Jones Dail: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12325] 
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”.