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:12304] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
:  
It is my pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First to speak once again to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I have had the opportunity to read the report from the Government Administration Committee. We do not have a regular member on that committee so I have had to keep in touch with what is going on. In reading the report I am pleased that the committee has given such broad recognition to the submissions that have been made to it. As the previous National Party speaker said this bill restructures the orchestra from being a company under the Companies Act 1993 but he did not quite make it clear that it now becomes an autonomous non-company Crown entity and the existing limited-liability legislation is brought to an end. As the commentary indicates: “In becoming an autonomous Crown entity the Orchestra will be subject to the reporting requirements set out in the Public Finance Act 1989.” That is important for us all as members of Parliament; if the taxpayer is going to make money available to the orchestra there should be a mechanism by which the taxpayer has some opportunity to consider the way in which the money is being spent and in this case it will be in terms of the Public Finance Act. 
The select committee is quick to point out and New Zealand First supports this view: “Notwithstanding these requirements in artistic matters the Orchestra will be able to operate independently and without ministerial direction.” That is clear from the functions provision of the legislation as well although that does not seem to have been quite recognised appropriately by the previous National Party speaker. 
All the regional orchestras around New Zealand will be pleased that on page 2 under the heading “Recognition of professional regional orchestras” the select committee has taken the trouble to refer to the work done throughout the country. I think recognition should be given. The committee states: “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. The Auckland Philharmonia commented that the bill’s lack of recognition of other professional orchestras could be interpreted to mean that the Orchestra is the only professional one in New Zealand. The Philharmonia expressed its concern that such an interpretation could preclude government support and recognition of professional regional orchestras. 
To address the Philharmonia’s concern we would have supported the inclusion of a preamble in the bill to provide for the formal recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras. However as the bill was introduced without a preamble one’’—unfortunately—“cannot be inserted by way of amendment to the bill. We therefore wish to offer our support and recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras that serve New Zealand audiences so well. Our intent in providing this recognition is to ensure that enactment of the bill does not see the preclusion of government support and recognition of our professional regional orchestras.” 
I would expect that all the professional regional orchestras in the country should bear that in mind if there is ever any problem with regard to recognition and appropriate financial support from time to time. This House greatly appreciates the work they do. I seem to recall that in my first reading speech I mentioned in particular the Auckland Philharmonia the Wellington Sinfonia and the Southern Sinfonia and I am pleased the select committee has taken the matter forward. 
The bill contains a functions clause and slightly more emphasis should be given to it than has been given. The functions are set out in clause 9. In particular paragraphs (a) to (e) look at the actual work the orchestra does and ensure it is given independence in so far as those functions are concerned. Any involvement by the Minister is set out in paragraph (f). Paragraphs (a) to (d) ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire and encourages the development of New Zealand musicians the appreciation of orchestral music and the development and expansion of the orchestra’s audience which is perhaps one of the most important things—to make sure there are bums on seats when the orchestra comes to town. In general from all the advice I get the orchestra is especially appreciated in the regional areas of New Zealand—more so sometimes than in Auckland for which I can speak with some degree of authority. Paragraph (e) describes the function of providing a touring orchestra. 
All those functions are performed without any advice from the Minister because paragraph (f) states that the orchestra is “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. So presumably if the orchestra wants to go off to London it has to consult the Minister about that before it comes to that decision. Equally important in paragraph (g) is the function “to co-operate with other institutions and organisations having objectives similar to those of the Orchestra.” That brings us back to those regional orchestras and suchlike and perhaps to some of the smaller ones. The Bach Musica which meets often at Auckland’s St Matthew-in-the-City is one of those that I am sure would be taken into account as well. 
In looking at the principal objectives of the orchestra New Zealand First is concerned that not enough recognition is given to the orchestra being a full-time professional orchestra and we propose an amendment to clause 8(b) at the Committee stage. Clause 8(b) just says that a principal objective of the orchestra is “to provide an orchestra that—”. Some of the submissions have indicated that that does not necessarily mean a full-time orchestra and one can take that point. All sorts of interpretations come up when we look at legislation after it has been passed and the opportunity to amend the legislation and make it abundantly clear is here and now. The Hon Brian Donnelly proposed to move an amendment. Unfortunately he is not here today so I am doing it on his behalf. We intend to delete the words “an orchestra” and insert in their place the words “a full-time professional orchestra”. The insertion of the word “full-time” will put the matter beyond doubt. I hope we will have the support of the Government and the House. 
The other amendment we have is to clause 9(g) which reads “to co-operate with other institutions and organisations having objectives similar to those of the Orchestra.” After the word “Orchestra” we would like to have inserted “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations” which is a fair enough statement. So New Zealand First will be moving those amendments. We see other amendments with regard to a players’ committee meaning a committee of players in the orchestra established for the purpose of fair representation and we do support the concept of fair representation. We will be supporting amendments along those lines. 
There has been some criticism of the Government by the National Party with regard to the nature of this bill. Of course that is fair enough. That is what Parliament is all about. We are here to criticise each other and find out what others’ views are. I look forward to the next National Party speaker telling us whether it is a National Party proposal to sell the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in the event that the National Party should become the Government. I go slightly further: one of the vehicles that carries the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s playing is Radio New Zealand which includes Concert FM and I would like to know as an avid Concert FM listener whether the National Party has a policy to sell Radio New Zealand or perhaps to curtail Concert FM. National may regard it as a station that is not needed in society. So will Concert FM go if there is a National Party Government? I would not support that at all. I do that from purely selfish personal interest. I wake up to Concert FM in the morning and I go to bed with Concert FM at night and I declare my conflict of interest my personal interest in the matter straight away. If National Party members criticise the Government and other parties which is fair enough it is beholden on us in New Zealand First to ask the National Party whether we will see the end of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra if National becomes the Government. Will we see the end of Concert FM if National becomes the Government? Its members are silent now but I expect we shall hear something from them on this issue before the debate is concluded.