In September 2003, at Auckland's Town Hall, the Wallace Art Awards were kicking off. There was wine and canapés, carried around the tiled foyer by waiters dressed in white and black.
TVNZ's Sunday programme was broadcasting the event live.
"James, I've been wandering around the galleries upstairs — it's going to be controversial," the presenter told Sir James, who was standing with him for a live interview.
"That's very good — without controversy the competition would be unsuccessful," Sir James replied.
But the biggest controversy in Sir James Wallace's life would come almost 20 years later, when he lost his fight to keep his name secret after being convicted of sex crimes against three younger men.
During his 2021 trial, those three young men spoke openly about the abuse they suffered, and for one of them, their experience of having a cabal of Auckland socialites and rainbow icons try and shut them up.
All three men told stories of power — young artists who came needing support or asking for funding but left being sexually abused. And feeling they could not say anything about it.
Sir James, who has always professed a keen love for art, made his money in an industry that is perhaps the antithesis of the art world — meat production.
The arts patron, 85, succeeded in keeping his name secret for years despite his convictions for sex crimes. (Source: 1News)
During the same Sunday broadcast in 2003, he took TVNZ cameras on a tour of one of his meat factories.
There, cows were slaughtered for beef, their hides turned into leather.
Sir James was asked if he spoke about his job to anyone in the art world.
"I deliberately do so every now and then, just to shock them or bring them back to reality of how you can be able to do anything to encourage the arts," he said.
"Do you like shocking people?"
"No, not so much as shocking them, but I like to bring a dose of reality into the townie's lives," he said with a grin.
His fortune was used to fund an art collection never before seen in this country — hundreds of thousands of pieces. Much of it held in a trust that has his name.
"Any life without arts and culture is sort of two-dimensional, colour-blind. It's like cows grazing and never lifting up their heads," he once said.
It's a collection of all sorts — paintings, glass, sculptures — you name it, he probably has it.
It's also a collection he has vigorously defended — in that Sunday show he was asked to respond to criticism that his art collection was "patchy".
"That's absolute crap. It's by far the widest in-depth collection in the country," he responded.
"There is no major artist that is not represented by a whole range of their work through different periods.
"Such a criticism is simply ill-informed to say the least."
'Pretty big gatekeeper' in arts industry
His wealth also saw him approached by arts organisations across Aotearoa asking for funding — and he was generous.
"He gave us a small donation a year, equivalent to about $5000 a year," Sam Snedden, who used to work at an Auckland theatre company, said.
Snedden is also a successful actor and producer.
"When we launched a PledgeMe or crowdfunding campaign to re-do our foyer he gave us a substantial donation, I think it was $15,000."
He described Wallace as a "pretty big gatekeeper" for the industry.
"He was a very big personal donor, he donated in lots of different projects. He also invested quite heavily in New Zealand film — he was a pretty big player.
"He was at all opening nights for everything, a massive arts collector. He was a prominent member of the community, responsible for donations to, I would say, all leading arts organisations at some point."
When court proceedings began, court suppression rules forced media to refer to Wallace as a "prominent businessman".
"We all knew it was James Wallace," Snedden said.
"And I think a number of us were like, it's about time."
He said it was hard to pinpoint exactly who knew what was happening, where, and when, but admitted Wallace had a "rep" in the art community.
"No one ever came to me and said this had ever happened to me, but there were so many conversations about his reputation with young men, so many jokes. All you had to do is say his name and you would get a look from people," he said.
"There was an understanding that this was a person who had this [reputation].
"I think there was always an attitude that rumour is just rumour and it's not fair to judge somebody on a rumour, but I also think that because the target of his attention was young men, there was an element of it that was taken less seriously. There was a prevailing attitude that you should just look after yourself.
"It was kind of treated as a joke, if I'm being honest, and it wasn't taken seriously — and it wasn't taken seriously enough by me either."
A time of social change
He said Sir James' offending has come to light at a time of social change — power inequalities have been highlighted in the global #MetToo movements, and the fight for social justice ramped up following the Black Lives Matter protests.
Snedden also stressed that Wallace did not represent the wider community of patrons, most of which he said he had fantastic experiences with.
But he agreed there had been some substantial soul searching going on.
"I know there are lots of other people in leadership positions in the arts who wants that reckoning to happen."
Snedden was not the only member of the arts community 1News spoke to. However, several felt uncomfortable talking about the issues raised on camera.
But what about the art owned by Wallace or his trust?
Shona Moller, an artist in Mount Maunganui, wants her painting returned to her.
"I didn't want my artwork to appear to be seen as condoning anything like what's gone on."
She gifted a piece after Sir James expressed interest in buying it in 2010.
"I was just really honoured at that point in time to have my artwork included in his personal collection and so I offered it as a koha for him to be able to have it," she said.
"I think it's important where and when you can to stand in solidarity with the victims and if my little protest and asking for my artwork back triggers some other artists to ask for their back — and there is a bit of a mass exodus — then so be it.
"It was really brave of those young men to come forward.
"If I'm the first artist to stand up and say I don't want my work associated with art and I don't want my work said in the same sentence as James Wallace then there might be other artists who follow me."
Govt says 'fair questions' around equitable access to name suppression
One of the questions that have emerged this week is over how Sir James was able to keep his name secret for about five years.
"Those who offend should face the social consequences whether you are wealthy and privileged or poor and marginalised. There is a consequence to breaking the law — and part of that involves having to face your peers," Jonathan Ayling of the Free Speech Union said.
He has been campaigning to reform suppression laws, saying they often put limits on victims' rights to tell their story.
"At the moment the advocacy nature of the court would make it seem they are not being applied in an equal and consistent manner," he said.
"This means for victims their speech rights are being suppressed, they are not able to tell their story and acknowledge those who have committed crimes against them. That is patently unjust and that is occurring 'cause of inequities within our system. We need to call that out and it needs to be addressed.
"The law needs to be changed."
1News approached Justice Minister Kiri Allan and asked if she believed New Zealand's suppression laws favoured the rich and powerful.
"It's always disappointing to hear of any victim who feels they have received an unjust outcome in the justice system," she said.
"I think there are fair questions to be asked around whether or not there is equitable access to name suppression. Unfortunately, given the amount of time remaining in the term, and our current priorities around law and order, and other legislative priorities, this is not something that would be able to be progressed this term. But I do believe these issues are worth exploring further.
"The Government is currently progressing a range of initiatives aimed at improving access to legal assistance for lower-income defendants and victims. This includes the recent Budget 2022 funding to make improvements to the current legal aid settings around eligibility, repayment thresholds, and lawyer remuneration, and an assessment of the coverage of legal aid providers nationally and by jurisdiction to identify improvements.
"It wouldn't be appropriate for me as Minister of Justice to pass comment on a particular case."
1News approached Sir James' lawyer yesterday but was told he had no comment at this time.
SHARE ME