Coddington Deborah: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Coddington Deborah: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17886. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I find it interesting that United Future thinks it has a monopoly on morals and on what defines a family and that if two people are living together and are not married—well it actually makes one want to rush out and sin when one hears speeches like that. Chance would be a fine thing! I want to draw the Committee’s attention to some anomalies in this legislation that Lockwood Smith has already highlighted—that is the definition of “direction” and the direction given by a Minister to an employee of a Crown entity. If one looks at the definition of Crown entities one finds under “Autonomous Crown entities” that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is included in the schedules. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra actually comes under the definition of Part 2 of schedule 5 which means that it “must have regard to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister”. We have two responsible Ministers here: the Prime Minister and the Hon Judith Tizard. What does this mean when the first violinist who is an employee of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is playing “dead white man’s music” which the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has publicly said is not Government policy. She said that it is not Government policy that we should be playing “dead white man’s music”. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra should be playing the music of people like Gareth Farr— 
Rod Donald 
: Fantastic music. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I do not deny that Gareth Farr and some of our New Zealand composers such as Jack Body are very good composers but we have a very dangerous situation when any Government or any Minister can direct what sort of music a symphony orchestra can play just because we have State funding of the arts. I would like a situation of having a free society where there is totally private funding of the arts. I know that that is not a reality at the moment so I will not advocate that there should be no State funding of the arts. But there should be a strictly hands-off State funding. 
This is one of the issues this legislation raises. When we have a definition of “direction” meaning “a direction given by a Minister under this Act” to a member—or to an employee as the Hon Lockwood Smith pointed out—of what can be an autonomous Crown entity that has to have regard to Government policy when directed by the responsible Minister then we start treading in quicksand. We get into swampy ground. 
These are the sorts of things that this legislation should not be concerned with. It brings me back to what the Vice-chancellors Committee is concerned about. It is the principle of the Government’s clammy hands encroaching on all areas of life. Now I am very sorry that I am keeping the Minister up but it was his Government’s choice to go into urgency so he has to endure another hour— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I haven’t been so bored for a very long time. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well as I said it is his Government’s choice to do this. I object to Ministers responsible like the Prime Minister and Judith Tizard directing a symphony orchestra but the Minister should think of the principle. He might enjoy the music that the Prime Minister and the Associate Minister direct that the employees of the Symphony Orchestra should play. He should think about what the implications would be if I were the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and directed that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra should play the music of say Diana Krall.