Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12310] 
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.