Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4642] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I ask the question: what is it in the genetic makeup of the Greens and the Labour Party that just causes them to want more and more State control? The National Party absolutely wants to see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra flourish. We also want to see far greater freedom of artistic direction of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. We also want to pay tribute to the musicians and the incredible depth of talent discipline and creativity that surrounds the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra under its present legislation. The National Party does not support Helen Clark’s absolutely unnecessary New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. 
One thing that Helen Clark cannot help herself on is just putting a little bit more State control into everything that she can get her tentacles on. This is a perfect demonstration of it. I for one celebrate the increased funding of the arts in New Zealand and I do not underestimate the huge contribution the arts make to our cultural spiritual and for that matter economic life. Here is a bill that has been brought in under urgency the stated purpose of which is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited-liability company to a non-company Crown entity. One might ask what on earth that is. I certainly do know that it inherently does mean more State control and given the success to date of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra I wonder why that is needed. 
I learn that the Government’s desire is to move to a non-company Crown entity to enforce better lines of accountability. It sounds great on paper but in actual fact it just means more blank cheques of money. It means probably that that is at the expense of other artistic organisations and orchestras around New Zealand. Undoubtedly important tensions—and Clayton Cosgrove sitting across on the Government benches surely must agree—are created by a limited liability company which bring a reality check to those directly involved in the organisation. I understand that there is absolutely no other country in the world where the Government enshrines one particular orchestra over all other orchestral organisations. 
It is interesting to have a look at the general policy statement at the beginning of the bill because it states: “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.” Well what is wrong with that? Some of the world’s greatest orchestras which have been heralded as demonstrating the highest artistic performances the greatest professionalism and quintessential creativity have organisations that owe their existence to obeying commercial disciplines. 
These are not State-controlled orchestras enshrined by a non-company Crown entity. I can think of the London Symphony Orchestra—independent since 1904—the London Philharmonic Orchestra the Cleveland Orchestra the Berlin Symphony Orchestra and not to mention the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Here in New Zealand we have the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra operating extremely successfully with no legislation and at about a quarter of the cost of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
Some of the world’s finest orchestras are certainly in the United States of America and this is the prescription that encapsulates them: “… an organisational structure that canonises the musical director a volunteer support system that creates serious tension between the art of music-making and the business of orchestral management in a reliance on community sponsorship that juxtaposes popular taste with the moral virtues of serious art.” 
There are some utterly confused diametrically opposed control-freak “Helen-speak” characteristics to this bill. Its general policy statement opines that: “The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 does not prescribe the Orchestra’s purpose and functions nor government’s expectations of it.” The new bill however does prescribe quite specifically five objectives and seven functions. That is followed by a brilliant cadenza of State-controlled prestidigitation because in the general policy statement it states: “… in all artistic matters the Orchestra will be empowered to operate independently and without ministerial direction.” I would ask anyone how it is possible—with five new specific objectives and seven new specific functions one of which is “to carry out any further functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”—to be free “in all artistic matters” when there are five prescribed objectives and seven prescribed functions? 
Helen Clark’s New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is sophistry. It does not allow greater artistic freedom; it brings in unnecessary measures of State control and underpinning and it is a waste of money. 
The annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra contains a clear statement of objectives. Those objectives do not need special legislation. Under the 1988 Act the orchestra can be much more responsive fluid and creative in its objectives than it can in having them enshrined in Helen Clark’s legislation. 
A bill such as this as my colleague Katherine Rich mentioned probably costs from half a million to a million dollars to go through the parliamentary process. That money could undoubtedly be far better used on art and performance. That money could certainly make a huge difference to the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra which has no Government backing. That orchestra makes a superb artistic contribution serving the largest population in New Zealand at about a quarter of the cost of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra—while having no legislation let alone becoming a non-company Crown entity. 
Today undoubtedly the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is highly regarded and revered throughout New Zealand. As far as I know its existence and sustainability are supported by all political parties and it travels throughout New Zealand. It prides itself on high-level artistic achievements it inspires and educates hundreds of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders it provides a priceless pool of talent to teach and help the budding musicians of the nation and it supports ballet and opera. Mr Clayton Cosgrove might not know about that. However the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra does not need to be shackled by a bill that if anything will only constrain it to a prescription of objectives and functions ordered by a highly control-conscious megalomaniac leader of a minority Government. I end by saying that about 20 years ago I went to a concert in Auckland by the Shanghai State Orchestra. The first half of that concert was awful!