Roy Heather: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4639] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I stand today to address the first reading of this bill with some surprise as to the speed with which it has leapt to the top of the Order Paper. If members look at the Order Paper they will see several other bills many of which have been languishing on it for some time—bills of some importance such as the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. But this bill has leapt to the top of the Order Paper. 
As much as I love listening to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and attending its performances I cannot help but feel like my colleague in the National Party who spoke earlier that there are matters of greater gravity to be debated in the House at this time. Internationally we have a war. Domestically we have seven district health boards under intensive monitoring which means they are in such strife that they need to work very closely with the Ministry of Health in order to function on a day-to-day level. The New Zealand education system allows one in five of our children to leave school without basic numeracy and literacy skills. The recent Catching the Knowledge Wave conference had speakers of international note who are experts in their fields but because their recommendations are not what the Prime Minister ordered she has declared there to be nothing resulting from the conference that cannot be put to the side of her desk. Instead we have before us a matter of such international and domestic magnitude that it must be addressed promptly: the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill! 
The explanatory note to the bill tells us that the bill’s primary purpose is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company to a non-company Crown entity. Minister Maharey in his first reading speech told the House that it is to ensure the orchestra’s financial viability. This in fact is code for “The Prime Minister won’t let it go broke.” One does wonder whether she knows something that we do not. As Mr Jones pointed out in his speech many other orchestras around the country are performing well and to a very fine and high standard. The Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and Wellington Symphonia come to mind. The Wellington Symphonia is so well regarded that it frequently plays for the New Zealand Ballet when it comes to town. 
In times of doubt it is often instructive to examine a company’s annual report and I have here the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s annual report for the year ended June 2002. The chief executive states in his overview: 
“In most months of the 2001-02 year we recorded better than budget income and lower than forecast expenditure. This reflects sound management underpinned by sure-footed artistic decisions that have resulted in significant increases in audience numbers through the country.” We wonder then why change is actually necessary if this is to be believed. 
However the chairman’s preface was not quite so rosy and if we turn back a page and read what Sir Selwyn Cushing has said we will find it very informative. He said: “The outlook for sponsorship has remained far from encouraging. The difficulties for arts organisations in attracting and retaining significant corporate support are even more obvious now than they were 12 months ago. The economic downturn exacerbated by the effects of September 11 has promoted many businesses to retrench in this area. It is with particular chagrin that we accepted the decision of both Telecom and Air New Zealand not to continue their longstanding and greatly valued support for the orchestra.” Why was it possible for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to achieve adequate sponsorship under the previous Government but not this Government? 
Patrons will recall the BP summer pops concerts that played in packed venues around the country. Did they stop because the music was not of an international standard? The reason I contend was much more to do with corporates being subject to higher taxes and therefore not being in a position to support such ventures. 
If we look at the principal objectives of the orchestra and its functions we find that they too are quite instructive. Clause 8 “Principal objectives of Orchestra” states: “The principal objectives of the orchestra are—(a) to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard:”. What will happen to the violinist whose vibrato is not vibratory enough or the pianist who accidentally confuses his upper and lower mordents? Will the individual musicians be held responsible for not upholding the international standard to which they are required to play? If so how will they be punished? What of the conductor who fails to execute adequately the rallentando or the ritenuto markings on his musical score? Presumably he will be expected to pass on his baton. 
We read further down in the objectives and see that paragraph (d) states that the objective is: “to encourage New Zealand musical composition:”. Again if we go back to the annual report we read on page 7 that our commitment to New Zealand music is reflected in the inclusion of works by our own composers in our main subscription concerts. It is already happening. Why do we need a change? The orchestra thought it had already achieved this objective. 
Another objective is to provide an orchestra that is highly skilled and artistically imaginative. I think the Prime Minister has discovered new resources in central planning undreamt of heretofore. Let us explore artistic imagination for a moment. Artistic imagination is not something one can legislate for. We in ACT believe that artistic imagination is a gift a talent—something a person is born with and that can be developed with hard work. However if the bill is passed the Labour Government must be expecting a springing up of musical talent among the general populace. Imagine the boom— 
Dail Jones 
: The unemployed ones. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Absolutely—good work for them! Imagine the boom in the arts if the Royal New Zealand Ballet were also subject to legislation for artistic imagination. 
This bill stresses that in all artistic matters the orchestra will be at arm’s length from ministerial direction. Again I suggest that that is code for something else—perhaps for “close enough to be told how to operate”. 
One of the functions of 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. However clause 9 spells out the Prime Minister’s intent. It states that a function is to carry out any other functions. Will we perhaps be seeing a guest appearance one wonders. 
Given the central control the legislating for artistic imagination and the attitude pervading this bill that artistic talent is safest in the hands of this authoritarian Government ACT New Zealand cannot support this bill. We want to see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra there and we want to see it do well. We want to see it compete on the world stage. We want to encourage creativity and the orchestra’s popularity within New Zealand but this bill will not achieve that. To legislate for artistic imagination is an intellectual conceit that for sheer gall takes the breath away. We have an international crisis domestically things are not looking rosy but today the country can rest assured that the band plays on.