New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a second time. This bill enters a cultural environment that has been strengthened by the additional resources allocated to it by the Government and Parliament over the past 4 years. We made that investment in order to ensure that New Zealand’s cultural infrastructure is demonstrably robust and sustainable. With that knowledge and commitment, we celebrate the institutions and people who enrich our culture, as well as enable New Zealanders to participate in our culture and to have access to the many strands that make it up. Our commitment to the creative sector saw an injection of funding in 2000 to place some of our most cherished national cultural institutions on a secure footing base—in many cases, for the first time.

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is one of this country’s flagship cultural institutions, in which New Zealanders have taken great pride and pleasure for nearly 60 years. A suite of excellent regional orchestras complements the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, thus ensuring that a wider New Zealand audience has ready access to orchestral music of very high quality. New Zealanders are very well served by our orchestral institutions, but the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has not always been well served by the financial and legal parameters imposed on its operations. Since it was established in 1988, there has been very little change to those parameters. The capital funding of $3 million allocated to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in 2000 established a more stable financial base for its functioning. At the same time, this Government allocated an extra $1.4 million annually, to ensure that the orchestra would be adequately resourced. With this bill, we address the legislative platform of the orchestra’s operation.

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is currently a Crown-owned, limited liability company. It is operated within a commercial framework, in keeping with the provisions of the Companies Act. However, as the owner and principal funder, the Government does not necessarily expect the orchestra to achieve operating surpluses. Although the orchestra is required to remain financially viable, its prime responsibility and role is to deliver world-class performances of orchestral music to New Zealand audiences throughout New Zealand. In doing so, it helps to build a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment.

In 2000, the current company structure of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was reviewed, in the context of the State Services Commission’s programme of reforms of Crown entities. The purpose of establishing the orchestra as a limited liability company had been to use the provisions of the Companies Act as an incentive to the board to act prudently in its financial management. Those provisions have had little effect on the orchestra’s operations. Moreover, the company structure does not reflect this Government’s primary interest in the orchestra, which we have already described. Therefore, one of the primary purposes of this bill is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company, established under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act, to an autonomous, non-company Crown entity. That structure will ensure that robust accountability requirements and the obligations of the board to act prudently in financial management are maintained. However, it does not in any way imply that Governments or Ministers could direct the choices made by the orchestra.

An important principle underpinning this bill is that of artistic freedom. The bill will ensure that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra operates without ministerial direction in all artistic matters. That reflects a well-established principle that cultural sector Crown agencies operate at arm’s length from the Government, without ministerial direction. That principle is embodied, for example, in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act and in the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act. It empowers those cultural agencies to pursue their objectives and perform their functions, while promoting and maintaining freedom of artistic expression, with no direct political intervention. Robust governance and accountability requirements are included in the bill, and the board will be accountable to the Government through the collective and individual duties imposed on its members, and through its reporting requirements under the Public Finance Act.

The principal Act does not prescribe the orchestra’s purpose and functions, nor does it spell out the Government’s or Parliament’s expectations of it. Therefore, the second primary purpose of this bill is to clarify the orchestra’s role as a touring national orchestra, by establishing in legislation its principal objectives and functions. The principal objectives and functions will provide a common understanding about the orchestra’s responsibilities and scope. The principal objectives describe in broad terms the leadership role that the orchestra is expected to take in the New Zealand cultural environment. The orchestra will provide New Zealanders with symphonic music performed to international standards, and encourage the development of New Zealand music, musicians, and composers. The functions expressed in the bill reflect the high-level expectations of the orchestra. They include ensuring that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance, including New Zealand works and recent works, encouraging the development of New Zealand musicians, and encouraging the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of music.

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s board and management have been actively consulted during the development of the bill, as has the general public. Creative New Zealand and the four major regional orchestras have been briefed on the bill’s contents and progress, and all relevant cultural and artistic agencies had the opportunity to make submissions on its content during the Government Administration Committee hearings. The bill was first read in February last year, and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. The committee received 15 written submissions, and heard five oral submissions. I thank the select committee for its excellent work. Some issues were quite hotly argued, and I am sure that the debate in the House will reflect that.

Submitters strongly supported and endorsed the general intention of the bill. The issues that they raised focused, in particular, on the objectives and functions set out in clauses 8 and 9. That those clauses attracted the most attention was to be expected, as they specify the orchestra’s purpose and function for the first time in legislation. Given the orchestra’s very high profile as a flagship performing arts organisation, there was high interest amongst the submitters in general—in particular, amongst those from the music sector—in the Government’s expectations of the orchestra, and in the nature of its contribution to the cultural life of New Zealand. It was reassuring that the proposed amendments to the orchestra’s principal objectives and functions generally sought to provide an extension or a refinement of, or to give greater emphasis to, the existing provisions of the newly drafted bill, and did not propose fundamental changes to it. I thank all the submitters who took the time to look at the bill.

Some submissions on the principal objectives provided textural amendments that became overly detailed and potentially proscriptive. Those amendments were rejected. The objectives and functions are articulated at a sufficiently high level to allow the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra executive and board to develop the orchestra’s strategic and business plans independently, and to agree to a statement of intent with the responsible Minister. Accordingly, the select committee did not recommend any amendments that would limit the orchestra’s flexibility in that area. We will go through the amendments as we go through the Committee stage, so suffice it to say at this stage that the committee made four major recommendations for changes to the bill. I thank the committee for that excellent refinement of this legislation.

I add one further point. I am aware that in considering the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in the bill, the select committee had its convictions in relation to the vital part played by New Zealand’s regional orchestras confirmed. This legislation does not necessarily affect those orchestras, but I share the committee’s view about their vital place. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is extremely important to New Zealand, and to New Zealanders. So, too, are the regional orchestras, and I am confident that that importance will be acknowledged by the support they receive through Creative New Zealand, and by the collegial support they will receive from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

The Government is particularly pleased to see the performing arts community, including the regional orchestras and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, responding so positively to the intent and spirit of this bill. The community recognises and respects the invaluable service that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has provided to New Zealanders during its very long history. It is an irreplaceable feature of our cultural landscape. As Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I look forward to seeing our national symphony orchestra flourish within the appropriate legislative framework, and to its continuing, wonderful performance as an artistic institution. I am confident that the ongoing cultural benefits that accrue from the Government’s commitment to the orchestra will benefit all New Zealanders. I thank the individuals and groups that made submissions on the bill, and I am grateful to the members of the select committee and the other parties in the House for working so constructively on it.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this unnecessary New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I must admit that the very thought of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra fills me with great enthusiasm. National very much supports the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and very much supports the concepts of artistic independence and artistic excellence, but we do not support a Labour Government bill enshrining the orchestra in unnecessary legislation. It is quite ironic that the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, praised the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, saying it is iconic—and so do we—yet she wants to enshroud it in all sorts of unnecessary legislation, and to prescribe its functions and objectives. The question really is when is a symphony orchestra not a symphony orchestra, and the answer is when its functions are enshrined in Helen Clark legislation. Just what is it in the genetic make-up of the New Zealand Labour Party that makes its members unable to resist the temptation to involve State control in every piece of legislation they can think up?

In this particular case, the Government has the gall to suggest that it is in the name of artistic independence. The policy statement in the explanatory note of the first reading copy states: “The primary purpose of this Bill is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra … from that of a limited liability company established under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 to a non-company Crown entity. … 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.”

What is wrong with that? Why prescribe the functions and objectives of an organisation that thrives and flourishes when it is given the ability to do so? It is quite, quite ironic that the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who so enthusiastically praises the orchestra and its past successes, now wants to destroy them.

When one looks around at some of the world’s greatest orchestras, it is quite obvious that those with some of the finest artistic performers and with absolute, quintessential creativity have organisations that owe their very existence to obeying commercial principles. I think of the London Symphony Orchestra, the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Cleveland Orchestra, and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. They are all orchestras that exist on being absolutely responsive to the public—not to a Government prescription, which is exactly what the Labour Government wants. Here in New Zealand, we have only to think of the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. That is a very successful orchestra that operates extremely successfully with no legislation and with a cost, in terms of Government help, of about 15 percent per year of that of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

Some of the world’s finest orchestras are in America, and this is the prescription that encapsulates them: “An organisational structure that canonises the music director, a volunteer support system that creates serious tension between the art of music making and the business of orchestral management, and a reliance on community sponsorship that juxtaposes popular taste with the moral virtues of serious art.” It is quite extraordinary to look at the principal objectives and functions that the Labour Government has dreamt up for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I go immediately to clause 8(c), which states: “to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment:”. What does that mean and why does it have to be prescribed in legislation, when we have had a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra that performs extremely well? The Government admits—in fact, it cries from the rooftops—how well it has been performing, but, oh no, the Labour Government wants it to develop a “distinctively New Zealand” cultural aspect.

It gets worse. The functions in clause 9 include: “(f) to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives, as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. The Minister has to be brought into those objectives and functions. The Government just cannot help itself. On the one hand, we have the Labour Government saying what a great orchestra it is under its present structure. But, oh no, the Government has to enshrine and entangle it in prescriptive legislation. It cannot help itself.

There has been a little bit of debate about the board structure itself. Again, there is an enormous irony there. There has been quite a lot of thought about putting a player on to the board. There are many orchestras around the world that do that. But, no, the Labour Government says: “Let’s be pure on governance when it comes to the $10 million Symphony Orchestra, but when it comes to the $8 billion district health boards, oh no, we have to have a majority-elected system. We have to have a majority-elected system when it comes to $8 billion, but when it comes to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, we are going to be pure.” The Labour Government has perpetrated some awful confusion on us, and at times it is very hard to keep up with it. The very cost of the legislation—$1 million—surely would have been far better put towards the musicians themselves, but, no, let us drag it through the House and the select committee for the cost of $1 million.

I want to recall an experience I had listening to the Shanghai Orchestra that visited New Zealand 20 years ago. In the first half of the concert, it played the Yellow River Concerto and Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy. It was an awful, plodding, boring experience. But in the second half of the programme, it played traditional Chinese music that had been generated and had evolved through thousands of years of experience, and was played with a whole range of orchestral instruments. It was pure magic. The clear contrast is that of State-controlled music versus that of an orchestra given its head. This bill that the Labour Government is perpetrating is most unfortunate. The Government praises the orchestra as it is, yet it wants to shackle it quite unnecessarily. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is carrying out a superb job as it is. The National Party wants it to flourish and we wish it all the very best, without this unnecessary legislation.

As chair of the Government Administration Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, I wish to support it. I particularly want to thank the members of the orchestra who set a very enjoyable precedent by playing a little mini-concert for the committee. We thank them for that, and it was a pleasure to have them at the committee. The bill does not mandate that a member of the orchestra be a member of the board, but it distinctly states, in schedule 1, that the board should include a balance of members with financial and artistic awareness.

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.

The Greens will be supporting this bill. It is good legislation. To prescribe that a principal objective and function of the orchestra is support of New Zealand music and composers is an important part. For a long time, New Zealanders have had the idea that the bit of our culture that distinguishes us is the bit that the tangata whenua bring to us—we take great pride in that—and that has been our culture. In fact, we have a very strong artistic culture from our European heritage, too, and the orchestra is an important part of that.

It is a very good orchestra. It not only gives strength to the best of our music but also gives strength to our up-and-coming musicians. In the space of the last month I have been to two orchestral performances in Nelson, one by the Nelson Symphony Orchestra and the other by the Youth Orchestra in Nelson. Both of those orchestras contain very young musicians who are looking for a career pathway, and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra provides that goal for them.

In terms of the membership of the board, we have some difficulty with the exclusion of player membership. In fact, although there is the possibility of a player being appointed, it is fairly clear that the management of the orchestra is not keen on that, and the Minister in charge of the bill does not seem to be keen on it, either. It seems to me that with the level of expertise, memory, and experience contained in the orchestra, it makes very good sense to have orchestral membership on the board. The Greens will be putting forward an amendment to substitute a subclause that makes provision for player membership on the board. For those who suggest that, perhaps, the interests of the players might override the broader interests of the orchestra, I would suggest to them that the requirement that board members play a lesser role when considering issues with which they have an interest greater than that of the public at large probably means that in fact that would not be possible—that a player member would have to take a lesser role on issues that affected the orchestra’s members.

I would suggest, too, that the orchestra have a single member on the board. That member would be one member out of five to eight members; if that member wants to convince the rest of the board of the virtue of his or her ideas, he or she would have to put up a pretty persuasive case. Such a member would bring unique knowledge, not only of the music but also of the practical implications of the decisions that are made and their effect on the day-to-day running of an orchestra. For that reason, it is important that the board membership includes a player member of the orchestra.

It has been suggested that another amendment would make it possible for the Minister to appoint both the chief executive and a player member. It would be unusual for the chief executive to be a member of the board. The chief executive will always be there, and, although not having a voting role, will have a very great influence on the deliberations of the board.

We will support the bill, but with that amendment.

The ACT party is not supporting this bill. We do not see that it is necessary, and we are not quite sure why the Minister is putting it forward. We are not sure what she is trying to fix—what is broken. On reading through the legislation, it appears to me that we are actually making the situation worse than it is at the moment, especially when we see it being brought in under urgency.

If we look at the history of this legislation, we see that there are some very serious anomalies in the bill, and there are some serious omissions from it. On reading the history of the legislation, I see that some of the most important submitters to it—the player representatives themselves—have been ignored. I wonder why that is so. I wonder why the Minister is so averse to having a representative from the actual orchestra on the board. Is there an assumption that because one is creative and artistic, one therefore has no knowledge of governance and financial matters? That is an arrogant assumption. There is no evidence that just because somebody can play a musical instrument to the standard of being in a national symphony orchestra, that person does not have the ability to sit on a board and take part in the daily, indeed annual, running of the orchestra.

The primary purpose of this bill is to turn the orchestra from a limited liability company into an autonomous Crown entity—in other words, as my colleague Heather Roy said during the first reading, so that it cannot go broke. One would doubt whether any Government would let the orchestra go broke, because even if they do not like going to listen to the symphony orchestra, everybody in New Zealand likes having it there. If their children learn musical instruments, membership of the orchestra is something for them to aspire to. Indeed, as a parent who has forked out thousands of dollars for musical lessons, I know it is an incentive for urging one’s children on to practise.

If we take the annual report of the symphony orchestra for the year ended June 2002, we read that the chief executive stated in his overview: “In most months of the 2001-2002 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.” If we take that on its own, we have to wonder why we are bringing in this legislation.

If we go a bit further, we see chairman Selwyn Cushing lamenting the fact that sponsorship has been dropping off. I think that two of the main sponsors, Air New Zealand and Telecom New Zealand, did not continue their sponsorship. Maybe that is what the Minister is trying to fix with this new legislation. If the organisation cannot go broke, maybe corporates will be more prepared to sponsor it. But I would argue that the reason that corporate sponsorship is dropping off from organisations like the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, Opera New Zealand, etc. is because companies in New Zealand—small and medium, as well as big companies—are facing increasingly high compliance costs. They are spending more of their profits on having to comply with legislation that we put through this House, in urgency and outside urgency.

We have only to look at what has gone through in the last 18 months to see legislation that has forced companies to spend more of their profits not on sponsorship of things like the symphony orchestra but on things like health and safety, stress management, and now increased holiday pay. That had already been built into wages over the years, but now it has to be added on top. We will see more and more sponsorship of those sorts of organisations drop off, unless we get serious about improving the economy in this country and let companies and individuals keep more of their own money so that they can become donors or sponsors. Simply passing legislation to turn something into a Crown entity will not solve that problem.

If we take clause 8, we will see what the principal objectives of the orchestra are. The orchestra will be required to perform music “to an international standard”. Says who? Who will police that? What will happen if it does not? Will they take out the piano player and shoot him? Will they sack the lead violin? Why are we legislating for those sorts of things? Another objective is to provide an orchestra that has “strong community support”. It already has strong community support. How do we legislate for an “artistically imaginative” orchestra? It is ridiculous that we are introducing those sorts of terms into legislation.

Being “artistically imaginative” is something people are born with. They can develop it through hard work, they can hone it, they can improve it, but we cannot legislate for it. A symphony orchestra is simply made up of a number of individuals, all of whom have artistic imagination. We cannot pass legislation and, by law, order a group of musicians to have artistic imagination. It seems to me that this Government is reaching new heights in ordering and bossing people about and telling them what it expects them to do.

I come back to the issue of board membership. We will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Mr Marc Alexander of United Future because it seems to me that—despite the Minister standing up and saying that she supports artists, and everything, in this country—by not having a representative of the artists of the orchestra on the board, she is not supporting the artists at all.

The players committee made submissions, which were very well set out, on why there needs to be a representative of the permanent players on the board. That has been totally ignored. I would like the Minister to take another call and explain to us why she has deliberately left that provision out of the legislation. Why is she so adverse to it? It is not simply an oversight; it seems to me to be a deliberate slight to the players in the symphony orchestra.

The Minister would obviously rather read her newspaper than consider how the players in the orchestra feel. Perhaps if one of them were good at knitting, he or she would get on the board. I would argue that we cannot have the board of a symphony orchestra without a representative from the musicians on it, and that is why we will be supporting Marc Alexander’s Supplementary Order Paper when it comes to the vote.

I do not mind at all having a little bit of an opportunity to sing the praises of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I am an avid follower of the orchestra. I think it is rightly recognised as one of the leading institutions in the arts sector, and we should all be singing its praises. National supports artistic excellence and artistic independence, and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has shown itself to represent the best of that. The opportunity to sing its praises is certainly welcomed.

However, the time of this House is being taken up with a bill that is overly prescriptive and overly controlling of an institution that is being asked to maintain its artistic independence and artistic integrity. That, in my view, is rather unfortunate and totally unnecessary. I recall some words that Minister Maharey said when the bill first surfaced. He said that nothing in the legislation would diminish the Symphony Orchestra’s artistic independence or integrity. He said it would continue to act without ministerial, or indeed, parliamentary direction in artistic matters. He said it would be required to seek to contribute to the development of a distinctly New Zealand cultural environment—whatever that is. This Government is great for adding provisions to legislation that seem to indicate that the one-size-fits-all concept is right for New Zealanders. New Zealand has a multilayered, multicultural environment, and one has to have a little bit of sympathy for any organisation or institution that has that as its primary objective.

This is a Government that applauds the artistic independence and artistic integrity of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, yet after reading clauses 8 and 9, which set out both the principal objectives and functions of the orchestra, we have to wonder if this Government means what it says about maintaining the artistic independence of our cultural and artistic institutions. This bill is very prescriptive. It brings more State control into an area where we want to encourage creativity and artistic imagination. Even though the Minister was at pains to reassure New Zealanders that there would be no ministerial interference, again we have to wonder. Because if the Government means to be this prescriptive—and I would echo the comments of Deborah Coddington—what happens if the orchestra does not deliver on the prescription? What do we do about the orchestra if that does not happen?

The bill states that one principal objective of the orchestra is “to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard.” Who measures the international standard? How do we measure that? If, in someone’s view, it does not reach the international standard, do we then “can” the orchestra? These sorts of provisions in legislation, in my view, are stupid. They are a nonsense, and they become meaningless because there is no way of measuring whether such music is being performed to an international standard. That is mostly because somebody has to make a judgment on that, and the judgment of Helen Clark may be different from my judgment.

This bill is an overkill. It purports to be a supporter and a maintainer of artistic independence and integrity, yet in its establishment and powers it sets out some pretty prescriptive provisions. National certainly does not support that. If we want artistic creativity to fly, then we have to have a supportive framework and some provisions for financial accountability—because taxpayers’ money is involved in the Symphony Orchestra. But those provisions should be as few as possible, otherwise the board scurries around worrying whether it is applying the prescription, and always with the Minister hovering over it.

Even though clause 14 relates just to governance, where does governance begin and end? We are not sure with this Government most of the time. Clause 14 talks about the role of the Minister. It says that the Minister may review the operations of the orchestra, even though clause 16 states that the orchestra is independent in all artistic matters. We cannot trust that sort of thing when the bill is laying down a prescription for the artistic activities of the institution. This legislation is a bit of a worry—it is a bit of an overkill. It is typical Labour Government State control, and typical Labour Government State prescription. What happens when the prescription is not followed? Who knows? How do we measure it? Who measures it? We cannot measure it. These provisions are entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. National opposes this bill most strenuously.

The other point I want to make in that regard is that there is probably some reservation on the part of our regional orchestras about the closeness of the relationship that will develop under this bill between the Minister, the Government, and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. As we all know, we have some wonderful professional regional orchestras. I remember a concert that the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra held about 5 years ago in Rotorua’s redwood forest. It was absolutely marvellous. I am pleased that the select committee was of a mind not to give the Symphony Orchestra recognition that would seem to give it favoured status over and above the regional orchestras. I think that is very important.

Overall, though, this bill has taken up the time of the House, which it should not have done. We last debated it in urgency, and here it is again. If we mean what we say about wanting to encourage creativity, imagination, and artistic integrity in the arts sector, then our watch over those things should be minimal. This bill is way over the top and is not appropriate in any way.

I applaud the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Of course it knows it needs a certain amount of accountability, but outside of that it should be left to do what it does best, and what it has done in the past—that is, continue to favour New Zealand audiences with symphonies and music of the highest order.

I rise on behalf of United Future to make a contribution on the second reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. The introduction in the commentary on the bill states: “The main purpose of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is to clarify the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s role as a touring national orchestra by prescribing in legislation its principal objectives and functions.” Well, that is wonderful. I have never thought there was anything wrong with its role. I echo some of the comments made by the ACT member Deborah Coddington, who said there was nothing broken about it, at all. We knew what the role of the orchestra was, and I guess it is a traditional role that did not need to be defined particularly. But if the orchestra’s role needs to be defined, that is fine.

The commentary on the bill also states: “The bill intends that the Orchestra will operate in a responsible manner”—we are all grateful for that—“and maintain its financial viability while meeting its principal objectives in performing its functions.” The orchestra’s financial viability is determined by the amount of money that, basically, the taxpayers have to fork out for it. So what will the orchestra do for the taxpayer dollar? The fact that the orchestra performs its functions of touring and allows the New Zealand taxpayer to access the considerable talents embodied in it are matters that we would definitely like to see entrenched as part of its role.

It was an election policy of United Future in 2002 to ensure that the national orchestra is put on a sure, long-term footing. I believe this bill addresses that issue. A Crown entity is a better structure in which to situate the orchestra than the present governance arrangements, so we are pleased about that, as well. More generally, ensuring the long-term survival of the orchestra by prescribing its functions and obligations in legislation is important, because as the national orchestra the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is an important part of New Zealand’s culture and identity. The Symphony Orchestra plays a valuable role in projecting New Zealand culture to an international audience by capitalising on symphonic music as an international language, while presenting something uniquely Kiwi in composition and performance. The orchestra also plays a vitally important educational role in fostering the development of young performers at home.

One of the problems that we have always had with regard to this bill concerns board membership. United Future has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers that ring-fence a position on the board for a player from the orchestra. If we have a quick look at clause 13, which sets out the role of the board, we see that three provisions stand out. Firstly, the board has the authority in the name of the orchestra to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the orchestra. We have no complaints with that. Secondly, all decisions relating to the operation of the orchestra must be made by or under the authority of the board. We have no problem with that, either. Thirdly, the board has all the powers necessary to carry out its function. Again, we have no problem with that. But one of the most important aspects of the role of the board is to truly represent the orchestra, so as to allow members of the orchestra, or at least a voice from the orchestra, to sit alongside the other members of the board and push for their case—whether artistic, management, or otherwise. That would be reasonable and democratic. I find it astounding that this Labour Government is trying to deny players the ability to voice the concerns that members of the orchestra will have from time to time, and that orchestra members will not be able to take part in board decision-making processes. So United Future has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers, with a slight variance, that ring-fence a position on the board for a player from the orchestra.

It is vital for the good of the whole of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as an entity that players be represented on the board by at least one player. Let us face it—it is their orchestra. It is both New Zealand’s Symphony Orchestra and the players’ orchestra. It is the way that the players express their life—through their music, and through their instruments. They ought to have a voice on the board. In order to ensure that the clarity of the players’ position is made fulsome through the board management, we should ensure that the board always contains at least one person who knows orchestral life from the inside. It is all very well to have a bunch of managers sitting there, but if they are not in tune with the players, and if they do not understand and appreciate the manner in which the orchestra actually provides the music in terms of its charter responsibilities, then how on earth can the players’ interests be well represented? Currently, over 30 personnel and management lie between the players and the board of governance. How are the players supposed to be heard through all of that? I suggest they are not being heard at all, which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard to have player representation on the board.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Labour Party, which prides itself on trying to give voice to every minority group it can find under any rock in this country, is declining the opportunity to give voice to the very people it is to have governance over in this legislation: the players themselves. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I look forward to the support of some of the other parties in the House for either one of my two Supplementary Order Papers. The consultation provisions and practices provided for in the bill are clearly inadequate. The present situation does not allow time for detailed discussions, and the board may be unaware of the fact that a player’s perspective would be important or useful on other issues not raised in the half-hour, monthly consultation meetings. In other words, the players are overlooked. If the orchestra members themselves are allowed to participate on the board as of right, it will match successful overseas practice—for example, in the Sydney symphony orchestra. Why do we want to be so out of tune and out of step with other orchestras around the world? Why do we think that our players are incapable of actually thinking, being on the board, and contributing to board decisions?

We know that a player member of the board would face many challenges from both sides of the organisation. However, providing the right kind of player representative, one who is well briefed on governance responsibilities and who understands the need to act in the best interests of the orchestra, is not beyond the capability of the players. If the players are smart enough to be as good as they are at playing an instrument, members should trust me when I say they have a brain! Players’ brains and vocal chords ought to be used to articulate their concerns. Information would be able to flow not just to the board but also from the board. That would mean players would have greater understanding of board decisions—something that does not take place at the moment. It is almost as though we do not want members of the orchestra to participate on the board, because we want to keep them in the dark, just like mushrooms—and we all know what mushrooms grow in! Conflicts of interest may arise for a player representative, particularly around wage negotiation time, but that is not an insurmountable problem. It is successfully traversed in other orchestras by having the players’ representative stand down during that period, and I do not see why such a practice could not operate here.

Contrary to the Government’s opinion, I say having a players’ representative on the board would not be a disaster. It has not been a disaster for other orchestras around the world. It would add to the experience and integrity of the board. It would also greatly improve player-board relations, and encourage greater representation from the people for whom this bill is supposed to matter most: the people of New Zealand and the players themselves, who provide their artistic endeavours for the public.