Rich Katherine: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4636] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I would first like to make a couple of points about the previous speech given by the Labour member. I totally refute that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is or was a languishing icon. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has always been an icon of this country. It remains an icon and it will always play a very important part in the cultural heritage of this country. 
In terms of the creative process however I argue that it is not the role of the State to codify the creative process. We have a 31-page bill here that basically tells the orchestra how to suck eggs how to play its instruments. It basically says that the orchestra’s job is to play symphonic music. Well I say “Hello?”. I think we have always known that that is its role since it was first established. I think the orchestra has always been pretty clear that that is its role. We do not need the extension of regulation and legislation into these sorts of areas. 
This is nothing more than a piece of symbolism. The Government is aiming to demonstrate its commitment to the arts. But I say it is not our role to stand here in Parliament and pass legislation to make a certain part of a sector feel good. We are here to pass laws that are necessary and useful and have a role. The role of passing legislation is a very expensive one. The Parliamentary Library tells me that a piece of legislation can cost anywhere between $300000 and $800000; some estimates are up to $2 million. That is a lot of money to spend on passing legislation that is actually unnecessary. 
If the Government wants to put its money where its mouth is why not take that money and give it straight to the Symphony Orchestra? At least the money then could be put into performance into something that would make a difference to New Zealand people. The money that will be spent discussing this very large bill which basically tells the orchestra to play music should be put into a national tour by the orchestra allowing it to play in some of the far-flung areas that it may not have been to in the past. That is a far more useful and far better use of scarce taxpayer resources than standing up here and talking about things that we already know. 
I do not think the Symphony Orchestra has any concerns about what its role is because it is stated in its statement of corporate intent: to play live orchestral concerts to the highest international standards; to contract top-level international conductors and performers within budget limitations; to promote and support New Zealand artists and composers in both concerts and recordings; and to perform regularly in communities throughout New Zealand. Those are very important objectives but they are already there. The orchestra already knows what it is doing. The Government is not fixing any problem here; it simply wants to demonstrate to a group that it is doing something for the arts. Well I say that is not our role. We are here to pass laws that are necessary and will make a difference. The orchestra is doing an extremely good job in following the legislation that is already in place. 
The next aim of the bill is to change the orchestra’s structure. Well the approach of the orchestra could be changed without our putting through this legislation. I do not think the organisation has been run in a totally commercial sense. Yes it does some popular things like playing the music of Split Enz but if one looks at the orchestra’s schedules for last season and this season one sees there is a fine mix between the popular and the particular between playing some well-known pieces and supporting some less well-known artists and in particular supporting New Zealand music. 
It is very interesting that this Government continues to talk about supporting New Zealand music when among the key groups that do not support New Zealand producers and music are not the commercial network but Concert FM and the orchestra itself. I think the orchestra could do a better job of presenting and producing more New Zealand works rather than just tried and true pieces from around the world. It seems that the Government is intent on imposing local content quotas to which I say it should have a look at Concert FM. The last time I looked at that radio station’s annual report I saw that between 3 and 4 percent of what it currently plays is New Zealand - produced music. 
In addition I do not think one can codify parts of the creative process. It is very difficult for any organisation to measure things like quality. Most New Zealanders already know the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. They know the part that it has played in our culture. They know what it is there to do. We do not need to waste parliamentary time or the money involved in our doing this just to tell the Symphony Orchestra that its job is to play music. The orchestra knows its raison d’être; it knows why it is there. When one looks at the costs of putting this bill through the House one has to ask why the Government does not just give the orchestra that money for it to put it into performances. 
Steve Chadwick 
: But you didn’t—that’s the reason. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I ask that member why the Government does not put the money into a performance in Rotorua. The orchestra should tour more places in New Zealand than just Wellington and Auckland. Yes it does make a fine attempt at going to other places but one could take the orchestra to a lot more New Zealand places with the millions of dollars that will be spent on this legislation which we do not need. 
Jill Pettis 
: We know you’re better than this. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I say to that member that I bet she thinks  
Pachelbel’s Canon 
 is something being used by the Iraqis right now. When was the last time that member went to hear the Symphony Orchestra? In terms of a love of music and a love of the orchestra I think the members who are speaking about this bill are the ones who really know how important cultural aspects are. We do not need a bill to tell us the role of the orchestra. We do not need 31 pages which basically give a blow-by-blow account of what the orchestra is there to do. Most of us know that this is nothing more than a bill to make the Government feel good. It wants to hold this bill up and say: “Look what we did for the orchestra.” 
New Zealanders are not thick. They do not need a bill that tells the Symphony Orchestra that its role is to work with the New Zealand ballet and opera companies. We do not need legislation to set out the role of the Auckland Philharmonia. We do not need legislation to tell the Dunedin Symphonia what to do. We do not need legislation to set up pipe bands or brass bands around the country or to tell them what to play or what the quality of their music should be. This is just absolute silliness. I think it will switch a lot of New Zealanders off because they will be able to see through this 31-page bill. 
Here we are in urgency and this bill is supposed to be the urgent order of the day but I think there are many other bills on the Order Paper that we should be focusing on. If the Government wants to put its money where its mouth is it should pull this bill right now. It should take the money that will be spent on putting the bill through the select committee process and give it to the orchestra so that it can use the money to take itself on the road and do more performing because that is its job.