Question NW4461 to the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture

Reply:

It is incorrect to imply that Mr. Louis Heyneman was only invited to a single meeting with the Department for the purpose of the conceptualization of the National Orchestra. Prior to the board of Mzansi NPO being appointed by the Minister, the Department managed the process and was the custodian of the task team of experts. Our records indicate that several meetings were called by the office of the Director General between September 2018 and November 2019. This does not include the meetings that the task team held at the National Arts Council offices in Johannesburg. Mr. Heyneman was invited to the said meetings where, in certain instances he attended, while in some instances he forwarded formal apologies. Noteworthy is that in March 2019, Mr. Heyneman made a written submission titled ‘National Philharmonic Orchestra: A Working Document’. We have attached evidence as Annexure A on his insightful contribution. One of the strong and progressive ideas that he presented in this document related to the issue of audience development and he said, ‘If it is the intent that the NPO [National Philharmonic Orchestra – as it was called] must be the “orchestra by the people for the people”, audiences for this new national ensemble must be found and developed. Without enthusiastic support and “bums on seats” the noble idea of a national orchestra that reflects the demographics of South Africa, catering for the musical taste of the majority of the population, will die a premature death.’ These kinds of ideas, among others, informed the entire conceptualization of the National Orchestra, feeding into the outcomes of the report of the task team that was presented to my office.

While there was an expectation for all task team members to attend and participate in the scheduled activities or meetings, the reality is that members also had commitments outside the work of the task team. However, this should not be used to cast aspersions on the validity of the processes and imply that there was no consultation when due processes were followed. On the occasions when some could not attend, meetings continued with the other participants.