New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill

This bill was introduced by the Government some 4 or 5 weeks ago—I have lost track of the time—and I have been waiting patiently for the opportunity to continue my speech.

When the bill was introduced, the Minister Steve Maharey conducted the introduction. In his speech, of which I have obtained a copy, he makes some comments that I think I should bring to the attention of the House so that we know precisely what we are talking about. He made it clear that currently the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has its own Act of Parliament, under which it is established as a limited liability company. It is the intention of the Crown to change the form of ownership to a Crown entity. The Minister indicated that “the bill signals the Government’s expectation that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra will provide the public of New Zealand with performances of symphonic music of an international standard. It will be required to seek to contribute to the development of a distinctly New Zealand cultural environment and to encourage New Zealand musical composition.” In his speech he said on the one hand that “Nothing in this legislation diminishes the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s artistic independence or integrity.”, and in the next sentence he stated it “will continue to act without ministerial or, indeed, parliamentary direction in artistic matters”. But he had indicated earlier in his speech that it must seek to contribute to the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment. Indeed, clauses 8 and 9 of the bill make it quite clear that the orchestra must act within certain legislative confines.

I do ask why we are changing this New Zealand Symphony Orchestra structure from a limited liability company to a Crown entity. Why are we wasting the time of the House, in urgency, on this legislation? What is so important, what is so necessary, and what is the mischief currently being undertaken that requires us to get rid of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than a whim of the Prime Minister. There seems to be no point in it at all. The orchestra is carrying on perfectly well. It is doing its job brilliantly, and there is no need for the Government to interfere. But here we are, being forced in urgency, at 10 past 10 on a Wednesday morning—and being deprived of question time on Wednesday and Thursday—to look at a totally unnecessary restructure of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

Why must we have yet another Crown entity? Many years ago I ranted and railed against quangos—quasi non-governmental organisations. There is a cause out there for someone to rant and rail against Crown entities. These things are being set up with a view to not having any governmental ministerial responsibility on the one hand, but then the Government sets up Acts of Parliament that say they virtually must do what Parliament wants.

I enjoy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I actually do attend its performances. I read with interest its Wellington season programme for 2003, of which I have a copy here. In my last speech I read out some of its work. Of course, in the bill there is a requirement that the orchestra have New Zealand performers and New Zealand performances. We had one, David Farquhar’s third symphony, just last week. But apart from that, we seem to be struggling to get any New Zealand performers of any note. I know that in this year’s programme there are meant to be four performances of New Zealand work—work of people who won a prize in a local competition. But what happens if the winner happens to be from overseas? Will we limit the people who take part in New Zealand competitions? If the winner happens to be an overseas person, will that person’s work get the opportunity to be played, or will the performances be limited to work by a New Zealand person? Will we restrict, in effect, the development of classical-type music, and of music generally, in New Zealand?

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra programme for 2003 is a wonderful one, a varied one. I noted the report on Monday, 3 March of its programme A Great Orchestra, A Great Journey. I listened to the radio programme where Peter Walls from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was talking about the wonderful programme the orchestra has this year. We are all looking forward to attending.

One must not forget that there are other orchestras around the country. In the overall scene, we must not forget that they also have needs. I will not go too much into the question of how they will be funded—for example, through the Responsible Gambling Bill—or how controls will be imposed on how that money is used. That will be a debate in another area. But I notice that a press release from the Christchurch City Council compliments, on the 30th anniversary of the Christchurch-Kurashiki sister city relationship, the work of the Christchurch Youth Orchestra and the Kurashiki Junior Philharmonia, of which 19 members were to be in Christchurch. We want to be sure that we continue supporting development of such orchestras in Christchurch, the Waikato, Auckland, Dunedin, or wherever they might be.

We in New Zealand must at this point also express our indebtedness to Klaus Heymann and his Naxos label. We all know the recent Lilburn work, which was put out by Naxos, and won great praise in the United Kingdom—I think it was top of the charts. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s work is now receiving international fame. I recall also that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra will be funded to go Japan—fully funded, I believe, by the Japanese. We must all take great pride in its work.

But again, as I say, we must not forget orchestras such as the Auckland Philharmonia and its wonderful Royal and SunAlliance series of 2003, which many of us will be attending, and groups such as Bach Musica with its 2003 subscription series, which is held from time to time at St Matthew’s in the City, in Auckland. It is attended, invariably, by a full house.

When we are passing this bill we must not ever overlook the fact that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra owes its existence, to a large extent, to all those young girls and boys who go along to their piano practice, their violin practice, their cello practice, and suchlike, and work their way towards being in an orchestra.

This bill also talks about the development of New Zealand performing art. I understand that once upon a time Dr Bruce Gregory, a former member for Northern Māori, gave us an exposition on an instrument called the nguru. It is an instrument that is inserted in the nostril; as the name implies, snoring or snorting through it gives a whistling sound. I wonder whether today’s Minister of Māori Affairs would give us a demonstration on the nguru, so that the development of this fine New Zealand instrument is continued by yet another member of this House. Maybe, with the size of our Minister of Māori Affairs, we might have a double concerto from the nguru—one from each nostril.

I rise in support of this bill. I would like to clarify that this bill is setting up the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as a non-company Crown entity. That is what the orchestra itself has asked for. I make the point that this orchestra was one of our languishing icons. All the cultural devotees flock to the House to talk about their knowledge of the orchestra and the arts, but the orchestra was one of our icons that was floundering until we came into Government in 1999 with our cultural recovery package. We put $1.4 million into making a stable financial footing for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to move on. I think this Government needs to be applauded for that. And it is remembered for that as we go out in support of our cultural institutions. The bill simply gives clarity to how the orchestra wishes to perform, and takes away that driver of it being a commercially driven entity. For that I support this bill.

I would first like to make a couple of points about the previous speech given by the Labour member. I totally refute that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is, or was, a languishing icon. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has always been an icon of this country. It remains an icon, and it will always play a very important part in the cultural heritage of this country.

In terms of the creative process, however, I argue that it is not the role of the State to codify the creative process. We have a 31-page bill here that basically tells the orchestra how to suck eggs, how to play its instruments. It basically says that the orchestra’s job is to play symphonic music. Well, I say “Hello?”. I think we have always known that that is its role since it was first established. I think the orchestra has always been pretty clear that that is its role. We do not need the extension of regulation and legislation into these sorts of areas.

This is nothing more than a piece of symbolism. The Government is aiming to demonstrate its commitment to the arts. But I say it is not our role to stand here in Parliament and pass legislation to make a certain part of a sector feel good. We are here to pass laws that are necessary and useful, and have a role. The role of passing legislation is a very expensive one. The Parliamentary Library tells me that a piece of legislation can cost anywhere between $300,000 and $800,000; some estimates are up to $2 million. That is a lot of money to spend on passing legislation that is actually unnecessary.

If the Government wants to put its money where its mouth is, why not take that money and give it straight to the Symphony Orchestra? At least, the money then could be put into performance, into something that would make a difference to New Zealand people. The money that will be spent discussing this very large bill, which basically tells the orchestra to play music, should be put into a national tour by the orchestra, allowing it to play in some of the far-flung areas that it may not have been to in the past. That is a far more useful and far better use of scarce taxpayer resources than standing up here and talking about things that we already know.

I do not think the Symphony Orchestra has any concerns about what its role is, because it is stated in its statement of corporate intent: to play live orchestral concerts to the highest international standards; to contract top-level international conductors and performers within budget limitations; to promote and support New Zealand artists and composers, in both concerts and recordings; and to perform regularly in communities throughout New Zealand. Those are very important objectives, but they are already there. The orchestra already knows what it is doing. The Government is not fixing any problem here; it simply wants to demonstrate to a group that it is doing something for the arts. Well, I say that is not our role. We are here to pass laws that are necessary and will make a difference. The orchestra is doing an extremely good job in following the legislation that is already in place.

The next aim of the bill is to change the orchestra’s structure. Well, the approach of the orchestra could be changed without our putting through this legislation. I do not think the organisation has been run in a totally commercial sense. Yes, it does some popular things like playing the music of Split Enz, but if one looks at the orchestra’s schedules for last season and this season, one sees there is a fine mix between the popular and the particular, between playing some well-known pieces and supporting some less well-known artists and, in particular, supporting New Zealand music.

It is very interesting that this Government continues to talk about supporting New Zealand music, when among the key groups that do not support New Zealand producers and music are, not the commercial network, but Concert FM and the orchestra itself. I think the orchestra could do a better job of presenting and producing more New Zealand works, rather than just tried and true pieces from around the world. It seems that the Government is intent on imposing local content quotas, to which I say it should have a look at Concert FM. The last time I looked at that radio station’s annual report, I saw that between 3 and 4 percent of what it currently plays is New Zealand - produced music.

In addition, I do not think one can codify parts of the creative process. It is very difficult for any organisation to measure things like quality. Most New Zealanders already know the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. They know the part that it has played in our culture. They know what it is there to do. We do not need to waste parliamentary time, or the money involved in our doing this, just to tell the Symphony Orchestra that its job is to play music. The orchestra knows its raison d’être; it knows why it is there. When one looks at the costs of putting this bill through the House, one has to ask why the Government does not just give the orchestra that money for it to put it into performances.

💬 Steve Chadwick: But you didn’t—that’s the reason.

I ask that member why the Government does not put the money into a performance in Rotorua. The orchestra should tour more places in New Zealand than just Wellington and Auckland. Yes, it does make a fine attempt at going to other places, but one could take the orchestra to a lot more New Zealand places with the millions of dollars that will be spent on this legislation, which we do not need.

💬 Jill Pettis: We know you’re better than this.

I say to that member that I bet she thinks Pachelbel’s Canon is something being used by the Iraqis right now. When was the last time that member went to hear the Symphony Orchestra? In terms of a love of music and a love of the orchestra, I think the members who are speaking about this bill are the ones who really know how important cultural aspects are. We do not need a bill to tell us the role of the orchestra. We do not need 31 pages, which basically give a blow-by-blow account of what the orchestra is there to do. Most of us know that this is nothing more than a bill to make the Government feel good. It wants to hold this bill up, and say: “Look what we did for the orchestra.”

New Zealanders are not thick. They do not need a bill that tells the Symphony Orchestra that its role is to work with the New Zealand ballet and opera companies. We do not need legislation to set out the role of the Auckland Philharmonia. We do not need legislation to tell the Dunedin Symphonia what to do. We do not need legislation to set up pipe bands or brass bands around the country, or to tell them what to play or what the quality of their music should be. This is just absolute silliness. I think it will switch a lot of New Zealanders off, because they will be able to see through this 31-page bill.

Here we are, in urgency, and this bill is supposed to be the urgent order of the day, but I think there are many other bills on the Order Paper that we should be focusing on. If the Government wants to put its money where its mouth is, it should pull this bill right now. It should take the money that will be spent on putting the bill through the select committee process, and give it to the orchestra, so that it can use the money to take itself on the road and do more performing, because that is its job.

Contrary to the previous speaker, United Future believes that art is important, and a necessary ingredient in the well-being of our country and culture. United Future supports the general thrust of this bill, and what it aims to do. We are therefore very happy to support this bill through its first reading to the select committee stage. We agree that, although New Zealand’s top orchestra certainly has commercial obligations, it is not really a company. To reconstitute it as a Crown entity is therefore entirely appropriate. However, in supporting this bill we do so with a note of irony, given the arm’s length at which the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was kept by a Labour Government in the late 1980s; but having now changed its ideological pants and its musical tune, it is, funnily enough, a Labour-led Government that is reconstituting the orchestra’s status to become a Crown entity.

In terms of the previous legislation, the shares of the company were held by the responsible Minister and the Minister of Finance. The function of the orchestra is set out absolutely nowhere in the 1988 Act. It had responsibilities only in respect of the Companies Act. Its status as our national orchestra did not even warrant a mention. It is therefore conceivable that we could have had an orchestra company that ceased to function as an orchestra at all.

This legislation is necessary to protect our national orchestra as one of our cultural treasures. This bill provides exactly for that, and, in terms of the orchestra’s survival and stability, it is vital that we do that now, and into the future. United Future’s election policy also supports providing for the orchestra to be put on a sure footing for the long term. We are therefore glad to see steps being made toward that. However, we flag our concerns regarding the accountability of the tax money spent, and what the taxpayer will receive. The orchestra has made a $538,000 profit in the year 2001, and that is its first surplus since 1997—although it was helped by the Government’s cash boost in 2000 as part of its arts package—compared with the loss of $1.5 million in 1998-99.

Should there be a tighter definition of financial viability, so that the orchestra is more able to live within its means? We think so. On a related topic, some feel that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra already gets too much at the expense of regional orchestras and other arts. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has the biggest budget of the professional arts organisations, and is the only one to pay directors’ fees. The concern is that by drawing the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra so close to the State’s bosom, it will continue to suckle without restraint.

There are also suspicions in the music world that the orchestra is managerially top-heavy. The bill creates a new board, which is appointed by the Minister, but it is not clear whether it will be larger than the existing governing body of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. A cynic would suggest that this might create more opportunities for political appointments.

However, contrary to the older legislation, this new bill provides some principal objectives for the orchestra, including the provision of performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard, and the provision of an orchestra that is highly skilled and has strong community support. More important, the orchestra is to take a leading role in the performing arts industry in developing New Zealand’s cultural environment. It will encourage composition in New Zealand and it will provide opportunities for the development of our own musicians. United Future supports the promotion of, and the long-term provision for, our New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and therefore is proud to support this bill.

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.

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.

All I can say is what a miserable and negative Opposition we have! This bill is to change the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra into a non-company Crown entity. It is to put the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra on a positive financial footing. I find that the speeches made by the Opposition are entirely negative, totally uncreative, and totally unartistic. This is one bill that the Opposition could get behind and show a bit of spirit and patriotism towards New Zealand, and New Zealand artistic endeavours.

I also take this opportunity at this stage to both note and to pay tribute to Ted Carr, who I understand died last week, and thank him for his contribution to New Zealand music. As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I say that we look forward to having this bill come to our committee, to return it back to the House, to get it passed, and to put the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra on a firm and stable footing to serve members of both the adult community who attend the concerts and also members of the young community who benefit from their educational performance and instruction.

I rise to support this bill on behalf of the Green Party. I would like to compliment the Government on its support of the arts. It has been brilliant, and the arts are doing very well as a result of it. The bill does not provide an excuse for sloppy management, nor does it suggest that management should be less than businesslike or that it should not grasp all reasonable opportunities to increase public patronage. The legislation does remind the orchestra that despite almost two decades of market-led decision, the orchestra’s prime job is to make music. All New Zealanders can take considerable pride in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Over many years it has established itself as one of the world’s great orchestras. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has been an important component in ridding this most talented country of the cultural cringe that for far too long saw us apologising for the quality of our artistic endeavours, on the assumption that the important products were superior.

So if the orchestra has achieved so much under the existing law, why do we need a new law? I suspect that the existing law is a bit of nonsense, anyway, and getting rid of bad law makes good sense. What did the current law expect of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra? It expected that it should act in a commercially responsible manner. That is not an unreasonable expectation. Clause 10 still expects the orchestra to operate in a financially responsible manner and to maintain financial viability. But its principle objectives are—and I will not read them again, because they have been read several times—basically to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music and to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctly New Zealand cultural environment.

Why do we have to spell it out? I suspect, in spite of 15 years under the old Act, the orchestra never stopped acknowledging those responsibilities; it has continued to bring great music to New Zealanders and the world. While Lilburn may not be the top of the pops for most New Zealanders, our orchestra has ensured that his music can be purchased and listened to throughout the world. It is the music of Lilburn, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, the work of Kiri Te Kanawa, the Colin McCahons, the Peter Jacksons, and the Boyd Webbs, the Kapahakas, and Neil Dawsons that has let the rest of the world know that in addition to being producers of fine wool, great food, talented athletes, and sailors, ours is a remarkably cultured little country.

While for many New Zealanders their taste in entertainment and enlightenment might lie elsewhere, we all benefit from being considered as a consequence of the activities of our artists. Our products have an added spice when it is known that they come from a country that has more than beautiful scenery and great rugby players. New Zealand is a more eagerly sought destination because of its rich culture.

The bill establishes the orchestra’s independence on artistic matters. This is important. It was this independence that was potentially threatened by the expectation that it would operate in a commercially responsible manner. There is always the chance that a more conservative Government may expect it to turn a profit. I like to think that under this bill the orchestra will not succumb to the temptation to neglect its responsibilities to New Zealand composers and the cutting edge, in pursuit of the popular and the more accessible that market forces might decree.

To those who begrudge the modest sums of money spent on our arts and label them elitist, I would remind them that never before have the efforts of our orchestra and artists been so accessible. Performances in parks, playing fields, and stadia have seen vast crowds turning out, and thanks to the leadership of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra many more young New Zealanders are aspiring to be musicians and can look forward to careers as professional musicians here and overseas. I refer to Dail Jones’ comment: “What about the other orchestras—the orchestras in Auckland, Christchurch, Nelson, or Wellington?”.

💬 Heather Roy: Nelson is very good.

Indeed, they are very good, and because of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra these smaller orchestras provide a stepping stone for something greater and for a professional engagement as professional musicians.

We spend much too much of our time producing more and working harder. The Green Party believes that what we most need to do is to make life better, and to enrich the ordinary moments of our lives, as well as the special occasions. The arts have the capacity to make our homes, our workplaces, our schools, and our towns and cities, as well as the important events and occasions, richer and more fun, and uniquely us. This bill goes some way to ensuring that our orchestra will continue to contribute to that richness and uniqueness. I am aware that the orchestra, the creative communities, the creative audiences, and the artistic audiences in this country will have something to contribute to this bill. The Greens are happy to see it progress to the select committee process.

I ask the question: what is it in the genetic makeup of the Greens and the Labour Party that just causes them to want more and more State control? The National Party absolutely wants to see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra flourish. We also want to see far greater freedom of artistic direction of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. We also want to pay tribute to the musicians and the incredible depth of talent, discipline, and creativity that surrounds the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra under its present legislation. The National Party does not support Helen Clark’s absolutely unnecessary New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill.

One thing that Helen Clark cannot help herself on is just putting a little bit more State control into everything that she can get her tentacles on. This is a perfect demonstration of it. I for one celebrate the increased funding of the arts in New Zealand, and I do not underestimate the huge contribution the arts make to our cultural, spiritual, and, for that matter, economic, life. Here is a bill that has been brought in under urgency, the stated purpose of which is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited-liability company to a non-company Crown entity. One might ask what on earth that is. I certainly do know that it inherently does mean more State control, and given the success to date of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra I wonder why that is needed.

I learn that the Government’s desire is to move to a non-company Crown entity to enforce better lines of accountability. It sounds great on paper, but in actual fact it just means more blank cheques of money. It means, probably, that that is at the expense of other artistic organisations and orchestras around New Zealand. Undoubtedly, important tensions—and Clayton Cosgrove, sitting across on the Government benches, surely must agree—are created by a limited liability company, which bring a reality check to those directly involved in the organisation. I understand that there is absolutely no other country in the world where the Government enshrines one particular orchestra over all other orchestral organisations.

It is interesting to have a look at the general policy statement at the beginning of the bill, because it states: “The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 does not prescribe the Orchestra’s purpose and functions, nor government’s expectations of it. As a limited liability company, the Orchestra operates within the requirements of the Companies Act 1993. Consequently, it is expected to carry out functions that are commercial in nature.” Well, what is wrong with that? Some of the world’s greatest orchestras, which have been heralded as demonstrating the highest artistic performances, the greatest professionalism, and quintessential creativity, have organisations that owe their existence to obeying commercial disciplines.

These are not State-controlled orchestras, enshrined by a non-company Crown entity. I can think of the London Symphony Orchestra—independent since 1904—the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the Cleveland Orchestra, the Berlin Symphony Orchestra, and not to mention the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Here in New Zealand we have the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra operating extremely successfully, with no legislation and at about a quarter of the cost of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

Some of the world’s finest orchestras are certainly in the United States of America, and this is the prescription that encapsulates them: “… an organisational structure that canonises the musical director, a volunteer support system that creates serious tension between the art of music-making and the business of orchestral management in a reliance on community sponsorship that juxtaposes popular taste with the moral virtues of serious art.”

There are some utterly confused, diametrically opposed, control-freak, “Helen-speak” characteristics to this bill. Its general policy statement opines that: “The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 does not prescribe the Orchestra’s purpose and functions, nor government’s expectations of it.” The new bill, however, does prescribe, quite specifically, five objectives and seven functions. That is followed by a brilliant cadenza of State-controlled prestidigitation, because in the general policy statement, it states: “… in all artistic matters, the Orchestra will be empowered to operate independently and without ministerial direction.” I would ask anyone how it is possible—with five new specific objectives and seven new specific functions, one of which is “to carry out any further functions consistent with its principal objectives, as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”—to be free “in all artistic matters”, when there are five prescribed objectives and seven prescribed functions?

Helen Clark’s New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is sophistry. It does not allow greater artistic freedom; it brings in unnecessary measures of State control and underpinning, and it is a waste of money.

The annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra contains a clear statement of objectives. Those objectives do not need special legislation. Under the 1988 Act the orchestra can be much more responsive, fluid, and creative in its objectives than it can in having them enshrined in Helen Clark’s legislation.

A bill such as this, as my colleague Katherine Rich mentioned, probably costs from half a million to a million dollars to go through the parliamentary process. That money could undoubtedly be far better used on art and performance. That money could certainly make a huge difference to the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, which has no Government backing. That orchestra makes a superb artistic contribution, serving the largest population in New Zealand at about a quarter of the cost of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra—while having no legislation, let alone becoming a non-company Crown entity.

Today, undoubtedly, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is highly regarded and revered throughout New Zealand. As far as I know, its existence and sustainability are supported by all political parties, and it travels throughout New Zealand. It prides itself on high-level artistic achievements, it inspires and educates hundreds of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders, it provides a priceless pool of talent to teach and help the budding musicians of the nation, and it supports ballet and opera. Mr Clayton Cosgrove might not know about that. However, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra does not need to be shackled by a bill that, if anything, will only constrain it to a prescription of objectives and functions ordered by a highly control-conscious, megalomaniac leader of a minority Government. I end by saying that about 20 years ago I went to a concert in Auckland by the Shanghai State Orchestra. The first half of that concert was awful!