New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2. Clearly, it is the main area of the bill that deals with the offensive parts— the principal objectives and functions of the orchestra. Our side of the House has made it very clear that they are quite unnecessarily prescriptive and will only lead to huge confusion. In particular, clause 8(c) requires the orchestra “to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment”. We hope the Minister will take a call to tell us exactly what that means. Surely it is far preferable to let that distinctive New Zealand cultural environment evolve spontaneously without prescriptive legislation.

If one looks around the world at the great independent orchestras such as the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, the London Symphony Orchestra, the London Philharmonic Orchestra, and the Cleveland Orchestra, there is just absolutely no doubt that all of those are independent orchestras that have demonstrated the highest pinnacle of artistic endeavour, and none of them have been enshrouded with this sort of prescription.

Let us go on to clause 9, “Functions of Orchestra”. There we see the requirements the Labour Government wants us to put in. They include: “(a) to ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance …”. Has it not been doing that for years and years? They go on: “(b) to encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. Once again, the orchestra has a clear track record of doing exactly that. Part of the reason for the orchestra’s existence is to do exactly that. The orchestra has been a shining example of achievement, because without this unnecessary legislation literally hundreds of young New Zealanders have been able to develop and evolve their skills—not only for the benefit of all New Zealanders, but also in terms of their international contribution.

The functions continue: “(c) to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music:”. One could continue going through the list, only to find that these things are all happening anyway. Why have the legislation? Hopefully, the Minister will take a moment to explain to us what the difference is, and tell us whether the orchestra has been carrying out these functions. I say it has, and I challenge the Minister to say anything to the contrary.

We should bear in mind that the function under paragraph (f) states: “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives, as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. If we look at the current situation, we will see that no such requirement is needed. The orchestra has flourished without it; it is quite clearly unnecessary.

However, when we go to the provisions relating to the board, again we have the dilemma that has been discussed already. It is terribly important to have a clear governance role in respect of the orchestra. There are all sorts of practical difficulties that can occur, particularly where the Government is the main contributor to the funding of the orchestra. In this case it is $10 million a year, and the box office and corporate collections amount to about $5 million a year. There is no doubt that conflicts of interest will arise—if indeed there are difficulties—if employees are involved in the governance of their own organisation in this set of circumstances. That does not mean to say that in future sets of circumstances it would not be inappropriate.

This is a disappointing day for the Opposition parties in Parliament, because if it had not been for the National Party cuddling up to the Labour Party, we would have had an amendment through to make sure that there is a player representative on the board of the orchestra. Why the National Party wants to cuddle up to the Labour Party is beyond me, but we have seen a clear demonstration of that here today, and it has prevented a player from having a position on the board.

We had the Labour Party cold on this one. All the other Opposition parties, the Greens, ACT, and New Zealand First, plus United Future and the Progressive Party—and I must congratulate them on giving their vote to us—voted to have a player representative on the board of the orchestra, but the National Party said it did not want that and it stymied the amendment. What a shame! What has got into this National Party? Is it part of its plan to sell off the orchestra because there is no need for it any more? That is the National Party policy, is it not—to spend money on the basis of need? But here we have the National Party killing an initiative of all the other Opposition parties. What a shame! What a disgrace!

As far as the amendment from Mr Hutchison is concerned, I suggest he reads the bill—in particular, clause 39(2) of Part 4 in Schedule 1, which makes it clear that the chief executive must not be a member of the board. He seems to want the chief executive to be a member of the board, but it was a clear consideration of the legislation that the chief executive should not be a member of the board. I am looking forward to a ruling from the Chair at some stage indicating whether his amendment is in order, because it is clearly inconsistent with the rest of the bill and does not take into account my reading of clause 39(2) in Part 4 of Schedule 1. Needless to say, New Zealand First cannot support that amendment.

New Zealand First has moved a couple of amendments to Part 2. We want to make it clear in clause 8(b) that the orchestra is not just an orchestra but a full-time professional orchestra, so there can be no doubt in the mind of the public and the Government in dealing with the orchestra that that is the case. We have another amendment to clause 9(g).

Dr Hutchison made some comments about why there are changes and suchlike. Clearly, where public money is involved, the bill provides, as I have said already, that the reporting requirements should be as per the Public Finance Act. That is one of the reasons for this legislation.

I do not intend to take any more of the Committee’s time, except to repeat how disappointed I am that the National Party should cuddle up to the Labour Party and prevent a player representative from being on the board of the orchestra.

I share Dail Jones’ disappointment. I wonder how the Minister thinks the players will feel about her rejection. Who else has a greater interest in the success of the orchestra? It is their professional status that is on the line. Let the Government reflect well on that status. Players are going to make good decisions—the kinds of decisions that ensure that the orchestra is regarded well in the community. They have every interest in working cooperatively with the board to make sure that the decisions made are in the best interests of that board.

Who has a greater investment in the orchestra? I do not know how many members know of any young musicians, but I imagine that most of them have experience of young people growing up with a passion for music. It is all-absorbing and takes up a vast amount of their lives. Those who end up in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are the cream of these. I have taught such young people, and they are not just musicians; they are extremely intelligent, able, capable individuals who play a full part in the life of their schools.

Including players as members of the board is essential to the proper functioning of the board. Not only that, it would bring a flair and an excitement to the board that would not otherwise be there. I have served on an arts council, and I have chaired a community arts council with other artists. These people bring a passion and commitment to their work, and knowledge that others cannot bring. They also bring a creative flair to that work. It is not just about making businesslike decisions—that is extremely important, and there will be board members who will ensure that happens—it is also about bringing a creative skill to the work, and that makes their presence highly desirable.

My amendment to clause 12 is: “To omit subclause (2), and substitute the following subclause: (2) The board must consist of not fewer than 5 members and not more than 8 members (including the chairperson), appointed by the Minister. One of these members must be a permanent player of the orchestra, appointed by the Minister after consultation with orchestra players.”

As I said before, the inclusion of the chief executive on the board would be unusual. The chief executive has a very large say in the running of the orchestra. That person is the one employee of the board, and will have a great deal of influence in advising the board and providing information to it for many of the decisions it makes. That influence is very keenly felt at all times. The influence of the board members is less likely to be felt.

We will continue to support the bill. It is a good bill that supports a very grand and important cultural institution in this country. But it is really important that a player representative is included on the board. We will be disappointed—and I am sure the players will be bitterly disappointed—if they are once again rejected. I would like to think, however, that since the Minister can appoint, she will take into account the submissions of New Zealand First, ACT, United Future, and the Progressives in support of this amendment.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Part 2 is the main part of this legislation. I would like to guide the National Party, if I can. What we have here today is MMP working. We have United Future, New Zealand First, the Green Party, and ACT all agreeing that there must be provision in this legislation for a representative from the players in the orchestra to be on the board. It is really important that we do not have a board that is concerned only with financial and governance matters. Sure, they are important—they are vitally important—but the players’ committee submitted to the select committee that they wish to be on there, because that is how this legislation will be put in place. We must have someone there who knows about the artistic and musical objectives of the orchestra. They need to know what is of an international standard and what is good New Zealand music, but the National Party and the Labour Party are united in their opposition to having a representative from the players, the actual people in the orchestra, on the board.

I am puzzled as to why that should be. All I can imagine the reason as being is that they think that because some people are artistic and can play a musical instrument, they have absolutely no knowledge of financial matters, and that it should all be left to the people who know best. This is what MMP is all about, and I would urge the National Party to change its stance. Why is it that we cannot have a player on the board? Is it because the Prime Minister does not want a player on the board and wants to have total control over the orchestra?

This bill is about control. It is overly prescriptive. It goes into excessive detail as to what the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra must and must not do. For instance, it must be artistically imaginative and must play to an international standard, and the board is required to make sure that these things happen. How can the board ensure that these things happen without having someone on the board who is actually part of the orchestra—an actual player in the orchestra who is down in the orchestra pit at the cliff face doing what really matters to get those people into the venues and listening to the orchestra? Without it, it just ain’t going to happen.

What happens if these board members do not meet the principal objectives, which I have just spelt out, a few of which are so prescriptive? If they do not meet these objectives, the Minister has the power to remove them from office. So here we have an impossible situation set up—absolutely impossible. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is being set up to fail because National and Labour will not allow a representative from the orchestra to be on the board to ensure that the principal objectives are carried out, the principles that only a member of the orchestra can be fully knowledgable about. Only an orchestra member can be fully knowledgable about how we get to those principal objectives and how they are carried out. Only a member of the orchestra can do that.

The Prime Minister does not want one on the board, we know. She wants to control the orchestra, and the National Party does not want one there, and I would advise them very strongly to think very carefully about the way they vote, and I would also remind people that this is why they need the ACT party in Parliament. If the National Party is in Government next time, it will need ACT there to remind it about how MMP actually works. That is why we will be supporting the amendment that has been put forward by Mike Ward of the Greens to clause 2. His amendment states: “The board must consist of not fewer than five members and not more than eight members, including the chairperson, appointed by the Minister. One of these members must be a permanent player of the orchestra, appointed by the Minister after consultation with orchestra players.” We are not dealing with a State-owned enterprise. The orchestra is a Crown-owned entity. There is a difference.

There may be an objection that there is a precedent to be set. Well, if we are going to have legislation that controls and rules how our Symphony Orchestra operates—an organisation that is, by its nature, made up of a number of creative individuals—then the orchestra must have a representative on the board.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I am not sure whether the Minister has taken a call, but I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to us why it is that her Government—or the Minister, really; I know she puts a lot of effort into arts and culture—has seen fit to be so prescriptive, and I will refer to the prescriptive nature of the bill in a minute or two. I have had the good fortune to be able to spend some time in that sector, as well, but I have real difficulty with the situation that we are seen to be promoting cultural artistic integrity and artistic independence on the one hand, but on the other hand loading the orchestra up with these very prescriptive objectives and functions. I see the Minister writing some notes, and I do look forward to her taking a call to explain that tension.

There certainly is a tension. I have already said I think this bill is an overkill. It is extremely important that there is a framework to ensure accountability for taxpayers’ money—$10 million. In some respects $10 million is not as much as the bulk of funds that go to other organisations, but $10 million is still $10 million. I certainly can see the point in ensuring a proper framework for financial accountability, but I personally cannot see the point of objectives that spell out things like the those set out in clause 8, “Principal objectives of Orchestra”. Clause 8 states: “(a) to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard: (b) to provide an orchestra that—(i) is highly skilled and artistically imaginative; and (ii) has strong community support: (c) to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation” and so on and so forth.

Has not the orchestra been doing all that anyway, and without having it prescribed in legislation? I want the Minister to take a call and tell us what it is that has been missing in the activities and the performance of the orchestra in past years that makes it so important for this House in urgency to spend an inordinate amount of time on this bill that sets out, piece by piece, what it is that we expect this orchestra to do.

Clause 9 sets out the functions of the orchestra, and this is like telling the orchestra how to suck eggs, in my view. The orchestra is the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. It has shown its creativity, its imaginative approach to its tasks, in former years, and in clause 9 its functions are set out. It must have a “broad repertoire of orchestral performance”, and it must “encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music:”. It has been doing that. It must “encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. The orchestra has been doing that and it will continue to do that. It does not need any of those functions set out in legislation.

Another function listed in clause 9(f) is “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives,”—and here is a bit that deserves special mention—“as agreed to by the Minister”. Now what does that mean? So clause 9 (f) states: “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives, as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. As if clause 8 and clause 9 do not have enough prescription! There is room in clause 9(f) for the Minister to have some more say.

I am not sure about what, but then I guess it is not surprising when there is a Government like the current one, which thinks it is necessary to have a nose and an arm and a leg and everything in all that these institutions do. In particular, it thinks it is appropriate to do that in an institution that we all want to fly with artistic integrity.

I just want to make a couple of observations as this bill progresses, and one is this. The Labour Party, which traditionally has always stood by the working man and working woman of this country, refuses to stand up for the rights of the representation of the working people of the orchestra—the players themselves who have been denied a voice by this Labour Government. Why, one has to ask? They are talented individuals who ought to have representation on a board. They are not a bunch of idiots whose sole claim to fame is the fact that they can play beautiful music. They have brains and they have the right to have representation.

For a party that prides itself on giving voice to minorities to now turn around and deny that voice to the players, it reeks—it absolutely reeks. How National can come aboard and jump into bed with Labour on this, I have absolutely no idea. When all the other parties are trying to work constructively to allow the very players to have their right to be represented on the board, why deny representation? That is what I ask National. Who is National answerable to in terms of support—is this where it is coming from? Are those members scared of somebody on the board—is that who they are answerable to, and is that why they want to deny representation to the players? Who are they afraid of, that they would rather climb into bed with Labour than work constructively alongside all the other parties? It is absolutely shameful.

The players would add quite a lot to the board. They would provide a players’ perspective and a voice for the legitimate concerns that players want addressed. This would promote understanding of orchestral issues. Giving players a voice on the board would allow them to advance artistic experience from an artistic point of view, which is something Labour is deciding not to provide, and something that National—for some obscure reason—is deciding to go along with Labour and agree with it on.

The one question I have to ask both parties is why they do not trust the players. Why do those parties not trust players to have a voice on the board to allow them to say what needs to be said for their own interests? Those members want to hear their music, but they do not want to hear their voices, and that is utterly shameful of both of those parties.

I rise in this debate to answer some of the questions and assertions that have been made. The role of the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is to run an orchestra that in the 2002-03 year reported turnover of about $15 million; only $10.124 million of which came from the Government.

It is the biggest performing arts organisation in New Zealand. This legislation will change it from a Crown-owned company, a limited liability company under the Companies Act of 1993, to an autonomous, non-company Crown entity, because the Government recognises that the role of this organisation is to run a world-class New Zealand touring orchestra throughout New Zealand, providing the best board support, the best management, the best players, and the best music. New Zealand deserves that, and we need it to express our culture here in New Zealand.

The players have absolute rights to be heard at an artistic level in terms of the operations of the orchestra, and indeed the players’ committee meet regularly with the management and the board, and provide a wonderful contribution at every level. However, the fact is that this orchestra is being brought into line with other Crown-owned entities, so that there is clear accountability, clear performance requirements, and clear outlines for everyone involved.

Clause 14 in schedule 1, “Administrative provisions applying to board and further transitional provisions”, talks about conflict of interest. If a player or, particularly, the chief executive officer, were put on the board, those people would be put in a position where they would be in conflict of interest, because they benefit from the decisions the board makes, like terms and conditions of their employment. The board needs to make the decisions it needs to make, and this Government is very passionate about workers. The rights of the players are absolutely protected and encouraged, and the present board is doing a wonderful job raising corporate sponsorship and raising the visibility of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

I am truly delighted to see ACT members being such staunch advocates of the workers, and I will be looking for their support in holidays legislation and labour legislation. But of course, it is crocodile tears, because those members oppose the bill—as does National. Paul Hutchison has asked us why we are putting up detailed legislation. Let me tell National and ACT members, it is because the music community and the public of New Zealand are scared that if there were ever a Government with National or ACT in it, it would destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I take it from the speeches that National and ACT have made in this House today that they would destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. They would withdraw the Government funding and see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra destroyed, taken out of New Zealand’s culture, and I want absolute assurances from those parties that that is not what they intend. I am deeply concerned by the tone of the ACT and National speakers, and I say to them that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is absolutely vital in New Zealand to music across the board. I am disgusted at those members’ approach. They say they care about the orchestra, music, and the players, but no one in those two parties cares at all.

The role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is a very broad one. I say that all of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers are not possible in terms of the work of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. For example, one of the amendments put forward by Brian Donnelly wants the orchestra to be described as a full-time, professional orchestra. Right, well, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra right now contracts its players for 25 hours a week. Members in this House will say—as will, I am sure, those who are attacking hip-hop and everything else that is happening and is good and energetic in New Zealand culture—that it is outrageous that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players play only 25 hours a week. Well of course, they do not—they teach. They are mentors. They are involved in chamber music and string quartets. They are involved in schools and universities, in opera, and in the vast range and full variety of music in this country, including wonderful contemporary music and including hip-hop. What I say is that if we had a definition that all of the orchestra must be made up of full-time professionals, presumably that would mean that we would not let students in at all. This is a ridiculous set of amendments that should be rejected by the House.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. That was quite a rant and a rave that members have just heard from the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. I would like to contest some of the points she was making.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: It’s called a crescendo.

That is right; it was a crescendo. We will come to the musical terms in a minute and see who knows some of them. She says that New Zealanders deserve the best and she is quite right—we do deserve the best. But this bill will not provide the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra with the best environment in which it can thrive.

The clear fact of the matter is that the Government does not trust the players. Mr Alexander was quite right in the comments he made, and the members from other parties who support Mike Ward’s amendment were also quite right. There is a very clear reason for a player not being part of the board—unless we can persuade the National Party to join our ranks over here—and it is that the players are not trusted. Quite why that is, I do not know. The boards of trustees for schools have student representatives. Many boards have representatives of the people they represent, and they are the best people to provide the good advice that the boards need. Nobody disputes that that advice is needed. The Minister said the players meet with the board, anyway. Nobody gives better-quality advice than somebody who has voting rights on a board. If the Minister were honest with herself, she would admit that.

Clauses 8 and 9 in Part 2 are another indication that the players are not trusted. Clause 8 discusses the principal objectives of the orchestra. Clause 8(a) states: “to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard:”. I ask the Minister how on earth we can legislate to reach an international standard. Will the Minister take responsibility for judging that? Will she say whether the first violins’ vibrato is vibratory enough? Will she say that the flautist is playing pianissimo instead of piano? What will she do to the pianist who inadvertently mixes his upper and lower mordents? Will it be the Minister in the chair who decides that? The definition of “Minister” states: “the Minister who, under the authority of any warrant, or with the authority of the Prime Minister,” so perhaps the Prime Minister will decide whether the upper mordent was played correctly, or whether it should have been the lower. Maybe she does not know the difference. It would be nice to know who will determine that. It is clearly unrealistic to legislate that the orchestra play to an international standard.

Clause 8(b) states: “to provide an orchestra that—(i) is highly skilled and artistically imaginative;”. I notice that there is no definition of “artistically imaginative”. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what exactly that means. No, she does not know. If it cannot be defined, why has it been put in the bill as a principal objective that the orchestra must reach?

Clause 9, “Functions of Orchestra”, is just as absurd as the principal objectives. Clause 9(a) states: “to ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance including New Zealand works and recent works:”. Will we have a quota? Will we have a 25 percent New Zealand music quota in the same way that radio stations are supposed to play that amount? The Minister yawns. I ask her whether New Zealand music is not up to scratch, or whether 25 percent is not the right level of quota that, she is going to tell us, we need to hear. Another function is “to encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. I contend that the people who pay good money to go and listen to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra want good-quality music. Sometimes they like to hear New Zealand music, but they want to go along and hear good-quality symphonic music. We know already that it is to be of an international standard.

The ridiculousness of those two clauses is really beyond belief. The power of the Minister—from the definition of “Minister”, the Prime Minister could be involved, too—leaves this measure wide open for political interference, as is much of the legislation that has come before this Parliament of late. The ACT party will not support this part of the bill. It will support the amendments.

New Zealand First has a couple of amendments to Part 2 before the Committee. One amendment is to delete the words “an orchestra”, and insert in their place the words “a full time, professional orchestra”. One of the reasons for that is set out in the submission of the players’ committee to the Government Administration Committee. The players’ committee made the point that if the legislation does not specify that the orchestra is full-time, future Governments may attempt to achieve the objectives with a part-time orchestra. It is essential that the orchestra is full-time, if excellence and the orchestra’s other objectives are to be achieved. The phrase “full-time professional” occurs in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s mission statement. If it is good enough for the mission statement, why can it not be in the legislation? It is as simple as that.

Another amendment is about ring-fencing a board position for a player. That amendment is in the name of Mike Ward. New Zealand First will support Mike Ward’s amendment. We are astonished that the National Party should not want to support such an amendment. It shows that the National Party and the Labour Party are up to their old tricks, and are still playing the old game of working together to stop other parties, in an MMP environment, from exercising their views. It is such a simple little amendment, and is supported by even the Progressive party. United Future, the Greens, ACT, and New Zealand First also support it—what a combination, from the left to the right! We are prepared to support Mike Ward’s amendment, but the National Party is again cuddling up to the Labour Party, and does not want to do so. The National Party did the same at the time of the confidence vote at the beginning of this year. It really has not changed its spots.

In clause 9(g), New Zealand First also wants to add, after the word “Orchestra”, the words: “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations”. We do not want the orchestra to be too bogged down by some of the provisions set out in the legislation. We want to make sure that there is a ring-fenced board position for a player, who will provide a useful perspective and a range of experiences and skills in all board deliberations and activities. That will match overseas practice. What is wrong with our orchestra going about it in exactly the same way as overseas orchestras? Dr Hutchison has mentioned overseas orchestras from time to time. Why should our Symphony Orchestra’s legislation not match overseas practice, as well?

I am terribly disappointed that Dr Hutchison withdrew his amendment. Perhaps he realised it was totally out of order, being in conflict with Part 1 and clause 39, but it was very disappointing that on the one hand he gave some indication that he might support the United Future amendment or the Green party amendment, but in the next breath he decided to pull out altogether. It seems to be a very unusual state of affairs on National’s part. I request the support of members of the Chamber for New Zealand First’s other amendments.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 8 be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (b) the words “an orchestra”, and substitute the words “a full time professional orchestra”.