New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12300] 
New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill enters a cultural environment that has been strengthened by the additional resources allocated to it by the Government and Parliament over the past 4 years. We made that investment in order to ensure that New Zealand’s cultural infrastructure is demonstrably robust and sustainable. With that knowledge and commitment we celebrate the institutions and people who enrich our culture as well as enable New Zealanders to participate in our culture and to have access to the many strands that make it up. Our commitment to the creative sector saw an injection of funding in 2000 to place some of our most cherished national cultural institutions on a secure footing base—in many cases for the first time. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is one of this country’s flagship cultural institutions in which New Zealanders have taken great pride and pleasure for nearly 60 years. A suite of excellent regional orchestras complements the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra thus ensuring that a wider New Zealand audience has ready access to orchestral music of very high quality. New Zealanders are very well served by our orchestral institutions but the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has not always been well served by the financial and legal parameters imposed on its operations. Since it was established in 1988 there has been very little change to those parameters. The capital funding of $3 million allocated to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in 2000 established a more stable financial base for its functioning. At the same time this Government allocated an extra $1.4 million annually to ensure that the orchestra would be adequately resourced. With this bill we address the legislative platform of the orchestra’s operation. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is currently a Crown-owned limited liability company. It is operated within a commercial framework in keeping with the provisions of the Companies Act. However as the owner and principal funder the Government does not necessarily expect the orchestra to achieve operating surpluses. Although the orchestra is required to remain financially viable its prime responsibility and role is to deliver world-class performances of orchestral music to New Zealand audiences throughout New Zealand. In doing so it helps to build a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment. 
In 2000 the current company structure of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was reviewed in the context of the State Services Commission’s programme of reforms of Crown entities. The purpose of establishing the orchestra as a limited liability company had been to use the provisions of the Companies Act as an incentive to the board to act prudently in its financial management. Those provisions have had little effect on the orchestra’s operations. Moreover the company structure does not reflect this Government’s primary interest in the orchestra which we have already described. Therefore one of the primary purposes of this bill is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company established under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act to an autonomous non-company Crown entity. That structure will ensure that robust accountability requirements and the obligations of the board to act prudently in financial management are maintained. However it does not in any way imply that Governments or Ministers could direct the choices made by the orchestra. 
An important principle underpinning this bill is that of artistic freedom. The bill will ensure that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra operates without ministerial direction in all artistic matters. That reflects a well-established principle that cultural sector Crown agencies operate at arm’s length from the Government without ministerial direction. That principle is embodied for example in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act and in the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act. It empowers those cultural agencies to pursue their objectives and perform their functions while promoting and maintaining freedom of artistic expression with no direct political intervention. Robust governance and accountability requirements are included in the bill and the board will be accountable to the Government through the collective and individual duties imposed on its members and through its reporting requirements under the Public Finance Act. 
The principal Act does not prescribe the orchestra’s purpose and functions nor does it spell out the Government’s or Parliament’s expectations of it. Therefore the second primary purpose of this bill is to clarify the orchestra’s role as a touring national orchestra by establishing in legislation its principal objectives and functions. The principal objectives and functions will provide a common understanding about the orchestra’s responsibilities and scope. The principal objectives describe in broad terms the leadership role that the orchestra is expected to take in the New Zealand cultural environment. The orchestra will provide New Zealanders with symphonic music performed to international standards and encourage the development of New Zealand music musicians and composers. The functions expressed in the bill reflect the high-level expectations of the orchestra. They include ensuring that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance including New Zealand works and recent works encouraging the development of New Zealand musicians and encouraging the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of music. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s board and management have been actively consulted during the development of the bill as has the general public. Creative New Zealand and the four major regional orchestras have been briefed on the bill’s contents and progress and all relevant cultural and artistic agencies had the opportunity to make submissions on its content during the Government Administration Committee hearings. The bill was first read in February last year and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. The committee received 15 written submissions and heard five oral submissions. I thank the select committee for its excellent work. Some issues were quite hotly argued and I am sure that the debate in the House will reflect that. 
Submitters strongly supported and endorsed the general intention of the bill. The issues that they raised focused in particular on the objectives and functions set out in clauses 8 and 9. That those clauses attracted the most attention was to be expected as they specify the orchestra’s purpose and function for the first time in legislation. Given the orchestra’s very high profile as a flagship performing arts organisation there was high interest amongst the submitters in general—in particular amongst those from the music sector—in the Government’s expectations of the orchestra and in the nature of its contribution to the cultural life of New Zealand. It was reassuring that the proposed amendments to the orchestra’s principal objectives and functions generally sought to provide an extension or a refinement of or to give greater emphasis to the existing provisions of the newly drafted bill and did not propose fundamental changes to it. I thank all the submitters who took the time to look at the bill. 
Some submissions on the principal objectives provided textural amendments that became overly detailed and potentially proscriptive. Those amendments were rejected. The objectives and functions are articulated at a sufficiently high level to allow the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra executive and board to develop the orchestra’s strategic and business plans independently and to agree to a statement of intent with the responsible Minister. Accordingly the select committee did not recommend any amendments that would limit the orchestra’s flexibility in that area. We will go through the amendments as we go through the Committee stage so suffice it to say at this stage that the committee made four major recommendations for changes to the bill. I thank the committee for that excellent refinement of this legislation. 
I add one further point. I am aware that in considering the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in the bill the select committee had its convictions in relation to the vital part played by New Zealand’s regional orchestras confirmed. This legislation does not necessarily affect those orchestras but I share the committee’s view about their vital place. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is extremely important to New Zealand and to New Zealanders. So too are the regional orchestras and I am confident that that importance will be acknowledged by the support they receive through Creative New Zealand and by the collegial support they will receive from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
The Government is particularly pleased to see the performing arts community including the regional orchestras and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra responding so positively to the intent and spirit of this bill. The community recognises and respects the invaluable service that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has provided to New Zealanders during its very long history. It is an irreplaceable feature of our cultural landscape. As Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage I look forward to seeing our national symphony orchestra flourish within the appropriate legislative framework and to its continuing wonderful performance as an artistic institution. I am confident that the ongoing cultural benefits that accrue from the Government’s commitment to the orchestra will benefit all New Zealanders. I thank the individuals and groups that made submissions on the bill and I am grateful to the members of the select committee and the other parties in the House for working so constructively on it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on this unnecessary New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I must admit that the very thought of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra fills me with great enthusiasm. National very much supports the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and very much supports the concepts of artistic independence and artistic excellence but we do not support a Labour Government bill enshrining the orchestra in unnecessary legislation. It is quite ironic that the Prime Minister Helen Clark praised the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra saying it is iconic—and so do we—yet she wants to enshroud it in all sorts of unnecessary legislation and to prescribe its functions and objectives. The question really is when is a symphony orchestra not a symphony orchestra and the answer is when its functions are enshrined in Helen Clark legislation. Just what is it in the genetic make-up of the New Zealand Labour Party that makes its members unable to resist the temptation to involve State control in every piece of legislation they can think up? 
In this particular case the Government has the gall to suggest that it is in the name of artistic independence. The policy statement in the explanatory note of the first reading copy states: “The primary purpose of this Bill is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra … from that of a limited liability company established under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 to a non-company Crown entity. … The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 does not prescribe the Orchestra’s purpose and functions nor government’s expectations of it. As a limited liability company the Orchestra operates within the requirements of the Companies Act 1993. Consequently it is expected to carry out functions that are commercial in nature.” 
What is wrong with that? Why prescribe the functions and objectives of an organisation that thrives and flourishes when it is given the ability to do so? It is quite quite ironic that the Prime Minister of New Zealand who so enthusiastically praises the orchestra and its past successes now wants to destroy them. 
When one looks around at some of the world’s greatest orchestras it is quite obvious that those with some of the finest artistic performers and with absolute quintessential creativity have organisations that owe their very existence to obeying commercial principles. I think of the London Symphony Orchestra the London Philharmonic Orchestra the Chicago Symphony Orchestra the Cleveland Orchestra and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. They are all orchestras that exist on being absolutely responsive to the public—not to a Government prescription which is exactly what the Labour Government wants. Here in New Zealand we have only to think of the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. That is a very successful orchestra that operates extremely successfully with no legislation and with a cost in terms of Government help of about 15 percent per year of that of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
Some of the world’s finest orchestras are in America and this is the prescription that encapsulates them: “An organisational structure that canonises the music director a volunteer support system that creates serious tension between the art of music making and the business of orchestral management and a reliance on community sponsorship that juxtaposes popular taste with the moral virtues of serious art.” It is quite extraordinary to look at the principal objectives and functions that the Labour Government has dreamt up for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I go immediately to clause 8(c) which states: “to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment:”. What does that mean and why does it have to be prescribed in legislation when we have had a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra that performs extremely well? The Government admits—in fact it cries from the rooftops—how well it has been performing but oh no the Labour Government wants it to develop a “distinctively New Zealand” cultural aspect. 
It gets worse. The functions in clause 9 include: “(f) to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. The Minister has to be brought into those objectives and functions. The Government just cannot help itself. On the one hand we have the Labour Government saying what a great orchestra it is under its present structure. But oh no the Government has to enshrine and entangle it in prescriptive legislation. It cannot help itself. 
There has been a little bit of debate about the board structure itself. Again there is an enormous irony there. There has been quite a lot of thought about putting a player on to the board. There are many orchestras around the world that do that. But no the Labour Government says: “Let’s be pure on governance when it comes to the $10 million Symphony Orchestra but when it comes to the $8 billion district health boards oh no we have to have a majority-elected system. We have to have a majority-elected system when it comes to $8 billion but when it comes to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra we are going to be pure.” The Labour Government has perpetrated some awful confusion on us and at times it is very hard to keep up with it. The very cost of the legislation—$1 million—surely would have been far better put towards the musicians themselves but no let us drag it through the House and the select committee for the cost of $1 million. 
I want to recall an experience I had listening to the Shanghai Orchestra that visited New Zealand 20 years ago. In the first half of the concert it played the  
Yellow River Concerto 
 and  
Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy 
. It was an awful plodding boring experience. But in the second half of the programme it played traditional Chinese music that had been generated and had evolved through thousands of years of experience and was played with a whole range of orchestral instruments. It was pure magic. The clear contrast is that of State-controlled music versus that of an orchestra given its head. This bill that the Labour Government is perpetrating is most unfortunate. The Government praises the orchestra as it is yet it wants to shackle it quite unnecessarily. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is carrying out a superb job as it is. The National Party wants it to flourish and we wish it all the very best without this unnecessary legislation. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the Government Administration Committee which heard the submissions on this bill I wish to support it. I particularly want to thank the members of the orchestra who set a very enjoyable precedent by playing a little mini-concert for the committee. We thank them for that and it was a pleasure to have them at the committee. The bill does not mandate that a member of the orchestra be a member of the board but it distinctly states in schedule 1 that the board should include a balance of members with financial and artistic awareness. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
:  
It is my pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First to speak once again to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I have had the opportunity to read the report from the Government Administration Committee. We do not have a regular member on that committee so I have had to keep in touch with what is going on. In reading the report I am pleased that the committee has given such broad recognition to the submissions that have been made to it. As the previous National Party speaker said this bill restructures the orchestra from being a company under the Companies Act 1993 but he did not quite make it clear that it now becomes an autonomous non-company Crown entity and the existing limited-liability legislation is brought to an end. As the commentary indicates: “In becoming an autonomous Crown entity the Orchestra will be subject to the reporting requirements set out in the Public Finance Act 1989.” That is important for us all as members of Parliament; if the taxpayer is going to make money available to the orchestra there should be a mechanism by which the taxpayer has some opportunity to consider the way in which the money is being spent and in this case it will be in terms of the Public Finance Act. 
The select committee is quick to point out and New Zealand First supports this view: “Notwithstanding these requirements in artistic matters the Orchestra will be able to operate independently and without ministerial direction.” That is clear from the functions provision of the legislation as well although that does not seem to have been quite recognised appropriately by the previous National Party speaker. 
All the regional orchestras around New Zealand will be pleased that on page 2 under the heading “Recognition of professional regional orchestras” the select committee has taken the trouble to refer to the work done throughout the country. I think recognition should be given. The committee states: “We note that the bill does not provide any recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras such as the Auckland Philharmonia and the Wellington and Southern Sinfonias. The Auckland Philharmonia commented that the bill’s lack of recognition of other professional orchestras could be interpreted to mean that the Orchestra is the only professional one in New Zealand. The Philharmonia expressed its concern that such an interpretation could preclude government support and recognition of professional regional orchestras. 
To address the Philharmonia’s concern we would have supported the inclusion of a preamble in the bill to provide for the formal recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras. However as the bill was introduced without a preamble one’’—unfortunately—“cannot be inserted by way of amendment to the bill. We therefore wish to offer our support and recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras that serve New Zealand audiences so well. Our intent in providing this recognition is to ensure that enactment of the bill does not see the preclusion of government support and recognition of our professional regional orchestras.” 
I would expect that all the professional regional orchestras in the country should bear that in mind if there is ever any problem with regard to recognition and appropriate financial support from time to time. This House greatly appreciates the work they do. I seem to recall that in my first reading speech I mentioned in particular the Auckland Philharmonia the Wellington Sinfonia and the Southern Sinfonia and I am pleased the select committee has taken the matter forward. 
The bill contains a functions clause and slightly more emphasis should be given to it than has been given. The functions are set out in clause 9. In particular paragraphs (a) to (e) look at the actual work the orchestra does and ensure it is given independence in so far as those functions are concerned. Any involvement by the Minister is set out in paragraph (f). Paragraphs (a) to (d) ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire and encourages the development of New Zealand musicians the appreciation of orchestral music and the development and expansion of the orchestra’s audience which is perhaps one of the most important things—to make sure there are bums on seats when the orchestra comes to town. In general from all the advice I get the orchestra is especially appreciated in the regional areas of New Zealand—more so sometimes than in Auckland for which I can speak with some degree of authority. Paragraph (e) describes the function of providing a touring orchestra. 
All those functions are performed without any advice from the Minister because paragraph (f) states that the orchestra is “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. So presumably if the orchestra wants to go off to London it has to consult the Minister about that before it comes to that decision. Equally important in paragraph (g) is the function “to co-operate with other institutions and organisations having objectives similar to those of the Orchestra.” That brings us back to those regional orchestras and suchlike and perhaps to some of the smaller ones. The Bach Musica which meets often at Auckland’s St Matthew-in-the-City is one of those that I am sure would be taken into account as well. 
In looking at the principal objectives of the orchestra New Zealand First is concerned that not enough recognition is given to the orchestra being a full-time professional orchestra and we propose an amendment to clause 8(b) at the Committee stage. Clause 8(b) just says that a principal objective of the orchestra is “to provide an orchestra that—”. Some of the submissions have indicated that that does not necessarily mean a full-time orchestra and one can take that point. All sorts of interpretations come up when we look at legislation after it has been passed and the opportunity to amend the legislation and make it abundantly clear is here and now. The Hon Brian Donnelly proposed to move an amendment. Unfortunately he is not here today so I am doing it on his behalf. We intend to delete the words “an orchestra” and insert in their place the words “a full-time professional orchestra”. The insertion of the word “full-time” will put the matter beyond doubt. I hope we will have the support of the Government and the House. 
The other amendment we have is to clause 9(g) which reads “to co-operate with other institutions and organisations having objectives similar to those of the Orchestra.” After the word “Orchestra” we would like to have inserted “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations” which is a fair enough statement. So New Zealand First will be moving those amendments. We see other amendments with regard to a players’ committee meaning a committee of players in the orchestra established for the purpose of fair representation and we do support the concept of fair representation. We will be supporting amendments along those lines. 
There has been some criticism of the Government by the National Party with regard to the nature of this bill. Of course that is fair enough. That is what Parliament is all about. We are here to criticise each other and find out what others’ views are. I look forward to the next National Party speaker telling us whether it is a National Party proposal to sell the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in the event that the National Party should become the Government. I go slightly further: one of the vehicles that carries the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s playing is Radio New Zealand which includes Concert FM and I would like to know as an avid Concert FM listener whether the National Party has a policy to sell Radio New Zealand or perhaps to curtail Concert FM. National may regard it as a station that is not needed in society. So will Concert FM go if there is a National Party Government? I would not support that at all. I do that from purely selfish personal interest. I wake up to Concert FM in the morning and I go to bed with Concert FM at night and I declare my conflict of interest my personal interest in the matter straight away. If National Party members criticise the Government and other parties which is fair enough it is beholden on us in New Zealand First to ask the National Party whether we will see the end of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra if National becomes the Government. Will we see the end of Concert FM if National becomes the Government? Its members are silent now but I expect we shall hear something from them on this issue before the debate is concluded. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will be supporting this bill. It is good legislation. To prescribe that a principal objective and function of the orchestra is support of New Zealand music and composers is an important part. For a long time New Zealanders have had the idea that the bit of our culture that distinguishes us is the bit that the tangata whenua bring to us—we take great pride in that—and that has been our culture. In fact we have a very strong artistic culture from our European heritage too and the orchestra is an important part of that. 
It is a very good orchestra. It not only gives strength to the best of our music but also gives strength to our up-and-coming musicians. In the space of the last month I have been to two orchestral performances in Nelson one by the Nelson Symphony Orchestra and the other by the Youth Orchestra in Nelson. Both of those orchestras contain very young musicians who are looking for a career pathway and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra provides that goal for them. 
In terms of the membership of the board we have some difficulty with the exclusion of player membership. In fact although there is the possibility of a player being appointed it is fairly clear that the management of the orchestra is not keen on that and the Minister in charge of the bill does not seem to be keen on it either. It seems to me that with the level of expertise memory and experience contained in the orchestra it makes very good sense to have orchestral membership on the board. The Greens will be putting forward an amendment to substitute a subclause that makes provision for player membership on the board. For those who suggest that perhaps the interests of the players might override the broader interests of the orchestra I would suggest to them that the requirement that board members play a lesser role when considering issues with which they have an interest greater than that of the public at large probably means that in fact that would not be possible—that a player member would have to take a lesser role on issues that affected the orchestra’s members. 
I would suggest too that the orchestra have a single member on the board. That member would be one member out of five to eight members; if that member wants to convince the rest of the board of the virtue of his or her ideas he or she would have to put up a pretty persuasive case. Such a member would bring unique knowledge not only of the music but also of the practical implications of the decisions that are made and their effect on the day-to-day running of an orchestra. For that reason it is important that the board membership includes a player member of the orchestra. 
It has been suggested that another amendment would make it possible for the Minister to appoint both the chief executive and a player member. It would be unusual for the chief executive to be a member of the board. The chief executive will always be there and although not having a voting role will have a very great influence on the deliberations of the board. 
We will support the bill but with that amendment. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is not supporting this bill. We do not see that it is necessary and we are not quite sure why the Minister is putting it forward. We are not sure what she is trying to fix—what is broken. On reading through the legislation it appears to me that we are actually making the situation worse than it is at the moment especially when we see it being brought in under urgency. 
If we look at the history of this legislation we see that there are some very serious anomalies in the bill and there are some serious omissions from it. On reading the history of the legislation I see that some of the most important submitters to it—the player representatives themselves—have been ignored. I wonder why that is so. I wonder why the Minister is so averse to having a representative from the actual orchestra on the board. Is there an assumption that because one is creative and artistic one therefore has no knowledge of governance and financial matters? That is an arrogant assumption. There is no evidence that just because somebody can play a musical instrument to the standard of being in a national symphony orchestra that person does not have the ability to sit on a board and take part in the daily indeed annual running of the orchestra. 
The primary purpose of this bill is to turn the orchestra from a limited liability company into an autonomous Crown entity—in other words as my colleague Heather Roy said during the first reading so that it cannot go broke. One would doubt whether any Government would let the orchestra go broke because even if they do not like going to listen to the symphony orchestra everybody in New Zealand likes having it there. If their children learn musical instruments membership of the orchestra is something for them to aspire to. Indeed as a parent who has forked out thousands of dollars for musical lessons I know it is an incentive for urging one’s children on to practise. 
If we take the annual report of the symphony orchestra for the year ended June 2002 we read that the chief executive stated in his overview: “In most months of the 2001-2002 year we recorded better than budget income and lower than forecast expenditure. This reflects sound management underpinned by sure-footed artistic decisions that have resulted in significant increases in audience numbers through the country.” If we take that on its own we have to wonder why we are bringing in this legislation. 
If we go a bit further we see chairman Selwyn Cushing lamenting the fact that sponsorship has been dropping off. I think that two of the main sponsors Air New Zealand and Telecom New Zealand did not continue their sponsorship. Maybe that is what the Minister is trying to fix with this new legislation. If the organisation cannot go broke maybe corporates will be more prepared to sponsor it. But I would argue that the reason that corporate sponsorship is dropping off from organisations like the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Opera New Zealand etc. is because companies in New Zealand—small and medium as well as big companies—are facing increasingly high compliance costs. They are spending more of their profits on having to comply with legislation that we put through this House in urgency and outside urgency. 
We have only to look at what has gone through in the last 18 months to see legislation that has forced companies to spend more of their profits not on sponsorship of things like the symphony orchestra but on things like health and safety stress management and now increased holiday pay. That had already been built into wages over the years but now it has to be added on top. We will see more and more sponsorship of those sorts of organisations drop off unless we get serious about improving the economy in this country and let companies and individuals keep more of their own money so that they can become donors or sponsors. Simply passing legislation to turn something into a Crown entity will not solve that problem. 
If we take clause 8 we will see what the principal objectives of the orchestra are. The orchestra will be required to perform music “to an international standard”. Says who? Who will police that? What will happen if it does not? Will they take out the piano player and shoot him? Will they sack the lead violin? Why are we legislating for those sorts of things? Another objective is to provide an orchestra that has “strong community support”. It already has strong community support. How do we legislate for an “artistically imaginative” orchestra? It is ridiculous that we are introducing those sorts of terms into legislation. 
Being “artistically imaginative” is something people are born with. They can develop it through hard work they can hone it they can improve it but we cannot legislate for it. A symphony orchestra is simply made up of a number of individuals all of whom have artistic imagination. We cannot pass legislation and by law order a group of musicians to have artistic imagination. It seems to me that this Government is reaching new heights in ordering and bossing people about and telling them what it expects them to do. 
I come back to the issue of board membership. We will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Mr Marc Alexander of United Future because it seems to me that—despite the Minister standing up and saying that she supports artists and everything in this country—by not having a representative of the artists of the orchestra on the board she is not supporting the artists at all. 
The players committee made submissions which were very well set out on why there needs to be a representative of the permanent players on the board. That has been totally ignored. I would like the Minister to take another call and explain to us why she has deliberately left that provision out of the legislation. Why is she so adverse to it? It is not simply an oversight; it seems to me to be a deliberate slight to the players in the symphony orchestra. 
The Minister would obviously rather read her newspaper than consider how the players in the orchestra feel. Perhaps if one of them were good at knitting he or she would get on the board. I would argue that we cannot have the board of a symphony orchestra without a representative from the musicians on it and that is why we will be supporting Marc Alexander’s Supplementary Order Paper when it comes to the vote. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I do not mind at all having a little bit of an opportunity to sing the praises of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I am an avid follower of the orchestra. I think it is rightly recognised as one of the leading institutions in the arts sector and we should all be singing its praises. National supports artistic excellence and artistic independence and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has shown itself to represent the best of that. The opportunity to sing its praises is certainly welcomed. 
However the time of this House is being taken up with a bill that is overly prescriptive and overly controlling of an institution that is being asked to maintain its artistic independence and artistic integrity. That in my view is rather unfortunate and totally unnecessary. I recall some words that Minister Maharey said when the bill first surfaced. He said that nothing in the legislation would diminish the Symphony Orchestra’s artistic independence or integrity. He said it would continue to act without ministerial or indeed parliamentary direction in artistic matters. He said it would be required to seek to contribute to the development of a distinctly New Zealand cultural environment—whatever that is. This Government is great for adding provisions to legislation that seem to indicate that the one-size-fits-all concept is right for New Zealanders. New Zealand has a multilayered multicultural environment and one has to have a little bit of sympathy for any organisation or institution that has that as its primary objective. 
This is a Government that applauds the artistic independence and artistic integrity of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra yet after reading clauses 8 and 9 which set out both the principal objectives and functions of the orchestra we have to wonder if this Government means what it says about maintaining the artistic independence of our cultural and artistic institutions. This bill is very prescriptive. It brings more State control into an area where we want to encourage creativity and artistic imagination. Even though the Minister was at pains to reassure New Zealanders that there would be no ministerial interference again we have to wonder. Because if the Government means to be this prescriptive—and I would echo the comments of Deborah Coddington—what happens if the orchestra does not deliver on the prescription? What do we do about the orchestra if that does not happen? 
The bill states that one principal objective of the orchestra is “to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard.” Who measures the international standard? How do we measure that? If in someone’s view it does not reach the international standard do we then “can” the orchestra? These sorts of provisions in legislation in my view are stupid. They are a nonsense and they become meaningless because there is no way of measuring whether such music is being performed to an international standard. That is mostly because somebody has to make a judgment on that and the judgment of Helen Clark may be different from my judgment. 
This bill is an overkill. It purports to be a supporter and a maintainer of artistic independence and integrity yet in its establishment and powers it sets out some pretty prescriptive provisions. National certainly does not support that. If we want artistic creativity to fly then we have to have a supportive framework and some provisions for financial accountability—because taxpayers’ money is involved in the Symphony Orchestra. But those provisions should be as few as possible otherwise the board scurries around worrying whether it is applying the prescription and always with the Minister hovering over it. 
Even though clause 14 relates just to governance where does governance begin and end? We are not sure with this Government most of the time. Clause 14 talks about the role of the Minister. It says that the Minister may review the operations of the orchestra even though clause 16 states that the orchestra is independent in all artistic matters. We cannot trust that sort of thing when the bill is laying down a prescription for the artistic activities of the institution. This legislation is a bit of a worry—it is a bit of an overkill. It is typical Labour Government State control and typical Labour Government State prescription. What happens when the prescription is not followed? Who knows? How do we measure it? Who measures it? We cannot measure it. These provisions are entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. National opposes this bill most strenuously. 
The other point I want to make in that regard is that there is probably some reservation on the part of our regional orchestras about the closeness of the relationship that will develop under this bill between the Minister the Government and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. As we all know we have some wonderful professional regional orchestras. I remember a concert that the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra held about 5 years ago in Rotorua’s redwood forest. It was absolutely marvellous. I am pleased that the select committee was of a mind not to give the Symphony Orchestra recognition that would seem to give it favoured status over and above the regional orchestras. I think that is very important. 
Overall though this bill has taken up the time of the House which it should not have done. We last debated it in urgency and here it is again. If we mean what we say about wanting to encourage creativity imagination and artistic integrity in the arts sector then our watch over those things should be minimal. This bill is way over the top and is not appropriate in any way. 
I applaud the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Of course it knows it needs a certain amount of accountability but outside of that it should be left to do what it does best and what it has done in the past—that is continue to favour New Zealand audiences with symphonies and music of the highest order. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to make a contribution on the second reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. The introduction in the commentary on the bill states: “The main purpose of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is to clarify the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s role as a touring national orchestra by prescribing in legislation its principal objectives and functions.” Well that is wonderful. I have never thought there was anything wrong with its role. I echo some of the comments made by the ACT member Deborah Coddington who said there was nothing broken about it at all. We knew what the role of the orchestra was and I guess it is a traditional role that did not need to be defined particularly. But if the orchestra’s role needs to be defined that is fine. 
The commentary on the bill also states: “The bill intends that the Orchestra will operate in a responsible manner”—we are all grateful for that—“and maintain its financial viability while meeting its principal objectives in performing its functions.” The orchestra’s financial viability is determined by the amount of money that basically the taxpayers have to fork out for it. So what will the orchestra do for the taxpayer dollar? The fact that the orchestra performs its functions of touring and allows the New Zealand taxpayer to access the considerable talents embodied in it are matters that we would definitely like to see entrenched as part of its role. 
It was an election policy of United Future in 2002 to ensure that the national orchestra is put on a sure long-term footing. I believe this bill addresses that issue. A Crown entity is a better structure in which to situate the orchestra than the present governance arrangements so we are pleased about that as well. More generally ensuring the long-term survival of the orchestra by prescribing its functions and obligations in legislation is important because as the national orchestra the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is an important part of New Zealand’s culture and identity. The Symphony Orchestra plays a valuable role in projecting New Zealand culture to an international audience by capitalising on symphonic music as an international language while presenting something uniquely Kiwi in composition and performance. The orchestra also plays a vitally important educational role in fostering the development of young performers at home. 
One of the problems that we have always had with regard to this bill concerns board membership. United Future has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers that ring-fence a position on the board for a player from the orchestra. If we have a quick look at clause 13 which sets out the role of the board we see that three provisions stand out. Firstly the board has the authority in the name of the orchestra to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the orchestra. We have no complaints with that. Secondly all decisions relating to the operation of the orchestra must be made by or under the authority of the board. We have no problem with that either. Thirdly the board has all the powers necessary to carry out its function. Again we have no problem with that. But one of the most important aspects of the role of the board is to truly represent the orchestra so as to allow members of the orchestra or at least a voice from the orchestra to sit alongside the other members of the board and push for their case—whether artistic management or otherwise. That would be reasonable and democratic. I find it astounding that this Labour Government is trying to deny players the ability to voice the concerns that members of the orchestra will have from time to time and that orchestra members will not be able to take part in board decision-making processes. So United Future has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers with a slight variance that ring-fence a position on the board for a player from the orchestra. 
It is vital for the good of the whole of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as an entity that players be represented on the board by at least one player. Let us face it—it is their orchestra. It is both New Zealand’s Symphony Orchestra and the players’ orchestra. It is the way that the players express their life—through their music and through their instruments. They ought to have a voice on the board. In order to ensure that the clarity of the players’ position is made fulsome through the board management we should ensure that the board always contains at least one person who knows orchestral life from the inside. It is all very well to have a bunch of managers sitting there but if they are not in tune with the players and if they do not understand and appreciate the manner in which the orchestra actually provides the music in terms of its charter responsibilities then how on earth can the players’ interests be well represented? Currently over 30 personnel and management lie between the players and the board of governance. How are the players supposed to be heard through all of that? I suggest they are not being heard at all which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard to have player representation on the board. 
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Labour Party which prides itself on trying to give voice to every minority group it can find under any rock in this country is declining the opportunity to give voice to the very people it is to have governance over in this legislation: the players themselves. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I look forward to the support of some of the other parties in the House for either one of my two Supplementary Order Papers. The consultation provisions and practices provided for in the bill are clearly inadequate. The present situation does not allow time for detailed discussions and the board may be unaware of the fact that a player’s perspective would be important or useful on other issues not raised in the half-hour monthly consultation meetings. In other words the players are overlooked. If the orchestra members themselves are allowed to participate on the board as of right it will match successful overseas practice—for example in the Sydney symphony orchestra. Why do we want to be so out of tune and out of step with other orchestras around the world? Why do we think that our players are incapable of actually thinking being on the board and contributing to board decisions? 
We know that a player member of the board would face many challenges from both sides of the organisation. However providing the right kind of player representative one who is well briefed on governance responsibilities and who understands the need to act in the best interests of the orchestra is not beyond the capability of the players. If the players are smart enough to be as good as they are at playing an instrument members should trust me when I say they have a brain! Players’ brains and vocal chords ought to be used to articulate their concerns. Information would be able to flow not just to the board but also from the board. That would mean players would have greater understanding of board decisions—something that does not take place at the moment. It is almost as though we do not want members of the orchestra to participate on the board because we want to keep them in the dark just like mushrooms—and we all know what mushrooms grow in! Conflicts of interest may arise for a player representative particularly around wage negotiation time but that is not an insurmountable problem. It is successfully traversed in other orchestras by having the players’ representative stand down during that period and I do not see why such a practice could not operate here. 
Contrary to the Government’s opinion I say having a players’ representative on the board would not be a disaster. It has not been a disaster for other orchestras around the world. It would add to the experience and integrity of the board. It would also greatly improve player-board relations and encourage greater representation from the people for whom this bill is supposed to matter most: the people of New Zealand and the players themselves who provide their artistic endeavours for the public. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Clearly Part 1 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is very important because it includes both the commencement date and the purpose of the legislation. I want to make just one point about the commencement date. If one looks at the legislative history of this bill one can see that it was introduced on 10 December 2002. Once again one does wonder why this Labour Government would dawdle its way through such an important bill that is to do with a national icon take 2 years about it and then rush it through under urgency. The Government certainly conforms to a pattern of doing that. As my colleague said the Government should learn how to manage its workload a hang of a lot better than it has managed it over the last 4 years. 
Far more important than that is the purpose of this bill which is to establish the orchestra as a body corporate under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act and as a Crown entity for the purposes of the Public Finance Act. It would be very useful for the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard to take a call to explain to the House why for years she has said that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has attained some of the finest performances around the world has become an icon in New Zealand’s history and has achieved both artistic excellence and independence under the present legislation when she has now turned round and said no the Government is to destroy that model and bring in classic Labour Party command and control. That seems ironic. Hopefully the Minister will explain that—or was she not really sincere in her comments about the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra over the last 10-15 years? 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra started in 1946 and it has an extraordinary record. As I have said before the National Party absolutely supports it. We want to see it flourish in an atmosphere of independence. After all one of the strengths of the present legislation is indeed that as a limited liability company the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra does not require prescription as to its purposes and functions nor as to the Government’s expectations of it. That is a great quality. Why is this Labour Government so insistent on wanting to bring in a whole set of prescriptions? 
Further down in the purpose of the legislation I notice the question of providing for the governance of the orchestra for the duties of the board and for administrative matters. I have pointed this out before but I think it is worthwhile emphasising. If indeed the Labour Government was to be consistent—and heaven help us it has a legacy of being very inconsistent— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell us about Don’s tax rates! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove to tell us why with an $8 billion budget for the health system he insists on majority-elected health boards yet when it comes to the $10 million budget of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra he wants a pure governance model. We are not against that but we think the Government should be consistent. We think that the Government should have appropriate experts dealing with an $8 billion budget just as it has with a $10 million budget. 
Again I say it would be very helpful if the Minister would take a call to provide us with an explanation of why this Government is not being consistent in terms of its view on managing an $8 billion budget compared with a $10 million budget. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to take a call in the Committee stage of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. Part 1 sets out the commencement and the purpose of the Act. I have previously described this bill as an overkill and my colleague Paul Hutchison demonstrated that pretty concisely. I took cognisance of Clayton Cosgrove’s interjection when Paul Hutchison was talking about taxpayers’ money. He is certainly right; this is $10 million worth of taxpayers’ money. We have a whole lot of taxpayers’ money going into the district health boards. The governance structure of the orchestra is set out in a way that just makes for a laugh at the way that the Government has structured the district health boards. There are majority-elected boards in the health sector and here in this bill there is little provision at all for a similar sort of representation on the orchestra’s board. So I think my colleague did ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard a good question and I am sure she will answer it when she thinks it is the appropriate time to do so. 
The purpose of the bill is to establish the orchestra as a Crown entity under the Public Finance Act. This Government in its judgment came to the conclusion that the orchestra’s previous structure under the Companies Act was not in the Government’s view meeting the commercial framework and that it appeared to have had minimal impact on the orchestra’s trading performance. However I wonder whether this new structure will contribute to the overall purpose of the bill which is as I understand it to propose a framework that will encourage artistic independence and artistic integrity. I wonder whether it was necessary to make the changes that are proposed in this bill. 
The purpose clause also sets out the principal objectives of the orchestra its functions and its powers. We will come to that in a minute. But the National Opposition has already signalled that those matters are overly prescriptive. In my view if one states a prescription one should do something if the prescription is not delivered on. When debating the functions and the objectives of the orchestra members will see that in essence although it may be easy to be prescriptive it is not as easy to figure out what one may do if the board cannot deliver on that prescription. We will come to that issue in due course. 
New clause 3(d) inserted by the Government Administration Committee states that one of the purposes of the legislation is to: “provide for the governance of the Orchestra the duties of the board and for administrative matters”. We have said already and we will be saying this again when we come to part 2 that all that those purposes demonstrate is that this certainly is legislation from a Labour Government. It is about State control and State prescription and there is room for ministerial direction. Clause 3 states that ministerial direction is only to be in relation to governance. But when one is prescriptive about the objectives then clearly it is envisaged that if there is a view that the objectives are not being delivered on then there will be ministerial intervention. I have no doubt about that particularly under a Labour Government because that is the way that this Government has behaved in all the years it has been in Government. 
It is clear that the New Zealand public is getting sick of that. The public is getting sick of the nanny State—of State control and of the State prescribing everything. Now we are prescribing how we expect the Symphony Orchestra to perform and that just will not do. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 We now have moved on to the Committee stage and we are talking about Part 1—clauses 2 to 5. This part deals with the purpose of the bill. I would say that the purpose of this bill was to totally stuff up the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and as Georgina te Heuheu said turn it into a State-controlled orchestra. In the Minister’s haste to turn it into a State-controlled orchestra she is totally ignoring the importance of the duties of the board of the orchestra and she is ignoring the interests of the players in the orchestra—people who have spent a lifetime getting themselves to the stage where they can be chosen and have the honour to play in a symphony orchestra. I cannot help wondering that if this orchestra were the New Zealand hip-hop orchestra made up of hip-hop performers the Minister would give those performers a lot more regard and respect than she is giving the first violinists leading flautists and soloists with the Symphony Orchestra. We spent $26000 on sending a—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask that member to tone down her interjections. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I do not mind interjections but I thought running commentaries were out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes they are. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I call on that member to take a call if she has got something constructive to say; she says she will—good. I ask the Minister to stand up in these times of cultural relativity and tell us why hip-hop performers are deemed to be more important than players in a symphony orchestra. The Minister laughs; well that is the respect she holds for players in the Symphony Orchestra. She has laughed them off the board. They are not allowed any representation on the board. It is the arrogant “We know best.” attitude that an artist or creative person cannot think and cannot be involved in the governance of the Symphony Orchestra. It is a shame. It is a disgrace that we are not going to allow creative people to be members of the board. 
I question the National Party’s wisdom. Its members have indicated they will vote with the Labour Government not to allow a member of the players’ committee to be represented on the board. I think the National Party should take another call and explain its reasons for not allowing that. ACT members do not support this bill—it will go through anyway—but we do support the amendments of two of my colleagues from United Future and the Greens that state that the Minister must appoint a players’ representative on to the board; otherwise we will end up with a Symphony Orchestra board made up of people who are great at running a company or very well versed in kaitiakitanga the tangata whenua or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—if they did know what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were they would probably be the only people in New Zealand who did—but have no knowledge about the creative direction and creative purposes of a symphony orchestra. 
I do worry about that because elsewhere in this bill the orchestra is required to play to an international standard required to promote New Zealand music and required to promote New Zealand musicians. There will be no one on the board who knows about all those things who knows about international standards who knows about New Zealand music who knows whether New Zealand music is good or rubbish. It is no use playing music just because it is New Zealand music; if it is not good music the audiences will simply stay away. The purpose of this bill is to turn the orchestra into a Crown-owned entity as opposed to a limited-liability company so it cannot go broke even though it does still have to be financially accountable. But if the audiences stay away what will the Minister do when she has no one on the board who knows about the actual musical creativity of the orchestra? The Minister still has not given us a reason why she is so averse to players being on the board and I ask her to do that. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 It is difficult to understand why player representation is not wanted on the board. It might be argued that player representatives could put the interests of the players ahead of the broader interests of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra but that is unlikely to happen. When the interests of the players are greater than the interest of the public at large their representatives would have to declare that interest. 
It could be argued that such representation is not a common thing to do but that does not stand up either. If we look at the boards of tertiary institutions we see they have both student and staff representatives and that works very well. I might add that most of our tertiary institutions have much broader interests much more diverse interests and much larger budgets to administer than the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
It is in the interests of all board members to work collaboratively. Each is a minority and his or her views will be adopted only if he or she can convince the other board members of their merit. Regional orchestras have player representation. Australian orchestras have player representation. Who else is likely to bring the same combination of passion and knowledge about the core business of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra? Who else is able to bring the same level of experience or memory of the practical implications of decisions? 
Board membership is not a position for just any member of the orchestra but with 90 educated intelligent experienced and passionate players for the Minister to choose from I have no doubt that it will be possible to come up with a musician with a mix of experience in the areas of administration governance the community and the arts that complements the contribution of the other board members. Members of the orchestra are parents. They are members of the community. They will have been on school boards of trustees. They will have held other administrative positions. I know a number of those people. They are extraordinarily intelligent and educated individuals with a broader knowledge than just simply the knowledge of playing in an orchestra. They are the kinds of people that I would have thought were wanted on a board. They would bring a level of expertise that nobody else could bring. They would bring a level of experience that nobody else could bring. I would have thought that that experience and expertise would be vital to good decision-making. 
I have been on decision-making committees and I have noticed that when decisions are made for people who are not represented those people are resentful. I suspect that a measure of resentment would grow around a decision to exclude the players. When I think of the flare with which the players presented their submission to the Government Administration Committee I think it is the kind of flare that the orchestra could do with. They came and played; they gave their submission with a bit of flare and with a bit of buzz. If we fail to pass an amendment that will undermine the effectiveness of the board. If we pass it it will bring about a new measure of trust between the board members and the players. The legislation is good and on everything else in it I would say “Go to it!”. It will enhance the position of the orchestra. 
That the orchestra is to enhance and promote New Zealand music is a plus. There is an idea from the way that others have spoken that somehow New Zealand music is not worthy of being listened to and will not be popular. In fact any good orchestra will put together a concert mix that brings the kinds of people it wants to have in its audience—namely all New Zealanders including people who want to listen to New Zealand music. 
The Greens will be supporting the bill but we make a strong plea for the addition of player representatives on the board. The National Party’s amendment states that both may be appointed. “May” is not good enough. If we are not willing to put player representatives in there is it likely to happen? I suspect not. It is simply about making the board more democratic. “May” is not good enough. The amendment I have put up reads to omit subclause (2) of clause 12 and substitute the following clause: “The board must consist of not”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s amendments are to Part 2. 
MIKE WARD 
: OK. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has more time but I just make that point. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 1 is the part to which the amendments from Marc Alexander on Supplementary Order paper 199 apply. The first inserts the definition of a “players’ committee” which means “a committee of players in the Orchestra established for the purpose of player representation” and the follow-on amendment to schedule 1 requires that “the Minister must ensure that the membership of the board includes at least 1 person nominated by the players’ committee.” New Zealand First supports that concept. I am rather surprised that the Government which usually tries to have a union representative involved in various boards and suchlike has opposed that view. I look forward to hearing the Minister indicate whether she supports or opposes the concept. In particular if she does oppose it would she give us a reason for doing so? 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Establishment structure and powers of Orchestra and related matters 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2. Clearly it is the main area of the bill that deals with the offensive parts— the principal objectives and functions of the orchestra. Our side of the House has made it very clear that they are quite unnecessarily prescriptive and will only lead to huge confusion. In particular clause 8(c) requires the orchestra “to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment”. We hope the Minister will take a call to tell us exactly what that means. Surely it is far preferable to let that distinctive New Zealand cultural environment evolve spontaneously without prescriptive legislation. 
If one looks around the world at the great independent orchestras such as the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra the London Symphony Orchestra the London Philharmonic Orchestra and the Cleveland Orchestra there is just absolutely no doubt that all of those are independent orchestras that have demonstrated the highest pinnacle of artistic endeavour and none of them have been enshrouded with this sort of prescription. 
 Let us go on to clause 9 “Functions of Orchestra”. There we see the requirements the Labour Government wants us to put in. They include: “(a) to ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance …”. Has it not been doing that for years and years? They go on: “(b) to encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. Once again the orchestra has a clear track record of doing exactly that. Part of the reason for the orchestra’s existence is to do exactly that. The orchestra has been a shining example of achievement because without this unnecessary legislation literally hundreds of young New Zealanders have been able to develop and evolve their skills—not only for the benefit of all New Zealanders but also in terms of their international contribution. 
The functions continue: “(c) to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music:”. One could continue going through the list only to find that these things are all happening anyway. Why have the legislation? Hopefully the Minister will take a moment to explain to us what the difference is and tell us whether the orchestra has been carrying out these functions. I say it has and I challenge the Minister to say anything to the contrary. 
We should bear in mind that the function under paragraph (f) states: “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. If we look at the current situation we will see that no such requirement is needed. The orchestra has flourished without it; it is quite clearly unnecessary. 
However when we go to the provisions relating to the board again we have the dilemma that has been discussed already. It is terribly important to have a clear governance role in respect of the orchestra. There are all sorts of practical difficulties that can occur particularly where the Government is the main contributor to the funding of the orchestra. In this case it is $10 million a year and the box office and corporate collections amount to about $5 million a year. There is no doubt that conflicts of interest will arise—if indeed there are difficulties—if employees are involved in the governance of their own organisation in this set of circumstances. That does not mean to say that in future sets of circumstances it would not be inappropriate. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a disappointing day for the Opposition parties in Parliament because if it had not been for the National Party cuddling up to the Labour Party we would have had an amendment through to make sure that there is a player representative on the board of the orchestra. Why the National Party wants to cuddle up to the Labour Party is beyond me but we have seen a clear demonstration of that here today and it has prevented a player from having a position on the board. 
We had the Labour Party cold on this one. All the other Opposition parties the Greens ACT and New Zealand First plus United Future and the Progressive Party—and I must congratulate them on giving their vote to us—voted to have a player representative on the board of the orchestra but the National Party said it did not want that and it stymied the amendment. What a shame! What has got into this National Party? Is it part of its plan to sell off the orchestra because there is no need for it any more? That is the National Party policy is it not—to spend money on the basis of need? But here we have the National Party killing an initiative of all the other Opposition parties. What a shame! What a disgrace! 
As far as the amendment from Mr Hutchison is concerned I suggest he reads the bill—in particular clause 39(2) of Part 4 in Schedule 1 which makes it clear that the chief executive must not be a member of the board. He seems to want the chief executive to be a member of the board but it was a clear consideration of the legislation that the chief executive should not be a member of the board. I am looking forward to a ruling from the Chair at some stage indicating whether his amendment is in order because it is clearly inconsistent with the rest of the bill and does not take into account my reading of clause 39(2) in Part 4 of Schedule 1. Needless to say New Zealand First cannot support that amendment. 
New Zealand First has moved a couple of amendments to Part 2. We want to make it clear in clause 8(b) that the orchestra is not just an orchestra but a full-time professional orchestra so there can be no doubt in the mind of the public and the Government in dealing with the orchestra that that is the case. We have another amendment to clause 9(g). 
Dr Hutchison made some comments about why there are changes and suchlike. Clearly where public money is involved the bill provides as I have said already that the reporting requirements should be as per the Public Finance Act. That is one of the reasons for this legislation. 
I do not intend to take any more of the Committee’s time except to repeat how disappointed I am that the National Party should cuddle up to the Labour Party and prevent a player representative from being on the board of the orchestra. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I share Dail Jones’ disappointment. I wonder how the Minister thinks the players will feel about her rejection. Who else has a greater interest in the success of the orchestra? It is their professional status that is on the line. Let the Government reflect well on that status. Players are going to make good decisions—the kinds of decisions that ensure that the orchestra is regarded well in the community. They have every interest in working cooperatively with the board to make sure that the decisions made are in the best interests of that board. 
Who has a greater investment in the orchestra? I do not know how many members know of any young musicians but I imagine that most of them have experience of young people growing up with a passion for music. It is all-absorbing and takes up a vast amount of their lives. Those who end up in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are the cream of these. I have taught such young people and they are not just musicians; they are extremely intelligent able capable individuals who play a full part in the life of their schools. 
Including players as members of the board is essential to the proper functioning of the board. Not only that it would bring a flair and an excitement to the board that would not otherwise be there. I have served on an arts council and I have chaired a community arts council with other artists. These people bring a passion and commitment to their work and knowledge that others cannot bring. They also bring a creative flair to that work. It is not just about making businesslike decisions—that is extremely important and there will be board members who will ensure that happens—it is also about bringing a creative skill to the work and that makes their presence highly desirable. 
My amendment to clause 12 is: “To omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: (2) The board must consist of not fewer than 5 members and not more than 8 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.” 
As I said before the inclusion of the chief executive on the board would be unusual. The chief executive has a very large say in the running of the orchestra. That person is the one employee of the board and will have a great deal of influence in advising the board and providing information to it for many of the decisions it makes. That influence is very keenly felt at all times. The influence of the board members is less likely to be felt. 
We will continue to support the bill. It is a good bill that supports a very grand and important cultural institution in this country. But it is really important that a player representative is included on the board. We will be disappointed—and I am sure the players will be bitterly disappointed—if they are once again rejected. I would like to think however that since the Minister can appoint she will take into account the submissions of New Zealand First ACT United Future and the Progressives in support of this amendment. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
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. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I am not sure whether the Minister has taken a call but I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to us why it is that her Government—or the Minister really; I know she puts a lot of effort into arts and culture—has seen fit to be so prescriptive and I will refer to the prescriptive nature of the bill in a minute or two. I have had the good fortune to be able to spend some time in that sector as well but I have real difficulty with the situation that we are seen to be promoting cultural artistic integrity and artistic independence on the one hand but on the other hand loading the orchestra up with these very prescriptive objectives and functions. I see the Minister writing some notes and I do look forward to her taking a call to explain that tension. 
There certainly is a tension. I have already said I think this bill is an overkill. It is extremely important that there is a framework to ensure accountability for taxpayers’ money—$10 million. In some respects $10 million is not as much as the bulk of funds that go to other organisations but $10 million is still $10 million. I certainly can see the point in ensuring a proper framework for financial accountability but I personally cannot see the point of objectives that spell out things like the those set out in clause 8 “Principal objectives of Orchestra”. Clause 8 states: “(a) to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard: (b) to provide an orchestra that—(i) is highly skilled and artistically imaginative; and (ii) has strong community support: (c) to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation” and so on and so forth. 
Has not the orchestra been doing all that anyway and without having it prescribed in legislation? I want the Minister to take a call and tell us what it is that has been missing in the activities and the performance of the orchestra in past years that makes it so important for this House in urgency to spend an inordinate amount of time on this bill that sets out piece by piece what it is that we expect this orchestra to do. 
Clause 9 sets out the functions of the orchestra and this is like telling the orchestra how to suck eggs in my view. The orchestra is the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. It has shown its creativity its imaginative approach to its tasks in former years and in clause 9 its functions are set out. It must have a “broad repertoire of orchestral performance” and it must “encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music:”. It has been doing that. It must “encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. The orchestra has been doing that and it will continue to do that. It does not need any of those functions set out in legislation. 
Another function listed in clause 9(f) is “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives”—and here is a bit that deserves special mention—“as agreed to by the Minister”. Now what does that mean? So clause 9 (f) states: “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. As if clause 8 and clause 9 do not have enough prescription! There is room in clause 9(f) for the Minister to have some more say. 
 I am not sure about what but then I guess it is not surprising when there is a Government like the current one which thinks it is necessary to have a nose and an arm and a leg and everything in all that these institutions do. In particular it thinks it is appropriate to do that in an institution that we all want to fly with artistic integrity. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I just want to make a couple of observations as this bill progresses and one is this. The Labour Party which traditionally has always stood by the working man and working woman of this country refuses to stand up for the rights of the representation of the working people of the orchestra—the players themselves who have been denied a voice by this Labour Government. Why one has to ask? They are talented individuals who ought to have representation on a board. They are not a bunch of idiots whose sole claim to fame is the fact that they can play beautiful music. They have brains and they have the right to have representation. 
For a party that prides itself on giving voice to minorities to now turn around and deny that voice to the players it reeks—it absolutely reeks. How National can come aboard and jump into bed with Labour on this I have absolutely no idea. When all the other parties are trying to work constructively to allow the very players to have their right to be represented on the board why deny representation? That is what I ask National. Who is National answerable to in terms of support—is this where it is coming from? Are those members scared of somebody on the board—is that who they are answerable to and is that why they want to deny representation to the players? Who are they afraid of that they would rather climb into bed with Labour than work constructively alongside all the other parties? It is absolutely shameful. 
The players would add quite a lot to the board. They would provide a players’ perspective and a voice for the legitimate concerns that players want addressed. This would promote understanding of orchestral issues. Giving players a voice on the board would allow them to advance artistic experience from an artistic point of view which is something Labour is deciding not to provide and something that National—for some obscure reason—is deciding to go along with Labour and agree with it on. 
The one question I have to ask both parties is why they do not trust the players. Why do those parties not trust players to have a voice on the board to allow them to say what needs to be said for their own interests? Those members want to hear their music but they do not want to hear their voices and that is utterly shameful of both of those parties. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I rise in this debate to answer some of the questions and assertions that have been made. The role of the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is to run an orchestra that in the 2002-03 year reported turnover of about $15 million; only $10.124 million of which came from the Government. 
It is the biggest performing arts organisation in New Zealand. This legislation will change it from a Crown-owned company a limited liability company under the Companies Act of 1993 to an autonomous non-company Crown entity because the Government recognises that the role of this organisation is to run a world-class New Zealand touring orchestra throughout New Zealand providing the best board support the best management the best players and the best music. New Zealand deserves that and we need it to express our culture here in New Zealand. 
The players have absolute rights to be heard at an artistic level in terms of the operations of the orchestra and indeed the players’ committee meet regularly with the management and the board and provide a wonderful contribution at every level. However the fact is that this orchestra is being brought into line with other Crown-owned entities so that there is clear accountability clear performance requirements and clear outlines for everyone involved. 
Clause 14 in schedule 1 “Administrative provisions applying to board and further transitional provisions” talks about conflict of interest. If a player or particularly the chief executive officer were put on the board those people would be put in a position where they would be in conflict of interest because they benefit from the decisions the board makes like terms and conditions of their employment. The board needs to make the decisions it needs to make and this Government is very passionate about workers. The rights of the players are absolutely protected and encouraged and the present board is doing a wonderful job raising corporate sponsorship and raising the visibility of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
I am truly delighted to see ACT members being such staunch advocates of the workers and I will be looking for their support in holidays legislation and labour legislation. But of course it is crocodile tears because those members oppose the bill—as does National. Paul Hutchison has asked us why we are putting up detailed legislation. Let me tell National and ACT members it is because the music community and the public of New Zealand are scared that if there were ever a Government with National or ACT in it it would destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I take it from the speeches that National and ACT have made in this House today that they would destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. They would withdraw the Government funding and see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra destroyed taken out of New Zealand’s culture and I want absolute assurances from those parties that that is not what they intend. I am deeply concerned by the tone of the ACT and National speakers and I say to them that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is absolutely vital in New Zealand to music across the board. I am disgusted at those members’ approach. They say they care about the orchestra music and the players but no one in those two parties cares at all. 
The role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is a very broad one. I say that all of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers are not possible in terms of the work of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. For example one of the amendments put forward by Brian Donnelly wants the orchestra to be described as a full-time professional orchestra. Right well the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra right now contracts its players for 25 hours a week. Members in this House will say—as will I am sure those who are attacking hip-hop and everything else that is happening and is good and energetic in New Zealand culture—that it is outrageous that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players play only 25 hours a week. Well of course they do not—they teach. They are mentors. They are involved in chamber music and string quartets. They are involved in schools and universities in opera and in the vast range and full variety of music in this country including wonderful contemporary music and including hip-hop. What I say is that if we had a definition that all of the orchestra must be made up of full-time professionals presumably that would mean that we would not let students in at all. This is a ridiculous set of amendments that should be rejected by the House. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. That was quite a rant and a rave that members have just heard from the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. I would like to contest some of the points she was making. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s called a crescendo. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right; it was a crescendo. We will come to the musical terms in a minute and see who knows some of them. She says that New Zealanders deserve the best and she is quite right—we do deserve the best. But this bill will not provide the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra with the best environment in which it can thrive. 
The clear fact of the matter is that the Government does not trust the players. Mr Alexander was quite right in the comments he made and the members from other parties who support Mike Ward’s amendment were also quite right. There is a very clear reason for a player not being part of the board—unless we can persuade the National Party to join our ranks over here—and it is that the players are not trusted. Quite why that is I do not know. The boards of trustees for schools have student representatives. Many boards have representatives of the people they represent and they are the best people to provide the good advice that the boards need. Nobody disputes that that advice is needed. The Minister said the players meet with the board 
anyway. Nobody gives better-quality advice than somebody who has voting rights on a board. If the Minister were honest with herself she would admit that. 
Clauses 8 and 9 in Part 2 are another indication that the players are not trusted. Clause 8 discusses the principal objectives of the orchestra. Clause 8(a) states: “to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard:”. I ask the Minister how on earth we can legislate to reach an international standard. Will the Minister take responsibility for judging that? Will she say whether the first violins’ vibrato is vibratory enough? Will she say that the flautist is playing pianissimo instead of piano? What will she do to the pianist who inadvertently mixes his upper and lower mordents? Will it be the Minister in the chair who decides that? The definition of “Minister” states: “the Minister who under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister” so perhaps the Prime Minister will decide whether the upper mordent was played correctly or whether it should have been the lower. Maybe she does not know the difference. It would be nice to know who will determine that. It is clearly unrealistic to legislate that the orchestra play to an international standard. 
Clause 8(b) states: “to provide an orchestra that—(i) is highly skilled and artistically imaginative;”. I notice that there is no definition of “artistically imaginative”. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what exactly that means. No she does not know. If it cannot be defined why has it been put in the bill as a principal objective that the orchestra must reach? 
Clause 9 “Functions of Orchestra” is just as absurd as the principal objectives. Clause 9(a) states: “to ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance including New Zealand works and recent works:”. Will we have a quota? Will we have a 25 percent New Zealand music quota in the same way that radio stations are supposed to play that amount? The Minister yawns. I ask her whether New Zealand music is not up to scratch or whether 25 percent is not the right level of quota that she is going to tell us we need to hear. Another function is “to encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. I contend that the people who pay good money to go and listen to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra want good-quality music. Sometimes they like to hear New Zealand music but they want to go along and hear good-quality symphonic music. We know already that it is to be of an international standard. 
The ridiculousness of those two clauses is really beyond belief. The power of the Minister—from the definition of “Minister” the Prime Minister could be involved too—leaves this measure wide open for political interference as is much of the legislation that has come before this Parliament of late. The ACT party will not support this part of the bill. It will support the amendments. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has a couple of amendments to Part 2 before the Committee. One amendment is to delete the words “an orchestra” and insert in their place the words “a full time professional orchestra”. One of the reasons for that is set out in the submission of the players’ committee to the Government Administration Committee. The players’ committee made the point that if the legislation does not specify that the orchestra is full-time future Governments may attempt to achieve the objectives with a part-time orchestra. It is essential that the orchestra is full-time if excellence and the orchestra’s other objectives are to be achieved. The phrase “full-time professional” occurs in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s mission statement. If it is good enough for the mission statement why can it not be in the legislation? It is as simple as that. 
Another amendment is about ring-fencing a board position for a player. That amendment is in the name of Mike Ward. New Zealand First will support Mike Ward’s amendment. We are astonished that the National Party should not want to support such an amendment. It shows that the National Party and the Labour Party are up to their old tricks and are still playing the old game of working together to stop other parties in an MMP environment from exercising their views. It is such a simple little amendment and is supported by even the Progressive party. United Future the Greens ACT and New Zealand First also support it—what a combination from the left to the right! We are prepared to support Mike Ward’s amendment but the National Party is again cuddling up to the Labour Party and does not want to do so. The National Party did the same at the time of the confidence vote at the beginning of this year. It really has not changed its spots. 
In clause 9(g) New Zealand First also wants to add after the word “Orchestra” the words: “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations”. We do not want the orchestra to be too bogged down by some of the provisions set out in the legislation. We want to make sure that there is a ring-fenced board position for a player who will provide a useful perspective and a range of experiences and skills in all board deliberations and activities. That will match overseas practice. What is wrong with our orchestra going about it in exactly the same way as overseas orchestras? Dr Hutchison has mentioned overseas orchestras from time to time. Why should our Symphony Orchestra’s legislation not match overseas practice as well? 
I am terribly disappointed that Dr Hutchison withdrew his amendment. Perhaps he realised it was totally out of order being in conflict with Part 1 and clause 39 but it was very disappointing that on the one hand he gave some indication that he might support the United Future amendment or the Green party amendment but in the next breath he decided to pull out altogether. It seems to be a very unusual state of affairs on National’s part. I request the support of members of the Chamber for New Zealand First’s other amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) the words “an orchestra” and substitute the words “a full time professional orchestra”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 39 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (g) the words “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 87 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Mike Ward to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: 
(2)The board must consist of not fewer than 5 members and not more than 8 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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by adding the words “ one of whom shall be representative of the permanent players of the orchestra”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 Administrative provisions applying to board and further transitional provisions 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “governance” the word “ artistic”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of Marc Alexander to add new subclause (2) to clause 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 39 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to add the following new subclause to clause 1 be agreed to: 
(2)In addition to the criteria set out in subclause (1) the Minister must ensure that the membership of the board includes at least 1 person nominated by the players’ committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 Amendments to other enactments 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation once again demonstrates this Government’s commitment to ensuring the ongoing availability—and excellence—of the arts culture and heritage of this country to the people of New Zealand and everyone who visits us. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra a flagship performing arts organisation makes a vital contribution to the development of New Zealand’s unique cultural environment. 
We had some comment during the course of the debate about the need for the breadth and depth of New Zealand culture to be reflected and I was recalling the absolutely wonderful concert that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra played during the recent International Festival of the Arts. Tan Dun probably the pre-eminent Chinese composer of symphonic music conducted a performance that every New Zealander whether or not interested in symphonic music whether of Chinese European Maori or any other background would have found the most uplifting and exciting bit of contemporary music he or she had heard for a long time. It was an example of the excellence the breadth and the depth of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
This orchestra was founded in 1946. It gave its first public performance as the National Symphony Orchestra of New Zealand in 1947 and has continued to maintain its status as New Zealand’s greatest orchestra. For 57 years New Zealanders have had the pleasure of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s performances of primarily symphonic music which are of international standard. The board is sure of that the management is sure of that the players are sure of that and the public affirm that. This legislation now acknowledges that level of excellence and requires it to be ongoing. The legislation specifies for the first time the Government’s expectations of the orchestra by setting out the orchestra’s principal objectives and functions. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 which will be repealed on the commencement of this bill did not prescribe the purposes or the functions of the orchestra nor the Government’s expectations of it. 
I find it deeply concerning that the National Party and ACT oppose this legislation. I think it is the first time in history that we have seen this sort of split between the Government and the Opposition on a national institution of this sort. I am deeply concerned and I want absolute assurances from the National Party and ACT that if they ever get into Government again they will not set out to destroy this orchestra because that is what I take from their opposition throughout the Committee stage and throughout the course of this bill. I believe they are threatening the existence of one of the most important cultural institutions of this country. It is the first time ever that we have not had bipartisan support for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I am deeply concerned and my concern and the concern of the rest of New Zealand results in the need for a bill with this sort of detail—so that the next Bill Birch or the next Don Brash coming into this House does not destroy the absolute foundations of our culture. 
The primary purpose of this legislation is to change the status of the orchestra from a limited-liability company to an autonomous non-company Crown entity which will ensure the orchestra can fulfil its functions in both artistic and cultural terms and can be efficient effective and accountable in financial terms. I believe that it is a much better format and structure for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. This legislation also clarifies the orchestra’s role as a national touring orchestra by explicitly specifying its principal functions. Although its principal objectives and functions are aspirational they do require some subjective decisions to be made and some subjective views to be held. I am deeply concerned that this is the first time we have ever had National and ACT opposing the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra across the board across the whole of this legislation. 
Those objectives and functions emphasise the orchestra’s leadership role and its central role in New Zealand’s cultural landscape and also require the orchestra to promote and encourage New Zealand symphonic music and composers and the performance level across New Zealand. When I think of the work that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has done to promote people like Gareth Farr probably New Zealand’s finest composer today wonderful composers like Jack Body and Douglas Lilburn’s work and its promotion of New Zealand and New Zealand music I consider it has excelled at every level. I do not understand why the National Party and ACT want to destroy this fabulous organisation. This legislation will give the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra some measure of protection so that any Government coming in cannot destroy the orchestra without bringing its intentions to Parliament and making really clear what it is doing. 
In meeting those objectives of course the orchestra must operate in a financially responsible manner retaining its financial viability. This bill will require it to do that. It will also require it to have regard to Government policy on matters of general administration that are consistent with the principal objectives and functions. It is indicating a degree of autonomy for the orchestra right across the artistic area while also defining its relationship with Ministers and the Government. In all artistic matters the orchestra will be empowered to operate independently and without ministerial direction. That provision reflects the well-established arm’s-length principle for funding cultural agencies that operates in New Zealand and internationally. 
In the policy development of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill player representation on the orchestra’s board was considered. Player representation was also raised as an issue in submissions. The players have a central and vital role of course. Without the players there is no orchestra and the players committee will continue to be consulted actively frequently and ordinarily by the board and the management. Of course the players are there but the crocodile tears we have seen shed by National and ACT saying they support the players while opposing the whole existence of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are outrageous. I have much more respect for the other parties that have supported player representation being written into the bill in solid form but also have supported the legislation as a whole. They do not want the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra destroyed but National and ACT do. It is a general principle that special-interest groups are not represented on the board. 
I believe that the board is doing a wonderful job. I thank the board the management the players the friends of the orchestra and the public who support the orchestra. I believe that this legislation will support its independence artistic range and excellence clear accountability and the good use of public money. I say now to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra that we should get on with the music and make sure we protect the orchestra from the attacks of people in this Parliament who want to see it destroyed. 
Debate interrupted.