New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill

Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill—an orchestra that the National Party believes should flourish and thoroughly supports. But we thoroughly support it in a climate of artistic independence and artistic excellence, not in a shroud of prescriptive State control, as the Minister wishes.

For a moment in the Minister’s third reading speech, it was quite refreshing to think that she was going to stay in lente pianissimo mode. But, no, she wound up to an absolute cadenza of excitement, with variations on a theme of Mount Egmont, perhaps, erupting, but certainly not to be compared with that wonderful Egmont overture with its hugely wonderful emanations of magnificence. But no, this Minister of the Labour Government unfortunately could not contain herself. She could not recall that she is one of a Government that has kept on saying what a great orchestra the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is—under the present legislation that has allowed it to flourish. That legislation has allowed young New Zealand musicians to flourish, and it has allowed the orchestra to become one of the world’s great orchestras. But no, this Government Minister wants to enshroud it with functions and objectives that will only curb its freedom.

I was quite fascinated to hear my colleague Pansy Wong say that when the title was discussed, she suggested—in consideration of the way the Prime Minister and Government are wanting this enormous amount of prescription—that the name of this bill be the “Comrade Symphony Orchestra Bill”. That is the very sort of artistic decrescendo this Labour Government, sadly, is descending into.

Earlier on, I brought up the experience I had of the Shanghai Symphony Orchestra coming to New Zealand some 20 years ago. I said that the first part of the concert—the Yellow River Concerto and Taking Tiger Mountain by Storm—had been such a dull, boring performance. I wonder whether what we might be seeing now is the New Zealand equivalent—so maybe “Helen and the Dreamers Take Mount Taranaki by Central Control”, or the “Hutt River Concerto”, or the “Michael Cullen Piano Minuet”. But maybe that could be a little pretty.

Undoubtedly, it is a matter of great shame for the Labour Government that it has decided to shackle this treasured national orchestra of ours with such ridiculous functions and objectives as outlined in this bill. Why is it necessary for the State to say that this orchestra must have a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment? The Minister was not able to explain what that is. Surely, the public of New Zealand would wish that that distinctively New Zealand cultural environment was something spontaneous that could sustain itself from the spontaneous wishes of that public.

When one goes on and reads in clause 9, “Functions of Orchestra”, that the Minister must consult the orchestra and has a very pivotal part in carrying out “functions consistent with its principal objectives”—as agreed to by that very same Minister—one is very concerned indeed. The structure of the existing limited-liability company is one in which the State has absolutely no expectation of what the orchestra plays or how it plays it. As my colleague from ACT Heather Roy pointed out, before too long the State will dictate how the violins play. It is absurd, but it is the sort of thing that could happen under this Labour Government, and New Zealand’s national orchestra is far too precious for that to occur. That is why the National Party of New Zealand is so deeply concerned at the way this Government is trying to shape and mould one of our artistic icons.

There has been a fair amount of discussion and concern about the board’s structure—[Interruption] The member is quite right—and once again I think it is important to point out this Labour Government’s inconsistencies. Here—and quite rightly, Mr Cosgrove—the Labour Government is being pure in terms of its governance structure. There is a $15 million budget, but when it comes to the 21 district health boards with a budget of $8 billion, the Government insists on boards elected by majority. When it is the big picture, the Government has no concern for the financial disciplines that are so hugely important.

Certainly, there are whole variations in the structures of orchestras around the world, and in some of the most successful orchestras, such as the London Symphony Orchestra, founded in 1904. It is an independent orchestra that has deserved its tremendous reputation by being supported entirely by the public, with no Government help. It is absolutely sensitive to the public, and absolutely insensitive to Government control. What do we have in New Zealand? We have the Labour Government making one of our icons more and more unresponsive to the very important disciplines of being both commercial and responsive to public concerns about the sort of music it plays. Oh, no! What the Government wants to do is prescribe the music. That is anathema to what musicians and music lovers want.

It is interesting that through the committee structure the orchestra has at present, it has consistently met the board prior to every meeting, so there is a two-way exchange of views between the board and the musicians. If one goes to the criteria for appointing board members, in clause 1 of schedule 1, one sees it is important that: “In making appointments to the board … the Minister must, in particular, have regard to the need for members to have, among them, an appropriate balance of governance and financial skills and an awareness of artistic matters, relevant to the role of the board.” So it is very clearly spelt out.

This bill has certainly come from deep within the minds and genes of the New Zealand Labour Party. The essence of the question is should the ability of an orchestra to flourish and pursue artistic independence and excellence be curbed by unnecessary State-directed functions and objectives? The Labour Government says “Yes”; the National Party says “No”. This bill is off-key, out of tune, and even if the Labour Government flatly denies it, its shrill crescendos of fortissimo make no difference to the fact that it is prescribing State control.

This is a good bill that has had considerable debate in the House during this urgency process. The important principle underpinning this bill is that of artistic freedom. The bill will absolutely ensure that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra can operate without ministerial direction in all artistic matters. We are incredibly fortunate in New Zealand with the calibre and quality of the Symphony Orchestra.

I am pleased to support this bill. It has had huge discussion during the urgency motion. I think the best thing we can do now is move it on and have it passed so that New Zealanders can continue to enjoy the high-quality music we have come to expect from the orchestra.

This legislation transforms control of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from that of a limited-liability company to an autonomous, non-company Crown entity. It allows the Crown, which spends about $10 million on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, to have some reporting requirements as set out in the Public Finance Act of 1989. It has been quite interesting, in the last few weeks and months in this House, to hear members of especially the ACT party criticise the way in which public money is spent. Time and time again there is criticism of how this money is spent, where it is going, and what is being done with it. Here we have a bill that allows the House to have more say over how public money is being spent, yet the ACT party opposes it, as does the National Party. There is a real inconsistency about the way in which they go about their business. Or is it because this is a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and they want to criticise it? They do not want to get too involved with it, and other people are more easily attacked by the National Party and by the ACT party.

Regardless of that, this bill will now allow greater criticism of Government expenditure by this body. In so far as control is concerned, anyone who cares to read clauses 8 and 9(a) to (e) can see quite clearly that the Government can have no control over the provisions in those clauses. The only way in which the Government can have any involvement is with regard to carrying out any other functions. If the Government is going to do something other than as set out in clauses 8 and 9(a) to (e), only then can it become involved. Clearly, if the Government does become involved, everyone will be informed because that is the type of country New Zealand is.

We wanted more involvement of the players in the decision making, and in the ability to make comments on what was going to happen. One would have thought the ACT party would support that, and of course it did. One would have thought the National Party might support that. But, naturally enough, when it comes to something that might get through this House, from the point of view of other parties, National opposed it. It cuddled up with the Labour Party in the Committee stage and prevented players from having a representative on the board.

One would have thought that if the National Party were concerned about the way in which the board might act, the way in which it might be interfered with by the Government, and the way in which the board might be required to follow up Government policy, the National Party would want a player on the board. But no, no players on the board for the National Party! It opposed that entirely.

It was disappointing to see the Progressive party, the United Future party—the United Future party put up the amendment in the first place—the Greens, ACT, and New Zealand First all prepared to support an amendment to put a player on the board of the new organisation, and the National Party opposed it. The National Party had its own amendment at one stage, along those lines. One thought that perhaps the National Party wanted only to support its own amendment and be churlish and not support someone else’s amendment. In the end, finally, National withdrew its own amendment as someone realised that perhaps National had made a mistake and was possibly doing something that might improve the bill. It is very disappointing to see the National Party working in with the Labour Party in this way, and obviously all concerned will take notice of the situation.

New Zealand First moved a number of amendments. We wanted to make it clear that the orchestra was going to be a full-time orchestra. That was not successful. We put together a number of other amendments, which had been supported by the players committee of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, but unfortunately they were unsuccessful.

This is the third reading of the bill. Overall, the bill has passed through the House. New Zealand First goes along with the legislation. It brings everything up to date. There are provisions in the bill that ensure the Minister cannot have absolute control, and we look forward to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra continuing as it has done so well in the past.

I use the word “continuing” of course because we know from the policy of the National Party that it would be the first to sell up or close down the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra if it became the Government. As we know, the National Party is working on the principle of need. Is there a need for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra? I say that Dr Don Brash would say immediately: “No, there is no need for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.” Brian Connell seems to agree that there is no need for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. If he does not agree with me he is being very inconsistent, because it seems that “need” is a word that is used as defined in the minds of certain National Party people, not in the way it appears in the dictionary. That is even more dangerous than simply just acting on the basis of need.

As someone who enjoys listening to Radio New Zealand and Concert FM, I say that I am also concerned that the National Party will sell off Radio New Zealand because there is no need for a State-owned radio station that runs things like Concert FM. Mr Connell is quiet now, so that suggests to me that the sale of Radio New Zealand is very much on the agenda for Dr Don Brash and his party. I would like to hear the next National Party person who takes a call deny, because he or she has spoken to Dr Brash about it, that National will sell Radio New Zealand if it becomes the Government. Overall, we are very pleased to support this legislation.

I know that Judith Tizard cares about the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and this bill is an expression of that care. Who could doubt the Government’s commitment to the arts? Having spent a good deal of my life in the arts, made a living as an artist for 25 years, and spent a great deal of my time with artists, I understand that they are a particular breed of people. They think differently, they do things differently, and they are, by and large, among the cleverest people I ever taught. I can recall the number of times that I had arts students who went on to do fine arts, and the other teachers would ask why they did not do science, geography, or something else—they could do any of those things.

Among the artists and the artistic community, and I would say among the orchestral community, we have people of very great skill, very great ability, and very great breadth of ability and skill. It is the kind of skill and ability that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in particular needs, because an orchestra is not like any other Crown-owned entity. It is a special kind of organisation that thrives on creativity and flair. Most organisations thrive on creativity and flair, but orchestras in particular do so. It would be a pity if this orchestra did not benefit, in a very intimate way, from the musicians being there as the board decisions are made.

That is not provided for explicitly, although it is in the bill that the Minister may appoint members of the orchestra and I am hopeful that she will do that. As I said, I do not doubt her passion for the arts and her commitment to this orchestra. I am hopeful she will take advantage of the provisions in the bill to appoint members of the orchestra on the grounds of their ability—not simply because they are players, but because they have the mix of skills needed. As I said before, artists are normally integral parts of their community.

I know a number of these musicians and I know of the roles they have played in other organisations in the community. They have governance skills, they know about organisation, they know about finances, and they know about making music. The special flair they bring is an intimate understanding of the rigours of life in an orchestra. That is the kind of intimate knowledge that needs to be there as the board’s decisions are being made. It is not something that should be called on from time to time; the musicians should be in there and making their input as those decisions are being made.

I do not share the Minister’s concerns that maybe National or ACT will demolish the orchestra should they get into power. Nor do I think the Opposition’s concern that Labour will dictate how the first violinists play is warranted, either. I am sure we all have the best interests of this orchestra at heart, and I believe that this bill will enhance the interests of the orchestra. As I said before, I am hopeful that the Minister will look at the skills and background of the orchestral players who are nominated for the board, and make the appointments on the basis of those skills. We will be supporting this bill. We are delighted to see it here, and I know that it has the support of the majority in the House.

I rise to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. We do, of course, find ourselves in the ridiculous situation of debating this bill in urgency. It is hardly a hugely urgent matter that requires all 120 members of the House to stay until midnight for several nights to debate it. Plenty of members on the other side were yawning before, so they are obviously feeling the strain. Urgency should be used for matters requiring urgent attention. ACT New Zealand will not be supporting this bill, as we indicated in our speeches in the first and second readings.

This bill restructures the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company, financially responsible for itself, to a non-company Crown entity. That is the fundamental matter that the ACT party and, I believe, the National Party are opposed to. In the introduction debate Minister Maharey said that the bill is to ensure the orchestra’s financial viability. If we look carefully at that, it means that the Government will not allow the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to go broke, or go under.

Minister Tizard, however, in the Committee stage, talked about how well things were going, that the orchestra was doing well financially, and said that only a little of its overall spending came from Government funding. If that is the case, it raises the question as to why any action is required. When I was preparing my introduction speech, I looked at the 2001-02 annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. It said that it had recorded a better than budget income and lower than forecast expenditure, and that reflected sound management, underpinned by sure-footed artistic decisions that had resulted in significant increases in audience numbers throughout the country. So why is it deemed necessary to change the formula at all? I contend that this legislation is not necessary.

The symphony orchestra has been very worried about sponsorship. Many members of the House will remember, as I do, the very successful tours the National Orchestra used to undertake to the provinces. We have not seen many of those of late. The orchestra put on successful summer pops concerts, and they were very well attended by the public at large. It was able to do that because it had very good sponsors. I think BP Oil sponsored those tours.

Clause 9 lists the functions of the orchestra, and one of them is “to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music”. I cannot think of a time when the symphony orchestra did this function better than when those summer pops concerts were held around the country. Not only did lovers of symphonic orchestral music go along but they were able to take their children, because the music was wide ranging and had broad appeal. That cannot be said of many of the ordinary concerts that people go to.

My children love going to the orchestra when they hear something they recognise. They cannot, however, sit through a 2-hour performance of very highbrow music. Some of the snobbery that exists, I think, in society today does not sit comfortably with the requirement in paragraph (c) of clause 9 “to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music”.

I turn to another issue in the commentary—that is, the recognition of professional regional orchestras. There are several professional regional orchestras doing an extraordinarily good job. The Auckland Philharmonia is one, and the Wellington Sinfonia and Southern Sinfonia are others. In fact, the Wellington Sinfonia regularly plays for the Royal New Zealand Ballet when it comes to town. It is a very well-thought-of and respected sinfonia.

The Government Administration Committee reported: “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.” It describes why that is not going to happen, and concludes: “We therefore wish to offer our support and recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras that serve New Zealand audiences so well.” I am sure that will be of significant consolation to those orchestras!

This bill is another example of the Government picking favourites. In this case it is the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Far from setting out to destroy the symphony orchestra, as the Minister stood up and ranted at us, with claims that ACT and National are trying to destroy the symphony orchestra, ACT pleads guilty only to trying to provide a level playing field for all professional orchestras in this country that provide enjoyment and entertainment for New Zealanders. The Minister is just scaremongering when she repeatedly says we are trying to destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

When we look at the principal objectives and functions in the bill we see they are overly prescriptive and clearly unrealistic. How can anybody legislate for music to be played of an international standard, and who will determine whether the music reaches that standard? And how is it possible to legislate for artistic imagination? What do we mean by “artistic imagination” and how can we legislate for that?

I want to make brief mention of how particularly disturbing it is—and the ACT party, along with United Future, New Zealand First, and the Greens made great mention of this—that there is no place for player representation on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. ACT supported the amendments that were put forward in this regard, as we felt very strongly that the players should be represented and be represented seriously by giving them a voting right on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I will not go on to explain this in detail, as the other parties have done it very well.

The question arises of why the Labour Government supports this bill so vigorously. Well, this bill is a symbol. It is a symbol that is reminiscent, I think, of the Titanic. The Labour Party is a bit like the sinking of the Titanic. We have before us a sinking vessel; it is going down slowly, but the Government is standing up and saying: “Don’t worry. Listen to us. Do as we say, and everything will be all right.” This New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is being debated under urgency. The symphony orchestra is coming under greater State control, being instructed what to do and how to play to international standards and with artistic imagination. Yet indeed the ship is sinking. But New Zealanders can rest assured in the knowledge that the band will play on. ACT New Zealand does not support this bill.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill, and to reiterate that it was a United Future election policy in 2002 to ensure that the national orchestra was put on a sure, long-term footing. I believe that this bill will accomplish that. A Crown entity is a better structure in which to situate the orchestra than the present governance arrangements. That is a big plus in this bill but unfortunately there are some quite large minuses, and I will get to them shortly.

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra offers employment for many musicians in this country, a cultural richness that comes from having musicians in the community, and an essential support to other art forms—like opera, ballet, film, and so on. It symbolises excellence and dedication in an artistic endeavour, and it is evidence of cultural depth and maturity. It is a cost-effective way to provide symphonic performances of an international standard—something all New Zealanders can be rightfully proud of, and have easy access to.

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, as the national orchestra, is an important part of New Zealand culture and, of course. of our national identity, as well. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra can play a valuable role in projecting New Zealand’s culture to an international audience, by capitalising on symphonic music as an international language while presenting something uniquely New Zealand. That is something we should all be rightly proud of.

The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players committee wanted support for a player to be a member of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra board. That is not much to ask for, really, considering it concerns the governance of the members’ lives—how they express themselves musically and how they live day to day. For them not to be able to have a voice on the board is something this bill ought to have addressed and had the opportunity to address, but, because of the infamous coalition between Labour and National, that opportunity has now been denied. The suggestion that the board should be redesigned, with a wider governance structure developed to better bring the interests of musicians, board management, sponsors, and Government into harmony so they pull together to secure an agreed objective for the orchestra, was not too much to ask for. Unfortunately, that has been overlooked and denied by this Government, and by its supporting partner, the National Party.

New Zealand has a small economy and population, and it needs to concentrate its resources into one internationally recognised national orchestra. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra provides a quality benchmark for regional orchestras to aspire to and, in turn, regional orchestras provide a valuable training ground for future New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players. We do not have the luxury that other countries have of a large enough economy or population base to be able to fund more than one symphony orchestra at a time and to the extent it deserves.

One of the things I stressed earlier about board membership for a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra player is that such membership is needed to provide a useful perspective and a range of experience and skills, and to ensure the board always contains at least one person who knows the job from the inside. That absolutely makes sense. If one were to have a board running around talking about plumbing issues, one would think that it would make good sense to have a plumber on the board. That is exactly the kind of argument I would push. ACT, New Zealand First, the Greens, and even the Progressives also agree that that should be the case. It would also—and this is the important bit—match successful practice overseas.

I suppose the most damning indictment of this Government’s view, and its intransigence over the possibility of opening up the board to representation by players, can be summed up by correspondence from a Sydney symphony orchestra board member: “It is particularly valuable for other board directors to hear of issues from the player’s perspective, and then for the player to understand and explain the issues from the board’s perspective to colleagues in the orchestra.” It works overseas, and it can work over here. For the life of me, I do not understand how this Labour Government, a Government that has a longstanding tradition of fighting for the rights of groups to be able to have a voice and to speak up for themselves, can now in a very autocratic manner deny this group that right—the opportunity to voice its concerns. It is downright arrogance to assume that the players who provide so much in terms of musical talent should be denied the ability to embody that talent, in a voice on a board that has everything to do with what they do and how they express their lives.

Even more stunning is the fact that National has climbed into bed with Labour over this very issue. I want to know who got to National members? What personal relationship on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are they worrying about so that they will not agree to represent the players, who ought to have a voice? That is what I would like to know. Where is that coming from? What are they afraid of?

Lastly, I would like to say that this is an MMP environment and we have a range of opinions throughout the House. I find it incredible that out of all the parties represented here, United Future, ACT, New Zealand First, the Greens, and even the Progressives are all saying the same thing—why deny the right of the players to have a voice on the board? Then we have the two old parties—Labour, which has gone back on its tradition of giving people a voice, and National—both saying no. With their numbers, those two parties have overruled a thoughtful, articulated point of view from all the other parties. That is absolutely anti-democratic and anti-MMP. I think two parties should take a good, long, hard look at themselves and try to explain to the public why they are on the same side on this issue, denying the right for people to have a say on the board. That is absolutely shameful, particularly when we know that that representation can work very effectively overseas, and does work well overseas. We are definitely behind in this game.