was a way forward. One of the key conclusions is the cooperation of existing structures rather than scything through existing structures."

* A summary of the HotNation report can be read on the website: www.heartofthenation.org.nz