Ward Mike: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ward Mike: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12316] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 It is difficult to understand why player representation is not wanted on the board. It might be argued that player representatives could put the interests of the players ahead of the broader interests of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra but that is unlikely to happen. When the interests of the players are greater than the interest of the public at large their representatives would have to declare that interest. 
It could be argued that such representation is not a common thing to do but that does not stand up either. If we look at the boards of tertiary institutions we see they have both student and staff representatives and that works very well. I might add that most of our tertiary institutions have much broader interests much more diverse interests and much larger budgets to administer than the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
It is in the interests of all board members to work collaboratively. Each is a minority and his or her views will be adopted only if he or she can convince the other board members of their merit. Regional orchestras have player representation. Australian orchestras have player representation. Who else is likely to bring the same combination of passion and knowledge about the core business of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra? Who else is able to bring the same level of experience or memory of the practical implications of decisions? 
Board membership is not a position for just any member of the orchestra but with 90 educated intelligent experienced and passionate players for the Minister to choose from I have no doubt that it will be possible to come up with a musician with a mix of experience in the areas of administration governance the community and the arts that complements the contribution of the other board members. Members of the orchestra are parents. They are members of the community. They will have been on school boards of trustees. They will have held other administrative positions. I know a number of those people. They are extraordinarily intelligent and educated individuals with a broader knowledge than just simply the knowledge of playing in an orchestra. They are the kinds of people that I would have thought were wanted on a board. They would bring a level of expertise that nobody else could bring. They would bring a level of experience that nobody else could bring. I would have thought that that experience and expertise would be vital to good decision-making. 
I have been on decision-making committees and I have noticed that when decisions are made for people who are not represented those people are resentful. I suspect that a measure of resentment would grow around a decision to exclude the players. When I think of the flare with which the players presented their submission to the Government Administration Committee I think it is the kind of flare that the orchestra could do with. They came and played; they gave their submission with a bit of flare and with a bit of buzz. If we fail to pass an amendment that will undermine the effectiveness of the board. If we pass it it will bring about a new measure of trust between the board members and the players. The legislation is good and on everything else in it I would say “Go to it!”. It will enhance the position of the orchestra. 
That the orchestra is to enhance and promote New Zealand music is a plus. There is an idea from the way that others have spoken that somehow New Zealand music is not worthy of being listened to and will not be popular. In fact any good orchestra will put together a concert mix that brings the kinds of people it wants to have in its audience—namely all New Zealanders including people who want to listen to New Zealand music. 
The Greens will be supporting the bill but we make a strong plea for the addition of player representatives on the board. The National Party’s amendment states that both may be appointed. “May” is not good enough. If we are not willing to put player representatives in there is it likely to happen? I suspect not. It is simply about making the board more democratic. “May” is not good enough. The amendment I have put up reads to omit subclause (2) of clause 12 and substitute the following clause: “The board must consist of not”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s amendments are to Part 2. 
MIKE WARD 
: OK. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has more time but I just make that point.