Ward Mike: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
Ward Mike: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12334] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I know that Judith Tizard cares about the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and this bill is an expression of that care. Who could doubt the Government’s commitment to the arts? Having spent a good deal of my life in the arts made a living as an artist for 25 years and spent a great deal of my time with artists I understand that they are a particular breed of people. They think differently they do things differently and they are by and large among the cleverest people I ever taught. I can recall the number of times that I had arts students who went on to do fine arts and the other teachers would ask why they did not do science geography or something else—they could do any of those things. 
Among the artists and the artistic community and I would say among the orchestral community we have people of very great skill very great ability and very great breadth of ability and skill. It is the kind of skill and ability that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in particular needs because an orchestra is not like any other Crown-owned entity. It is a special kind of organisation that thrives on creativity and flair. Most organisations thrive on creativity and flair but orchestras in particular do so. It would be a pity if this orchestra did not benefit in a very intimate way from the musicians being there as the board decisions are made. 
That is not provided for explicitly although it is in the bill that the Minister may appoint members of the orchestra and I am hopeful that she will do that. As I said I do not doubt her passion for the arts and her commitment to this orchestra. I am hopeful she will take advantage of the provisions in the bill to appoint members of the orchestra on the grounds of their ability—not simply because they are players but because they have the mix of skills needed. As I said before artists are normally integral parts of their community. 
I know a number of these musicians and I know of the roles they have played in other organisations in the community. They have governance skills they know about organisation they know about finances and they know about making music. The special flair they bring is an intimate understanding of the rigours of life in an orchestra. That is the kind of intimate knowledge that needs to be there as the board’s decisions are being made. It is not something that should be called on from time to time; the musicians should be in there and making their input as those decisions are being made. 
I do not share the Minister’s concerns that maybe National or ACT will demolish the orchestra should they get into power. Nor do I think the Opposition’s concern that Labour will dictate how the first violinists play is warranted either. I am sure we all have the best interests of this orchestra at heart and I believe that this bill will enhance the interests of the orchestra. As I said before I am hopeful that the Minister will look at the skills and background of the orchestral players who are nominated for the board and make the appointments on the basis of those skills. We will be supporting this bill. We are delighted to see it here and I know that it has the support of the majority in the House. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. We do of course find ourselves in the ridiculous situation of debating this bill in urgency. It is hardly a hugely urgent matter that requires all 120 members of the House to stay until midnight for several nights to debate it. Plenty of members on the other side were yawning before so they are obviously feeling the strain. Urgency should be used for matters requiring urgent attention. ACT New Zealand will not be supporting this bill as we indicated in our speeches in the first and second readings. 
This bill restructures the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company financially responsible for itself to a non-company Crown entity. That is the fundamental matter that the ACT party and I believe the National Party are opposed to. In the introduction debate Minister Maharey said that the bill is to ensure the orchestra’s financial viability. If we look carefully at that it means that the Government will not allow the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to go broke or go under. 
Minister Tizard however in the Committee stage talked about how well things were going that the orchestra was doing well financially and said that only a little of its overall spending came from Government funding. If that is the case it raises the question as to why any action is required. When I was preparing my introduction speech I looked at the 2001-02 annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. It said that it had recorded a better than budget income and lower than forecast expenditure and that reflected sound management underpinned by sure-footed artistic decisions that had resulted in significant increases in audience numbers throughout the country. So why is it deemed necessary to change the formula at all? I contend that this legislation is not necessary. 
The symphony orchestra has been very worried about sponsorship. Many members of the House will remember as I do the very successful tours the National Orchestra used to undertake to the provinces. We have not seen many of those of late. The orchestra put on successful summer pops concerts and they were very well attended by the public at large. It was able to do that because it had very good sponsors. I think BP Oil sponsored those tours. 
Clause 9 lists the functions of the orchestra and one of them is “to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music”. I cannot think of a time when the symphony orchestra did this function better than when those summer pops concerts were held around the country. Not only did lovers of symphonic orchestral music go along but they were able to take their children because the music was wide ranging and had broad appeal. That cannot be said of many of the ordinary concerts that people go to. 
My children love going to the orchestra when they hear something they recognise. They cannot however sit through a 2-hour performance of very highbrow music. Some of the snobbery that exists I think in society today does not sit comfortably with the requirement in paragraph (c) of clause 9 “to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music”. 
I turn to another issue in the commentary—that is the recognition of professional regional orchestras. There are several professional regional orchestras doing an extraordinarily good job. The Auckland Philharmonia is one and the Wellington Sinfonia and Southern Sinfonia are others. In fact the Wellington Sinfonia regularly plays for the Royal New Zealand Ballet when it comes to town. It is a very well-thought-of and respected sinfonia. 
The Government Administration Committee reported: “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.” It describes why that is not going to happen and concludes: “We therefore wish to offer our support and recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras that serve New Zealand audiences so well.” I am sure that will be of significant consolation to those orchestras! 
This bill is another example of the Government picking favourites. In this case it is the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Far from setting out to destroy the symphony orchestra as the Minister stood up and ranted at us with claims that ACT and National are trying to destroy the symphony orchestra ACT pleads guilty only to trying to provide a level playing field for all professional orchestras in this country that provide enjoyment and entertainment for New Zealanders. The Minister is just scaremongering when she repeatedly says we are trying to destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
When we look at the principal objectives and functions in the bill we see they are overly prescriptive and clearly unrealistic. How can anybody legislate for music to be played of an international standard and who will determine whether the music reaches that standard? And how is it possible to legislate for artistic imagination? What do we mean by “artistic imagination” and how can we legislate for that? 
I want to make brief mention of how particularly disturbing it is—and the ACT party along with United Future New Zealand First and the Greens made great mention of this—that there is no place for player representation on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. ACT supported the amendments that were put forward in this regard as we felt very strongly that the players should be represented and be represented seriously by giving them a voting right on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I will not go on to explain this in detail as the other parties have done it very well. 
The question arises of why the Labour Government supports this bill so vigorously. Well this bill is a symbol. It is a symbol that is reminiscent I think of the  
Titanic 
. The Labour Party is a bit like the sinking of the  
Titanic 
. We have before us a sinking vessel; it is going down slowly but the Government is standing up and saying: “Don’t worry. Listen to us. Do as we say and everything will be all right.” This New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is being debated under urgency. The symphony orchestra is coming under greater State control being instructed what to do and how to play to international standards and with artistic imagination. Yet indeed the ship is sinking. But New Zealanders can rest assured in the knowledge that the band will play on. ACT New Zealand does not support this bill.