Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12336] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill and to reiterate that it was a United Future election policy in 2002 to ensure that the national orchestra was put on a sure long-term footing. I believe that this bill will accomplish that. A Crown entity is a better structure in which to situate the orchestra than the present governance arrangements. That is a big plus in this bill but unfortunately there are some quite large minuses and I will get to them shortly. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra offers employment for many musicians in this country a cultural richness that comes from having musicians in the community and an essential support to other art forms—like opera ballet film and so on. It symbolises excellence and dedication in an artistic endeavour and it is evidence of cultural depth and maturity. It is a cost-effective way to provide symphonic performances of an international standard—something all New Zealanders can be rightfully proud of and have easy access to. 
 The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as the national orchestra is an important part of New Zealand culture and of course. of our national identity as well. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra can play a valuable role in projecting New Zealand’s culture to an international audience by capitalising on symphonic music as an international language while presenting something uniquely New Zealand. That is something we should all be rightly proud of. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players committee wanted support for a player to be a member of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra board. That is not much to ask for really considering it concerns the governance of the members’ lives—how they express themselves musically and how they live day to day. For them not to be able to have a voice on the board is something this bill ought to have addressed and had the opportunity to address but because of the infamous coalition between Labour and National that opportunity has now been denied. The suggestion that the board should be redesigned with a wider governance structure developed to better bring the interests of musicians board management sponsors and Government into harmony so they pull together to secure an agreed objective for the orchestra was not too much to ask for. Unfortunately that has been overlooked and denied by this Government and by its supporting partner the National Party. 
New Zealand has a small economy and population and it needs to concentrate its resources into one internationally recognised national orchestra. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra provides a quality benchmark for regional orchestras to aspire to and in turn regional orchestras provide a valuable training ground for future New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players. We do not have the luxury that other countries have of a large enough economy or population base to be able to fund more than one symphony orchestra at a time and to the extent it deserves. 
One of the things I stressed earlier about board membership for a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra player is that such membership is needed to provide a useful perspective and a range of experience and skills and to ensure the board always contains at least one person who knows the job from the inside. That absolutely makes sense. If one were to have a board running around talking about plumbing issues one would think that it would make good sense to have a plumber on the board. That is exactly the kind of argument I would push. ACT New Zealand First the Greens and even the Progressives also agree that that should be the case. It would also—and this is the important bit—match successful practice overseas. 
I suppose the most damning indictment of this Government’s view and its intransigence over the possibility of opening up the board to representation by players can be summed up by correspondence from a Sydney symphony orchestra board member: “It is particularly valuable for other board directors to hear of issues from the player’s perspective and then for the player to understand and explain the issues from the board’s perspective to colleagues in the orchestra.” It works overseas and it can work over here. For the life of me I do not understand how this Labour Government a Government that has a longstanding tradition of fighting for the rights of groups to be able to have a voice and to speak up for themselves can now in a very autocratic manner deny this group that right—the opportunity to voice its concerns. It is downright arrogance to assume that the players who provide so much in terms of musical talent should be denied the ability to embody that talent in a voice on a board that has everything to do with what they do and how they express their lives. 
Even more stunning is the fact that National has climbed into bed with Labour over this very issue. I want to know who got to National members? What personal relationship on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are they worrying about so that they will not agree to represent the players who ought to have a voice? That is what I would like to know. Where is that coming from? What are they afraid of? 
Lastly I would like to say that this is an MMP environment and we have a range of opinions throughout the House. I find it incredible that out of all the parties represented here United Future ACT New Zealand First the Greens and even the Progressives are all saying the same thing—why deny the right of the players to have a voice on the board? Then we have the two old parties—Labour which has gone back on its tradition of giving people a voice and National—both saying no. With their numbers those two parties have overruled a thoughtful articulated point of view from all the other parties. That is absolutely anti-democratic and anti-MMP. I think two parties should take a good long hard look at themselves and try to explain to the public why they are on the same side on this issue denying the right for people to have a say on the board. That is absolutely shameful particularly when we know that that representation can work very effectively overseas and does work well overseas. We are definitely behind in this game.