Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra - the Auckland Philharmonia

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.1.3 Funding of Auckland Philharmonia OrchestraThe APO receives 26% of its income from central government. This is the smallest amount forcomparable fulltime symphony orchestras in Australasia. The APO's core funding from allgovernment sources (central government and Auckland Council) is 50% ($4.6m). Even by thiscalculation of all government sources (taxpayer and ratepayer), Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra isfunded less than any Australasian fulltime symphony orchestra with a comparable budget in a cityof comparable size.Table 1: Funding comparison of APO with other comparable Australasian orchestrasSelf‐GeneratedRevenue('000)Centraland LocalGovt funding('000)Central andLocal Govtfunding %of totalrevenueOrchestra/ yearAuckland Philharmonia Orchestra (2011) 4,652 4,450* 48.89%Adelaide Symphony Orchestra (2010) (pop1m+) 4,817 7,716 61.55%Queensland Symphony Orchestra(2010) (pop2m+) 3,544 9,826 73.49%New Zealand Symphony Orchestra (2009/10) 4,107 13,370 76.50%* APO income excludes special project funding of $190,000 from Ministry for Culture and Heritage for Sistema AotearoapilotThe accepted modern model of international best practice in this part of the world is for centralgovernment to fund city‐based fulltime symphony orchestras (eg Adelaide, Queensland [Brisbane]).City‐based orchestras make big efforts to be connected to cities even though funding is primarilyfrom taxpayers/central government. Central governments value the fact that local orchestras knowtheir audiences and 'belong', add to the cultural fabric of places, and are important facilitators ofcultural advancement. An anomaly exists for Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra wherein AucklandCouncil extends support to its city orchestra relatively more than any other city council does to itscity orchestra anywhere in Australasia.Auckland ratepayers currently contribute more to their orchestra than any other ratepayers in NewZealand contribute to theirs, and this stream of funding has reached its maximum. With currentlevels of funding from central government, the APO is unable to take the next steps in itsdevelopment and growth that would fulfil the needs of its expanding audience from Auckland, innorthern New Zealand, nationally and internationally.Normally the funding of city orchestras is primarily the preserve of taxpayers/central governmentin a higher proportion than ratepayers/local government. APO has achieved its notableachievements to date with relatively limited central government support.Normal city‐based orchestras receive funding from central government, which supports their COREactivity. Core funding of APO presently looks like this:Contextualising Auckland and the NZ orchestral sector Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra Page 6
Figure 2: Government funders of APO (Central Govt and Local Govt)Considering overseas evidence of "normalised" funding for city‐based orchestras, in Australia thefollowing funding ratios for orchestras exist:Orchestra Govt City/State Govt $ City/State $ Total $Adelaide Symphony Orchestra (ASO) 74% 26% 6,353,777 2,290,380 8,644,157Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) 81% 19% 9,888,516 2,363,235 12,251,751Orchestra Victoria (OV) 77% 23% 4,848,308 1,418,198 6,266,506Queensland Symphony Orchestra (QSO) 71% 29% 7,067,486 2,817,110 9,884,596Sydney Symphony Orchestra (SSO) 76% 24% 10,326,304 3,212,653 13,538,957Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra (TSO) 80% 20% 5,987,808 1,496,952 7,484,760WA Symphony Orchestra (WASO) 76% 24% 6,528,803 2,116,599 8,645,402Average 76.4% 23.6%(Source: Major Performing Arts Board, Australia)Typical orchestra funding in Australasia averages to a 3:1 ratio between central governments andcity/local governments. In 2004 the APO funding ratio was about 4:1, whereas in 2012 APO fundingis at a 1:1 ratio. Simply put, a 1:1 funding ratio (status quo for APO) is not sustainable for fulltimecity‐based orchestras; if this were sustainable, then that 1:1 ratio would be universally applied inorchestra funding metrics. It is not.The growth and expansion of APO since 2004 has not been matched by growth and expansion inrealistic support by New Zealand government arts funding. To get to normal, either Auckland wouldneed to cut its funding to APO (which would decimate the potential of the fulltime orchestra) orcentral government needs to increase its funding of APO. The only realistic option to explore is thelatter.There is an urgent need to establish what is elsewhere typical or normal funding ratio for APO. If theAustralasian standard 3:1 ratio were to be applied, this would provide a new transparent industrystandard and measurable policy tool that could be applied successfully to assist other orchestrasin New Zealand and benefit the entire sector. It would be democratic, relevant and futureproofed.It would also likely incentivise local/regional councils to support their orchestras better.Contextualising Auckland and the NZ orchestral sector Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra Page 7
Page 1 and 2: APO Submission for New ZealandOrche
Page 3 and 4: Part One: Contextualising Auckland
Page 5: Importantly, these advances over se
Page 9 and 10: 3 Context for overall NZ orchestral
Page 11 and 12: the arts, and the following excerpt
Page 13 and 14: further CORE funding the APO’s ab
Page 15: Costs for the NZSO to travel to Auc
Page 21 and 22: model is still used in most formerl
Page 23 and 24: 3.3.3 New Zealand Symphony Orchestr
Page 25 and 26: APO Education Activity 2011JANUARY
Page 27: 01-Jul-11 1-Jul Connecting With Mus

Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra - the Auckland Philharmonia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?