Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12318] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2. Clearly it is the main area of the bill that deals with the offensive parts— the principal objectives and functions of the orchestra. Our side of the House has made it very clear that they are quite unnecessarily prescriptive and will only lead to huge confusion. In particular clause 8(c) requires the orchestra “to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment”. We hope the Minister will take a call to tell us exactly what that means. Surely it is far preferable to let that distinctive New Zealand cultural environment evolve spontaneously without prescriptive legislation. 
If one looks around the world at the great independent orchestras such as the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra the London Symphony Orchestra the London Philharmonic Orchestra and the Cleveland Orchestra there is just absolutely no doubt that all of those are independent orchestras that have demonstrated the highest pinnacle of artistic endeavour and none of them have been enshrouded with this sort of prescription. 
 Let us go on to clause 9 “Functions of Orchestra”. There we see the requirements the Labour Government wants us to put in. They include: “(a) to ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance …”. Has it not been doing that for years and years? They go on: “(b) to encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. Once again the orchestra has a clear track record of doing exactly that. Part of the reason for the orchestra’s existence is to do exactly that. The orchestra has been a shining example of achievement because without this unnecessary legislation literally hundreds of young New Zealanders have been able to develop and evolve their skills—not only for the benefit of all New Zealanders but also in terms of their international contribution. 
The functions continue: “(c) to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music:”. One could continue going through the list only to find that these things are all happening anyway. Why have the legislation? Hopefully the Minister will take a moment to explain to us what the difference is and tell us whether the orchestra has been carrying out these functions. I say it has and I challenge the Minister to say anything to the contrary. 
We should bear in mind that the function under paragraph (f) states: “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. If we look at the current situation we will see that no such requirement is needed. The orchestra has flourished without it; it is quite clearly unnecessary. 
However when we go to the provisions relating to the board again we have the dilemma that has been discussed already. It is terribly important to have a clear governance role in respect of the orchestra. There are all sorts of practical difficulties that can occur particularly where the Government is the main contributor to the funding of the orchestra. In this case it is $10 million a year and the box office and corporate collections amount to about $5 million a year. There is no doubt that conflicts of interest will arise—if indeed there are difficulties—if employees are involved in the governance of their own organisation in this set of circumstances. That does not mean to say that in future sets of circumstances it would not be inappropriate.