Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: I move, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. Under the Radio New Zealand Act, the Radio New Zealand charter is required to be reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals. The previous Minister of Broadcasting, my colleague Marian Hobbs, invited the Commerce Committee to undertake the first review of the charter on behalf of the House. The review process was begun in December 2000, and the select committee tabled its report, the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter on 21 December 2001. I am grateful to the committee members for their work, and to the individuals and groups whose submissions informed the considerations of the committee.

The select committee’s report was supportive of the charter in its present form and proposed only a few minor legislative enhancements to assist Radio New Zealand to engage fully with the spirit of its charter. In proposing those amendments, the select committee acknowledged that the changes needed to be phrased in broad terms so as to remain relevant and useful to the charter. The legislative amendments recommended in the report reflect the consensus reached by the select committee. Following the select committee process, the proposed amendments to the Radio New Zealand Act were originally drafted for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), 2002. However, after consultation with the other political parties represented in Parliament, support for that course of action was withheld by four of those parties. The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to make minor amendments to the charter in terms of the select committee report. The provisions for amendment in this bill cover three key areas and, with one exception, reflect current practice at Radio New Zealand.

The first two provisions expand the wording of the charter to ensure that it more effectively conveys the needs of New Zealand society. The bill modifies the charter to require our public radio broadcaster to provide programmes that contribute towards spiritual and ethical development in addition to the contribution to intellectual, scientific, and cultural development required at present. It also requires the broadcaster to include programmes for a full range of age groups, confirming the need to provide for the needs of children. The third provision refers to Radio New Zealand’s unique broadcasting service in the South Pacific region. The bill acknowledges the operations of Radio New Zealand International, which was provided with additional funding by this Government in 2002, through Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, and currently provides effective short-wave radio broadcasts to the South Pacific region.

The remaining provisions of the bill ensure that Radio New Zealand will continue to be assisted in fulfilling its public broadcasting role by undertaking formal surveys and reporting on those survey results, and on consequent action to shareholding Ministers. Those surveys will assess the views of Radio New Zealand’s audience on the organisation’s fulfilment of its charter. This bill also requires Radio New Zealand to survey, for the first time, the views of non-listeners to Radio New Zealand to inform its future programming decisions. This process of reviewing Radio New Zealand against its charter has now been under way for 3 years. The review has involved a lengthy submission and consultation process, along with a slow but steady passage through governmental and parliamentary processes. I am now hopeful that the considered review of the charter provisions of the Commerce Committee, agreed by the Government, can be enacted as soon as possible for the benefit of Radio New Zealand’s audience.

The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is a mere 2 pages in length, and that is another indication of how obsessed this Government is with charters. In terms of legislation, this is nothing more than a feel-good bill. I remind members that we are here under urgency, and although we have important things to do, and although important things are going on in the world—wars, etc.—we are here to talk about the spiritual and ethical guidance that we are supposed to get from National Radio. It is a sad day when we expect, or in fact think, that radio can deliver programming that aims to give New Zealanders spiritual and ethical guidance. I question the role of radio in doing that, anyway, given that it is State-owned.

The whole point of this bill is to insert the words “spiritual, and ethical” into the charter, and to apply them to programming. However, I question whether those words have been applied to the management of Radio New Zealand. I wonder whether the spiritual needs of Sean Plunket, for example, were considered in the handling of a number of issues at Radio New Zealand, or whether there was actually ethical practice. There has been just been an out-of-court settlement, of some tens of thousands of dollars. I question what is really going on with Radio New Zealand right now in terms of morale and in terms of the way the organisation is being managed. The organisation is in crisis. That fact should be the real focus of the discussions today, not this esoteric piece of legislation that is designed probably to do very little. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the engineers union, but its delegate, Brent Edwards, had the following comment to make about report after report, which have been done to try to get to the bottom of the problems within Radio New Zealand. He said: “As soon as we heard there was going to be a report we said: ‘Don’t do it, it’s a waste of money because you ought to know what the problems are’.” We know what the problems are at Radio New Zealand. We know that the problems relate to morale. Top political editors like Al Morrison do not leave Radio New Zealand for no good reason. I do not think it was a love of polar fleece and sandals that led Mr Morrison to leave Radio New Zealand. I do not think it was an enjoyment of the environment that made Mr Morrison leave. I imagine that there were some pretty significant reasons, and the dysfunction within the newsroom is one of the very dire situations that have occurred within Radio New Zealand.

Members of the management of Radio New Zealand appeared before the select committee. I put the question to the management of Radio New Zealand. I asked them how many cuts had been made to the newsroom. The answer given was $68,000 in terms of cash, but I now understand that that answer was very economical with the truth. The real cuts have been in the non-replacement of staff. I come from Dunedin, and one of the key areas where staff have not been replaced is in Dunedin. If a big story were to happen south of Christchurch—it could be another Aramoana-type massacre or another Bain murder—Radio New Zealand is now in a position where it does not have a person on the ground. Radio New Zealand will probably have to put someone on a bus—no doubt that person will have to pay for himself or herself—to Dunedin in order to cover that story. That is not good enough.

Time after time we have seen Radio New Zealand in the news. I say that it is the job of Radio New Zealand to present and to report the news. It is not its job to be the news. The absolute dysfunction that has been occurring within Radio New Zealand has caused a number of high-profile stories—be they about Sean Plunket, Lynn Snowdon, or other key staff members—to hit the news. Those staff members are extremely unhappy because they cannot do the job that they are there to do. A Deloitte’s report has described staff as being at breaking point—and they have good reason. People who work within the news are usually very passionate about the stories that they want to tell. If they do not have the resources to do that, then morale is one of the first things to deteriorate. It is not about money, either. The chairman of Radio New Zealand sat in front of the select committee and said: “It’s because we don’t have enough funding.” The amount of money that Radio New Zealand receives is over $23 million per annum. I say that it is not about the amount of funding but the way it is being spent, and we can see that if we look at the number of consultancy reports that have been done to identify problems within the newsroom alone. Again, I agreed with the engineers union delegate when he said that they know what the answers are, and do not need a consultant. He said that they do not need some butt-covering consultant’s report to tell them what the real problems are.

The real problems are at the top. One of the key things that the present management has to consider is what its future is within Radio New Zealand. It has certainly had enough time to improve things within the organisation. I am a great believer that there does come a time when no amount of navel-gazing and reports will make any difference. Eventually, management has to consider its options. Even the Minister had some comments to make when he first became involved with Radio New Zealand. He said: “I think it could do better. I would like to see Radio New Zealand being an exciting, compulsive piece of media, and I don’t think it is right now.” He then backed off from those comments at 100 miles per hour. But I think that that was probably one of the most telling comments made about Radio New Zealand. When members opposite were in Opposition, they made a huge song and dance about newsroom cuts as just one example. Now, those members are into their fourth year in Government, and they are doing more to damage the newsroom—deliberately—than has ever been done in the past.

One of the ways we can measure the performance of Radio New Zealand is by the number of people who listen to it at any given time. I was shocked to see the number of listeners who had switched off their radios in just 12 months. In 2001, 535,000 people were listening to National Radio, and 502,000 in 2002. There was also a dramatic decline in Concert FM listeners. That figure went from 160,000 to 145,000. That is a significant number of people who have turned off their radios. Actually, I do not think they have turned off their radios; I think they have turned the dial and started listening to other radio stations. The management has to accept that what has been going on over the last few months has had a dramatic impact on the quality of programming and the sorts of programmes that have been put on air. The management has as one of its performance targets the rather “Eeyore-ish” objective that “the audience for the period under review will not reduce by more than 10 percent when compared with the previous year’s corresponding survey of listeners.” If we take that as being the objective over the next few years or so, there will not be any listeners. If we are saying that a reduction in 10 percent every year is OK, then it sort of becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Things quite simply have to change. This issue is not about money; it is about accepting that there are problems within the organisation itself. It is the role of Radio New Zealand to present the news, not to be the news. Reporters need the resources to be able to present the news in an effective way, and decisions need to be made about whether the present management stays. Quite clearly, things are not working. The Minister knows that he has a very dysfunctional organisation, but he has done nothing to fix it. No amount of consultancy reports will make one skerrick of difference. As described in one of the latest news reports, staff are at breaking point, and I can understand why. In terms of the Dunedin part of the operation, it is absolutely shameful that there has not been a reporter there since September. How does Radio New Zealand expect to cover stories from around the country if it does not have people on the ground? The whole point of funding National Radio is so that it can tell stories. If these issues are not sorted out, then no amount of pontificating about a 2-page bill will make any difference.

I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill with, however, some deep concerns. This piece of legislation arises out of the required 5-yearly review of the Radio New Zealand charter, performed by the Commerce Committee. If we look at some of the amendments, we can see that the bill amends Radio New Zealand’s charter in a minimal fashion. Clause 3(2) requires Radio New Zealand to provide programming that caters to a full range of age groups. This will ensure that Radio New Zealand provides programming that is specific to child listeners, who do require extra considerations and protections with regard to their specific needs.

Clause 3(1) amends the charter so that Radio New Zealand must provide programming that contributes towards New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical development. It ought to be noted that this amendment makes the Radio New Zealand charter consistent with the recently enacted Television New Zealand charter, which requires it to feature programmes that contribute to New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical developments.

But as woolly as some of these ideas are, they are indicative rather than prescriptive, and they should be treated and regarded accordingly. Radio New Zealand is now statutorily obliged to provide an international radio service to the South Pacific. Finally, the bill allegedly sets the requirement for annual surveying of audience numbers and satisfaction, meaning that Radio New Zealand will not shirk its responsibilities of remaining responsive to its listeners, and taking into account their feedback. I will speak more on that a little bit later.

It is clear from the report of the Commerce Committee and other sources that the charter itself is fundamentally sound in terms of what it requires. It is equally clear that there is general satisfaction from the public regarding Radio New Zealand’s delivery of charter obligations. I note from the 2002 ACNeilson survey of Radio New Zealand’s listeners that nine out of 10 listeners considered that Radio New Zealand provides fair and balanced information, and 85 percent of listeners thought that it broadcasts programmes not found on other radio stations, which is a key part of the organisation’s charter requirements. Eighty-three percent reported being satisfied, only 3 percent were dissatisfied, with the mix of programming on the network. Fifteen percent of listeners perceived National Radio to have improved over the last 12 months, 15 percent thought that it had become worse, and the remaining 70 percent thought that the station had stayed pretty much the same.

Conclusively, the overall performance of Radio New Zealand is pretty good. It seems that the relatively minor changes made by the Commerce Committee are evidence of that fact. Although the survey figures mentioned paint a glowing picture of Radio New Zealand’s performance, United Future is none the less left with some serious concerns. Those concerns include the fact that Radio New Zealand does not have to subject itself to rigorous comparison with other stations, in terms of its listener numbers, through taking part in regular listener surveys, as all the commercial radio stations do. The ACNeilson survey conducted in 2002 found that one in five radio listeners listened to either National Radio or Concert FM—the latter occupying a considerably smaller part of that listenership. It would be very interesting to see whether a comparison with the monthly commercial radio surveys showed a consistent listenership of Radio New Zealand. However, we do not know that, because Radio New Zealand has decided not to take part in industry standards surveys. I note that that issue is essentially an operational one, and I am aware that practical reasons were apparently given for Radio New Zealand choosing not to take part in the comparative survey. But if a select committee can go as far as specifying that Radio New Zealand must undertake its own annual surveys, of a qualitative and quantitative nature, of its audience, it would not have been too much—in fact, it would have been easier—to specify that Radio New Zealand take part in industry-wide radio audience surveys. After all, the taxpayers of New Zealand are the shareholders of Radio New Zealand, and they have a right to know how it performs in comparison with other broadcast providers. It is regretful that the process of select committee review occurred before the last election, because United Future’s contribution at that stage would obviously have been in that regard.

Finally, any debate on Radio New Zealand can hardly go by without considering some of the current rumblings emanating from the organisation itself. Amidst budget blowouts and requests for an emergency funding bail-out of $2.5 million, we note the managing editor of news, Lynn Snowdon, apparently having to go so far as using the Protected Disclosures Act to communicate to the board of directors that all is not well in the engine room. Furthermore, a report from consultancy firm Deloitte pointed to widespread dissatisfaction among Radio New Zealand’s 93 news staff. It also expressed and exposed serious problems in the news division, and consultants said that the Auckland newsroom was in danger of breaking down because of pressure of work. It quoted staff as enduring constant crises, and journalists as saying that something serious was about to go wrong, and that they were in a state of siege and worn down. A common theme was that the news operation was about to implode. Needless to say, we look forward to seeing the Government rectify some of those issues—in particular, the accountability that would go along with having open survey results, putting Radio New Zealand on an equal footing with all other broadcasting providers. We do believe that this bill should proceed, but with reservation. I look forward to its returning to the House for further scrutiny.

New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. This bill is a backward step for broadcasting, just like the Television New Zealand Bill, which was recently passed. Radio New Zealand has not been able to provide a balanced service since the introduction of the charter, so New Zealand First would like the Minister to explain to the House how writing down the words “spiritual, and ethical” in a charter will reverse the disastrous ratings for Radio New Zealand. The charter appears to be of no real value to Radio New Zealand. Instead, it has been totally counterproductive. The inclusion of the words “spiritual, and ethical” is another example of the “Big Brother State” syndrome of knowing best. Those same words were written in the Television New Zealand Bill, so we must have them in the Radio New Zealand Bill!

This bill is just another example of State control. The State controls our life at work, it controls our life at home, and now it wants to control the life of our souls. It wants to control what is hidden in our heads and our hearts—our personal, spiritual, and ethical beliefs. How many variations of spiritual and ethical beliefs will we hear from Radio New Zealand? To be fair to the many cultures in New Zealand, all people’s views must be met. But the reality is that our spiritual and ethical beliefs are so diverse that it will be an impossible challenge. It will not be possible for Radio New Zealand to meet the needs of all people. Is there no end to this Government’s almost fanatical desire to control our lives with a charter?

💬 Mark Peck: Ha, ha!

I know I am hitting home, because I can see signs of opposition from Mark Peck. That usually means that we are on the right track. What have we seen? We have seen a revolt. People do not want to be told what they can listen to, and they have voted with their feet. They have got up out of their chairs, and they have turned off that politically correct radio station that they have been listening to. The bottom line is that they can change what they listen to when it does not meet their needs. Radio New Zealand and this politically correct Government cannot stop people from thinking their own thoughts. There are a lot of thinkers out there, and they are thinking, with their fingers on the radio dial: “Change the station!”.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: And change the Government.

That would be another example. Like Katherine Rich has done, we had a look at the ACNeilson survey. It shows that between 2001 and 2002 the number of National Radio listeners fell from 535,000 to 502,000. The Concert FM listenership declined by 15,000, and the average time spent listening to that station dropped by just under 2 hours a week. That represents a significant number of listeners. It is a really appalling state of affairs to lose such a vast number of listeners. If that were a private radio station, heads would roll. Indicators of audience loss of that magnitude would inspire some action on the part of the directors—but do we see any action? No, there is nothing. What do we see? We see a key performance target that does not inspire the confidence of any thinking New Zealander. Radio New Zealand has a goal of losing no more than 10 percent of the previous year’s listeners. If it sticks with that type of target, then its audience will dwindle away really, really quickly. There will not be anybody listening to Radio New Zealand.

The loss of listeners is the first indication that there is something very, very wrong with the programmes that this radio station is playing. Even Radio New Zealand considers that the loss of listeners was due to the charter-directed programming changes. And what are we doing in this House? We are twiddling with it, a little bit more, all the time. What did we see in the New Zealand Herald on 21 March? Radio New Zealand was asking the Government for $2.5 million more in the May budget to avoid “cutting into the bone”. The article states too that the State broadcaster now gets $22.3 million from the Government. The article also states that the chairman of Radio New Zealand said that the request was realistic and conservative, although $3.5 million would be needed to return Radio New Zealand to its pre-1995 level of support. So what do we have? We have here a Government radio station in bad shape. It is coming to the Government for money so that it is not forced to cut into the bone. What does that leave the way open for? I can tell members right here in this House. It leaves the way open for more State interference in broadcasting—total control of what we hear and think, and even control of our spiritual and ethical souls. That is not a good state of affairs. It is a really sad state of affairs too if we have to listen to the radio for our spiritual and ethical beliefs. That is not good enough. We are always reading about Radio New Zealand and the problems it is having with staff morale—some of them directly due to this charter. No amount of money will make any difference to the situation within Radio New Zealand. We have solid proof that the changes to Radio New Zealand are not working since the introduction of the charter, and New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

I am delighted to take a very short call on this bill. I have listened to two most extraordinary speeches. I congratulate Marc Alexander on what I thought was a considered contribution to the debate, but Katherine Rich and Judy Turner—

💬 Opposition Members: Not Judy Turner; it was Barbara Stewart.

I do apologise to the member. These things happen. I am sure people forget my name from time to time.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: That’s right, Robbie.

That’s all right, Gerry! I do apologise to the member.

This shock-horror-conspiracy theory has just got me stumped. I have had a look at the bill. The bill is 2 pages long. The explanatory note is longer. The bill emanates from the Commerce Committee work on reviewing the charter, which it must do once every 5 years. It recommended, in the immortal words of one of our former colleagues, the Hon Stan Rodger, some minor technical changes to the bill that probably could have been much better dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. But, no, there is shock and horror because we have changed two or three words— added “spiritual, and ethical”, broadened “varied interests”, and things of that ilk. There is no conspiracy in this. This bill should take no time at all to work through the select committee. We should do it as a matter or urgency, because the second 5-yearly review is due very soon. We should waste no more time of the House on this bill. Let us get it to the select committee.

I do not know who we will ask to make submissions, to be frank. The people who have already submitted on the bill are probably the only ones who will be interested, at any rate. We look forward to it being referred on, and we will process it quickly.

I want to be quite clear that the National Party in Opposition is strongly opposed to this bill. We do not believe that this Government has earned any right to change the charter of Radio New Zealand. The National Party believes that Radio New Zealand is currently in breach of its charter, and we believe that this organisation is overly secretive and heading in the wrong direction.

Every day we read of the financial mismanagement of Radio New Zealand. I was Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand when the previous National Government put in excess of $6 million of additional funding into Radio New Zealand over a 3-year period. We were assured that that would fix Radio New Zealand’s financial problems. They were not fixed; they have got worse. While Radio New Zealand is skimping to find the money to pay for a quality news service, as we speak, the board and management of Radio New Zealand are spending its valuable resources on expanding its FM coverage around New Zealand—duplicating its signal. Frankly, the money would be better spent on trying desperately to maintain current standards than on expanding the FM network. The FM network expansion should be put on hold, if this company is in such financial straits. We do not need FM National Radio in the Bay of Plenty, if there is no money to pay for decent reporters; we can wait. So it is a waste of taxpayers’ money that the board and management of Radio New Zealand are continuing its expansion programme—duplicating the signal—when it is completely unnecessary, and the money could be spent somewhere else.

I think money is being misspent by Radio New Zealand. It is commissioning audience surveys that it will not release to elected members of Parliament. Mrs Katherine Rich has sought, time and time again, to get the ACNeilson annual survey of listeners released for full public scrutiny. Neither the Minister nor the board will release it; neither will release the survey. Why will they not release it? Because that information is damning of the performance of the board and the management of Radio New Zealand. We know that in the period we are considering, most recently, Radio New Zealand lost 33,000 of its listeners to National Radio, and it lost over 10 percent of its listeners to Concert FM. It is so resigned to losing listenership that it says that one of its really good achievements will be if it does not lose 10 percent in the next year. That is no way to run a company, at all.

The National Party in Opposition is also concerned that the spa pool liberals who dominate this Government are seeking to insert the words “spiritual, and ethical” into the charter of Radio New Zealand. Well, what does that mean? What does inserting “spiritual” values of New Zealand mean? What about the spiritual values of Radio New Zealand? Would Mr Sean Plunket say that his spiritual values were being served well by that company, when we consider the way that he was treated? Allegedly, he was offered Linda Clark’s job, then, after some intervention, he was “dis-offered” the job? What about “ethical”? Who in Radio New Zealand is going to stand up and say he or she will set the standard for ethical behaviour, not only in the company but also on the airwaves? Who in Radio New Zealand is going to set that ethical benchmark? The Government is silent, and I am not surprised, because this is just nonsense. It is absolute nonsense that these non-secular ideas of spirituality should be included in this charter.

I have to say this to the House: when the Government changes in less than 2 years’ time this charter will go out of the window. This board of directors of Radio New Zealand would have to consider their role in the future, because they cannot run a company. They are not delivering what New Zealanders want. They are making wrong financial decisions. They cannot get enough money to employ a reporter in Dunedin, so they are in breach of the charter, but they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars duplicating Radio New Zealand’s transmission signal around the country. That is a waste of money. That is the wrong decision and we oppose it strongly.

This little 1-page bill also includes more nonsense that Radio New Zealand will be required to have programmes that cater to a “full range of age groups”. What does that mean? What is Radio New Zealand going to do for 6-month-old children? My wife would tell us we have Concert FM for 6-month-old children, to send them off to sleep. That is probably about right. But what has it got for 2-year-old children? Nothing! What has it got for 3-year-old children? Nothing!

Debate interrupted.

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