Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4638] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Contrary to the previous speaker United Future believes that art is important and a necessary ingredient in the well-being of our country and culture. United Future supports the general thrust of this bill and what it aims to do. We are therefore very happy to support this bill through its first reading to the select committee stage. We agree that although New Zealand’s top orchestra certainly has commercial obligations it is not really a company. To reconstitute it as a Crown entity is therefore entirely appropriate. However in supporting this bill we do so with a note of irony given the arm’s length at which the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was kept by a Labour Government in the late 1980s; but having now changed its ideological pants and its musical tune it is funnily enough a Labour-led Government that is reconstituting the orchestra’s status to become a Crown entity. 
In terms of the previous legislation the shares of the company were held by the responsible Minister and the Minister of Finance. The function of the orchestra is set out absolutely nowhere in the 1988 Act. It had responsibilities only in respect of the Companies Act. Its status as our national orchestra did not even warrant a mention. It is therefore conceivable that we could have had an orchestra company that ceased to function as an orchestra at all. 
This legislation is necessary to protect our national orchestra as one of our cultural treasures. This bill provides exactly for that and in terms of the orchestra’s survival and stability it is vital that we do that now and into the future. United Future’s election policy also supports providing for the orchestra to be put on a sure footing for the long term. We are therefore glad to see steps being made toward that. However we flag our concerns regarding the accountability of the tax money spent and what the taxpayer will receive. The orchestra has made a $538000 profit in the year 2001 and that is its first surplus since 1997—although it was helped by the Government’s cash boost in 2000 as part of its arts package—compared with the loss of $1.5 million in 1998-99. 
Should there be a tighter definition of financial viability so that the orchestra is more able to live within its means? We think so. On a related topic some feel that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra already gets too much at the expense of regional orchestras and other arts. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has the biggest budget of the professional arts organisations and is the only one to pay directors’ fees. The concern is that by drawing the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra so close to the State’s bosom it will continue to suckle without restraint. 
There are also suspicions in the music world that the orchestra is managerially top-heavy. The bill creates a new board which is appointed by the Minister but it is not clear whether it will be larger than the existing governing body of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. A cynic would suggest that this might create more opportunities for political appointments. 
However contrary to the older legislation this new bill provides some principal objectives for the orchestra including the provision of performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard and the provision of an orchestra that is highly skilled and has strong community support. More important the orchestra is to take a leading role in the performing arts industry in developing New Zealand’s cultural environment. It will encourage composition in New Zealand and it will provide opportunities for the development of our own musicians. United Future supports the promotion of and the long-term provision for our New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and therefore is proud to support this bill.