Coddington Deborah: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12320] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 is the main part of this legislation. I would like to guide the National Party if I can. What we have here today is MMP working. We have United Future New Zealand First the Green Party and ACT all agreeing that there must be provision in this legislation for a representative from the players in the orchestra to be on the board. It is really important that we do not have a board that is concerned only with financial and governance matters. Sure they are important—they are vitally important—but the players’ committee submitted to the select committee that they wish to be on there because that is how this legislation will be put in place. We must have someone there who knows about the artistic and musical objectives of the orchestra. They need to know what is of an international standard and what is good New Zealand music but the National Party and the Labour Party are united in their opposition to having a representative from the players the actual people in the orchestra on the board. 
I am puzzled as to why that should be. All I can imagine the reason as being is that they think that because some people are artistic and can play a musical instrument they have absolutely no knowledge of financial matters and that it should all be left to the people who know best. This is what MMP is all about and I would urge the National Party to change its stance. Why is it that we cannot have a player on the board? Is it because the Prime Minister does not want a player on the board and wants to have total control over the orchestra? 
This bill is about control. It is overly prescriptive. It goes into excessive detail as to what the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra must and must not do. For instance it must be artistically imaginative and must play to an international standard and the board is required to make sure that these things happen. How can the board ensure that these things happen without having someone on the board who is actually part of the orchestra—an actual player in the orchestra who is down in the orchestra pit at the cliff face doing what really matters to get those people into the venues and listening to the orchestra? Without it it just ain’t going to happen. 
What happens if these board members do not meet the principal objectives which I have just spelt out a few of which are so prescriptive? If they do not meet these objectives the Minister has the power to remove them from office. So here we have an impossible situation set up—absolutely impossible. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is being set up to fail because National and Labour will not allow a representative from the orchestra to be on the board to ensure that the principal objectives are carried out the principles that only a member of the orchestra can be fully knowledgable about. Only an orchestra member can be fully knowledgable about how we get to those principal objectives and how they are carried out. Only a member of the orchestra can do that. 
The Prime Minister does not want one on the board we know. She wants to control the orchestra and the National Party does not want one there and I would advise them very strongly to think very carefully about the way they vote and I would also remind people that this is why they need the ACT party in Parliament. If the National Party is in Government next time it will need ACT there to remind it about how MMP actually works. That is why we will be supporting the amendment that has been put forward by Mike Ward of the Greens to clause 2. His amendment states: “The board must consist of not fewer than five members and not more than eight members including the chairperson appointed by the Minister. One of these members must be a permanent player of the orchestra appointed by the Minister after consultation with orchestra players.” We are not dealing with a State-owned enterprise. The orchestra is a Crown-owned entity. There is a difference. 
There may be an objection that there is a precedent to be set. Well if we are going to have legislation that controls and rules how our Symphony Orchestra operates—an organisation that is by its nature made up of a number of creative individuals—then the orchestra must have a representative on the board.