Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12330] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill—an orchestra that the National Party believes should flourish and thoroughly supports. But we thoroughly support it in a climate of artistic independence and artistic excellence not in a shroud of prescriptive State control as the Minister wishes. 
For a moment in the Minister’s third reading speech it was quite refreshing to think that she was going to stay in  
lente 
 pianissimo  
mode. But no she wound up to an absolute cadenza of excitement with variations on a theme of Mount Egmont perhaps erupting but certainly not to be compared with that wonderful Egmont overture with its hugely wonderful emanations of magnificence. But no this Minister of the Labour Government unfortunately could not contain herself. She could not recall that she is one of a Government that has kept on saying what a great orchestra the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is—under the present legislation that has allowed it to flourish. That legislation has allowed young New Zealand musicians to flourish and it has allowed the orchestra to become one of the world’s great orchestras. But no this Government Minister wants to enshroud it with functions and objectives that will only curb its freedom. 
I was quite fascinated to hear my colleague Pansy Wong say that when the title was discussed she suggested—in consideration of the way the Prime Minister and Government are wanting this enormous amount of prescription—that the name of this bill be the “Comrade Symphony Orchestra Bill”. That is the very sort of artistic decrescendo this Labour Government sadly is descending into. 
Earlier on I brought up the experience I had of the Shanghai Symphony Orchestra coming to New Zealand some 20 years ago. I said that the first part of the concert—the  
Yellow River Concerto 
 and  
Taking Tiger Mountain 
by Storm— 
had been such a dull boring performance. I wonder whether what we might be seeing now is the New Zealand equivalent—so maybe “Helen and the Dreamers Take Mount Taranaki by Central Control” or the “Hutt River Concerto” or the “Michael Cullen Piano Minuet”. But maybe that could be a little pretty. 
Undoubtedly it is a matter of great shame for the Labour Government that it has decided to shackle this treasured national orchestra of ours with such ridiculous functions and objectives as outlined in this bill. Why is it necessary for the State to say that this orchestra must have a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment? The Minister was not able to explain what that is. Surely the public of New Zealand would wish that that distinctively New Zealand cultural environment was something spontaneous that could sustain itself from the spontaneous wishes of that public. 
When one goes on and reads in clause 9 “Functions of Orchestra” that the Minister must consult the orchestra and has a very pivotal part in carrying out “functions consistent with its principal objectives”—as agreed to by that very same Minister—one is very concerned indeed. The structure of the existing limited-liability company is one in which the State has absolutely no expectation of what the orchestra plays or how it plays it. As my colleague from ACT Heather Roy pointed out before too long the State will dictate how the violins play. It is absurd but it is the sort of thing that could happen under this Labour Government and New Zealand’s national orchestra is far too precious for that to occur. That is why the National Party of New Zealand is so deeply concerned at the way this Government is trying to shape and mould one of our artistic icons. 
There has been a fair amount of discussion and concern about the board’s structure—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is quite right—and once again I think it is important to point out this Labour Government’s inconsistencies. Here—and quite rightly Mr Cosgrove—the Labour Government is being pure in terms of its governance structure. There is a $15 million budget but when it comes to the 21 district health boards with a budget of $8 billion the Government insists on boards elected by majority. When it is the big picture the Government has no concern for the financial disciplines that are so hugely important. 
Certainly there are whole variations in the structures of orchestras around the world and in some of the most successful orchestras such as the London Symphony Orchestra founded in 1904. It is an independent orchestra that has deserved its tremendous reputation by being supported entirely by the public with no Government help. It is absolutely sensitive to the public and absolutely insensitive to Government control. What do we have in New Zealand? We have the Labour Government making one of our icons more and more unresponsive to the very important disciplines of being both commercial and responsive to public concerns about the sort of music it plays. Oh no! What the Government wants to do is prescribe the music. That is anathema to what musicians and music lovers want. 
It is interesting that through the committee structure the orchestra has at present it has consistently met the board prior to every meeting so there is a two-way exchange of views between the board and the musicians. If one goes to the criteria for appointing board members in clause 1 of schedule 1 one sees it is important that: “In making appointments to the board … the Minister must in particular have regard to the need for members to have among them an appropriate balance of governance and financial skills and an awareness of artistic matters relevant to the role of the board.” So it is very clearly spelt out. 
This bill has certainly come from deep within the minds and genes of the New Zealand Labour Party. The essence of the question is should the ability of an orchestra to flourish and pursue artistic independence and excellence be curbed by unnecessary State-directed functions and objectives? The Labour Government says “Yes”; the National Party says “No”. This bill is off-key out of tune and even if the Labour Government flatly denies it its shrill crescendos of fortissimo make no difference to the fact that it is prescribing State control.