NOW OPEN FOR SIGNATURES. We, an informal collective of Aotearoa artists and arts workers, invite everyone who cares about the integrity of our arts and arts institutions, and the right to protest against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, to read, sign, and show support for transparency on this matter.

[note: in the ‘occupation’ field, please write your connection to the arts, e.g. artist, arts worker, curator, technician, supporter of the arts, etc]

———————————————————————————————————

Open Letter to Creative New Zealand, the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Paul Goldsmith

We, a collective of Aotearoa New Zealand artists and arts workers, are writing about New Zealand’s conduct at the 2026 Venice Biennale, supported by what we have learned from official information that has been released to us.

What that information reveals is a gap between what the public was told and what was decided in private. While the chair of Creative New Zealand (CNZ)’s governing body, the Arts Council’s Kent Gardner, publicly stated that they “uphold the freedom of artistic expression and freedom of speech in all forms”, almost everyone who was sent to Venice had been instructed in writing not to speak. CNZ’s own records describe that advice as being prepared “indiscussion with our Minister.”

We are asking CNZ, its governing board the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa, and Paul Goldsmith, Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, to answer immediately and publicly for that conduct.

We set out our questions at the end of this letter.

What happened—

On 8 May 2026, the Venice Biennale was brought to a standstill by what international press and its organisers, Art Not Genocide Alliance (ANGA), describe as the largest strike in the Biennale’s history. By ANGA’s count, thirty of the one hundred national pavilions closed fully or in part. Many of those pavilions are long-standing peers of Aotearoa New Zealand, and included Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Austria and South Korea.

The strike was in opposition to the genocide in Gaza. It called for the exclusion of the Israeli Pavilion while also being an action in solidarity with Palestine, and with the rights of arts workers. The strike followed an open letter that ANGA delivered to the president and board of the Venice Biennale on 29 March 2026, signed by more than two hundred and thirty artists, curators and arts workers, which called for the exclusion of the Israeli Pavilion.

The New Zealand pavilion remained open. New Zealand did not join the strike, nor did it sign the ANGA letter. This inaction was met with outrage, disappointment, and uncertainty across the arts community of Aotearoa. Artists and arts workers tell of feeling ashamed amongst the international arts community by the New Zealand delegation’s silence on Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its ongoing colonisation of indigenous Palestinians and their land.

What we were told, and what we have since learned—

When the arts community and the media asked CNZ where it stood, we did not get a clear answer.

Journalist Gabi Lardies of The Big Idea put it to CNZ plainly: “I’m wondering if there's a specific reason no-one has said anything at all about it or participated? Perhaps orders from higher up, or a policy…?” [Gabi Lardies to CNZ, 13 May 2026.]

In an interview for Radio New Zealand (RNZ), Artist Sarah Hudson of Mataaho Collective said what many of us were feeling: “A lot of artists I've been talking to really want to know if the inaction with the strikes and protests have been a structural order or if it's decision of individuals?” [RNZ Culture 101, 17 May 2026.]

The Chair of The Arts Council, Kent Gardner, finally made a statement on RNZ on 17 May: He said: “I just want to make it clear, Creative New Zealand unequivocally recognises and supports and upholds the freedom of artistic expression and freedom of speech in all forms. And this is the same everywhere, including at international events like the Venice Biennale.” [Kent Gardner, RNZ Culture 101, 17 May 2026.]

We now know this is not the whole story. Because our concerns were not being addressed, we sought official information from CNZ, the Christchurch Art Gallery, and Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage. What came back shows something different from what the public was told.

There was a written rule. From 5 May, CNZ told staff, pavilion attendants, contractors, patrons, and the artist's own dealer gallery: “Do not draw comparisons, comment on conflicts, or endorse boycotts.” [Claire Murdoch, 5 May 2026 advisory, released in CNZ's Official Information Act response, 7 July 2026.]

That rule applied to everyone connected to the pavilion. The one person it was stated not to apply to was the artist.

The public was told that freedom of speech was “the same everywhere.” At the same time, almost everyone who CNZ and The Arts Council sent to represent our country at Venice had been told in writing not to speak.

The same rule reached into people’s private lives. Those who were associated with the New Zealand Pavilion were told not to “visit the Russian pavilion or take photos with it, even in their private capacity,” and to avoid appearing with it “including on personal social media.” [5 May 2026 advisory, released 7 July 2026.] This was not limited to their official role or their working hours. It was a direction about what they could do, and post, in their own time.

So the important question: was New Zealand law broken by doing this? And was this right and proper given the norms governing the Arts Council and CNZ’s conduct? The written rule did not come only from CNZ. Their own record states that the advice was prepared “in discussion with our Minister.” [Claire Murdoch to patron leads, 5 May 2026, released 7 July 2026.] Part of it was attributed to advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

What we are asking—

We ask Creative New Zealand to state publicly:

Its position on the May 8 strike, and on the exclusion of the Israeli Pavilion in opposition to the genocide in Gaza.

Whether artists and arts workers representing Aotearoa were discouraged from, or instructed not to, take part in political action, speech or protest; and whether the 5 May advice from CNZ is consistent with the Chair’s public statement that freedom of expression is upheld “the same everywhere.”

Why parts of that advice reached into people’s private conduct and personal social media, and on what or whose authority.

We ask the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa, as CNZ’s governing board, to state publicly:

Whether it was aware of the 5 May advice from CNZ, and whether it is satisfied that the Council should not have done more — in accordance with its statutory function to uphold and promote the rights of persons to freedom in the practice of the arts — to ensure CNZ did not act to restrain the freedom of artists and arts workers.

We ask Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and the Minister Paul Goldsmith, to state publicly:

What role, if any, the Minister or Minister’s office had in the advice that CNZ describes as prepared “in discussion with our Minister,” and how that is reconciled with the ‘at arm’s length’ independence principle between ministries and crown entities, such as CNZ, that the law provides for.

Why this matters—

This is bigger than one pavilion. It is about whether the artists and arts workers who represent Aotearoa New Zealand on the world stage can trust their own national arts body to be honest with them and with the public, stick to the rules, and defend their freedom rather than quietly manage it.

It matters also because of how our arts funding is meant to work. The independence of the Arts Council from political control is not a convention. It is written into law. Section 8 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 2014 provides that “the Minister may not give a direction to the Arts Council in relation to cultural matters.” That protection exists so that the government of the day cannot decide what artists and arts workers may and may not say. When a written instruction to artists and arts workers is described by the arts body itself as prepared “in discussion with our Minister,” the public is entitled to know exactly what that discussion was, and whether the law was respected.

Again, we demand accountability and respect for the political and cultural agency of artists and arts workers. Transparency on the political and cultural position of our national arts funding body is essential to making informed decisions regarding our participation in political activity and state-funded arts events. The arts community of Aotearoa New Zealand deserves the truth from funding bodies and institutions who claim to represent us internationally.

All OIA documents obtained are available [link below] as we believe they are of public interest.

OPEN LETTER PDF

https://tinyurl.com/openletterrenzvenicebiennale

PRESS RELEASE PDF

https://tinyurl.com/pressreleaserenzvenicebiennale

OIA DOCUMENTS

https://tinyurl.com/oiadocumentsrenzvenicebiennale

INSTAGRAM @nzveniceunredacted

https://instagram.com/nzveniceunredacted

a collective of Aotearoa artists and arts workers

END