Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

I wonder why the House is in urgency to debate this bill. Is it not amazing?

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s April Fool’s Day.

The bill was introduced yesterday, on April Fool’s Day. Why do I question that? It is because when the Minister of Broadcasting, the Hon Steve Maharey, first took up his post, on 15 September 2002 he was described as media savvy. He actually said that Radio New Zealand could do better. He said that, as the Minister of Broadcasting, he would like to see Radio New Zealand being an exciting and compulsive-listening piece of our media, and that he did not think it was doing that right now. Well, I looked at the performance measurement of Radio New Zealand since the Hon Steve Maharey took over, and I have to say that a survey of the Radio New Zealand audience—not a rating of how large the audience is; just a survey—showed that the number of people who listen to Radio New Zealand for 8 minutes and over decreased by 6 percent, and that the Concert FM audience level decreased by 10 percent.

The sad fact is that reduction in audience level of 10 percent is actually a target set by Radio New Zealand. It is interesting to see that a Government agency has a performance measurement that means it has only to do well enough to reach 90 percent of the previous year’s target. In effect, Radio New Zealand was authorised by the Minister to say every year that it will try to achieve 90 percent of the previous year’s performance. I do not think any private organisation would submit a budget plan to its shareholders that says its aim is to achieve a target that is only 90 percent of that of the previous year. That organisation would be budgeting for a 10 percent decrease every year.

Against that background, I thought that the Hon Steve Maharey might have introduced the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill to try to change that. I thought that maybe this bill would consist of some miracle, some exciting target, or some funding provisions that would enable Radio New Zealand to achieve what the Minister says it should be—an exciting, compulsive-listening piece of media. But let us look at what this bill actually tries to do.

First of all, apparently it is going to introduce two more words into the charter, the mission statement of Radio New Zealand, so that the organisation should aim to develop programmes that reflect “spiritual” and “ethical” values. Those words have been added to its objective. As the Minister has introduced, through this legislation, the words “spiritual” and “ethical”, I wonder where the guideline is. I have looked through the bill, which consists of only 2 pages, but there is no definition, no parameters for the meaning of “spiritual”. Also, I did not know that Radio New Zealand had not been adhering to ethical standards in the past. As far as I am concerned, our media in New Zealand have a peer review system whereby the public can complain if Radio New Zealand fails to live up to the community’s standards.

Another provision of this legislation is that the organisation should try to aim to cover “a full range of age groups”. We need to explore that further. The Chief Executive of Radio New Zealand, Sharon Crosbie, was reported as saying—she actually comes before the Commerce Committee every year for the financial review—that the audience consists mainly of the 35-plus age group. When the Minister wants Radio New Zealand to extend its audience to a full range of age groups, I presume he wants to see Radio New Zealand catering more for the youth market. But many times when I sat on the Commerce Committee, we received independent reports and submissions from other sectors convincing us that the youth audience is very well served by the variety of private radio stations available. In fact, there are about 300 radio stations in New Zealand, and a lot of them have been very successful in targeting the youth audience. So why are the Labour Government and the Minister of Broadcasting hell-bent on channelling taxpayers’ money towards targeting, in particular, a youth sector that is very well served by private radio stations? Young audiences have been able to receive a service from the whole range of radio stations currently provided in the community. I think the Minister should front up and explain why he intends Radio New Zealand to enter the highly competitive market of youth listeners. What, specifically, does the Minister want youth listeners to receive from Radio New Zealand? What does he think they are deprived of, in terms of what is provided by private radio stations?

To be fair to Radio New Zealand, I would have thought that if its master, so to speak, the Minister of Broadcasting, wanted Radio New Zealand to turn itself into a dynamic, exciting, compulsive-listening piece of media, then he should be realistic in terms of funding Radio New Zealand well. But we found that Labour, after criticising the previous funding level of Radio New Zealand, actually, in last year’s Budget, cut $225,000 from its funding. The Government cannot, on the one hand, demand that a radio station perform and attract high-quality personalities and journalists, then, on the other hand, reduce its funding and its ability to attract those high-calibre personalities and staff. Ultimately, we have to accept that to be able to appeal to the audience, it has to have quality programmes and quality presenters.

As the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is being debated under urgency, I would have thought that it had an urgent mission to fulfil, and that it would provide some exciting initiatives, like a generous funding commitment to Radio New Zealand. But this bill is nothing more than another piece of politically correct legislation that will not enable Radio New Zealand to obey its master’s command to become exciting and compulsive-listening radio. The National Party will be voting against this bill.

I am pleased to rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, which puts into effect the few minor amendments that have arisen from the review of the Radio New Zealand charter. It is a pity that a more expeditious legislative process, that of incorporating them into a Statutes Amendment Bill, could not have been followed, but, unfortunately, the Opposition voted against that. I commend this bill to the House.

The ACT party opposes the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. The ACT party was one of the parties that objected to the use of a Statutes Amendment Bill to include amendments to Radio New Zealand’s charter. We did not object lightly to this. I am aware that a Statutes Amendment Bill enables Parliament to function efficiently and smoothly, but it should be used for issues that are non-controversial, and this issue is definitely not non-controversial. Just because a Labour member said that the bill is only two pages long does not mean it is minor or non-controversial legislation.

I wrote to the Minister of Broadcasting at the time, and I repeat now that ACT does not support an undefined instruction that would become a licence to use money raised from taxpayers to promote religious and ethical beliefs, which should be obliged to compete in the marketplace of ideas on their own merits, using resources provided by their supporters.

This legislation is a dangerous attack on the important principle that the State should be secular. Several people have already described this legislation, and the commentary on the bill states that the select committee proposed only “a few minor legislative enhancements”. This bill is definitely not minor. One of the major themes of State radio is that it should not just be independent and unbiased, but that it should actually bend over backwards to be so. I will come to that issue later, in terms of the charter. But more important than that is that the State should be secular. There is a clear separation of powers. This is constitutionally extremely important and a vital element of a liberal democracy. This amendment, along with the one we passed recently for the Television New Zealand charter, starts us on the slippery slope of fudging the separation of those powers.

If we look at the charter, we will see that there are only a few pedantic changes, but those words are loaded. We should look at what is being changed. We will be changing from having programmes that contribute to intellectual, scientific, and cultural development, to those that contribute to intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethical development. I have already spoken strongly on this. State radio has no business promoting spiritual development. Why should some taxpayers be forced to fund the promotion of the spiritual development of someone else whom they might personally find abhorrent? Taxpayers should not be forced to fund State broadcasting at all in these times.

The State does not own newspapers; neither should it. The State should not own broadcasting, either. But while we do have State radio, we should all be opposing this insertion of the promotion of spiritual development. Whose spiritual development are we promoting here? Are we going to promote the spiritual development of Christians more than Buddhists? We already have private radio stations that more than successfully provide spiritual programmes. Why should they have to compete in the market against a State-funded broadcaster?

We are also going to insert into this charter the provision of programmes that contribute to ethical development. This is a real worry too, because this signals a continuation of the relativism regarding ethical values that is already permeating our education curricula. This relativism is where we say that no ethical values can be regarded as being more relevant or more important than other ethical values. Ethical values can mean all sorts of different things to different people. Do they include someone whose ethical or spiritual values embrace and support stoning women to death in public for the sin of adultery? There are ethical values that say that young girls should be circumcised. People believe in those ethical values. I suspect that most rational New Zealanders would argue that this is not ethical development at all, but barbaric and uncivilised, and that these beliefs have no place with a State broadcaster. But under this charter, this is what taxpayers could be forced to fund.

Radio New Zealand recently fronted up to the Commerce Committee and asked for more money from taxpayers—nearly $3 million—because it had blown its budget. At the same time that it turned up at the select committee to ask for this money, it also announced that its listenership had plummeted in the last 12 months. Radio New Zealand National Radio listeners had gone from 535,000 to 502,000. That is a loss of over 30,000 listeners in just 12 months. So what does Radio New Zealand do? It fronts up and asks for more taxpayers’ money because its listeners are turning off the radio. Another 15,000 switched off from Concert FM.

I am not surprised that people are turning off from State radio. What does public radio mean? It means broadcasting to the public. It does not mean, as it used to when all the news service had to come out of the Prime Minister’s office, that it is promoting the policies of the current Government, whatever Government that might be. At the moment, all we get on public radio is Labour Party policy being promoted. We get no voice from the market liberals. Just one promoter of freedom would be good, but no, Radio New Zealand is totally incapable of mentioning the f-word.

When did anybody last hear “free markets”, “individual liberty”, or “classical liberalism” mentioned on State radio? Instead, on Saturday mornings we get endless interviews with women called Kate, and on Sunday mornings we get middle-aged hippies masquerading as youth culture. If members listen to the current coverage of the war in Iraq they will confirm that National Radio has totally sold out to the Government’s position on that. I am not surprised that people are turning off from Concert FM either, if one listens to the noise that masquerades as music. It is a return to Manuel and the Music of the Mountains, and some of us are old enough to remember those days.

Let us take a look at the briefing to the incoming Government. The briefing is very interesting because it states that on current performance, Radio New Zealand has a secure income stream, and that it will continue to remain so, with income exceeding expenses. That did not last long either. It is always very interesting to look at the outlooks of State-owned enterprises and Crown-owned companies in their briefings to incoming Governments, because those outlooks signify what their plans are for the next 12 months. In this one, the outlook states “Information withheld under the Official Information Act.” So where will that go?

I support the fact that under this charter the Radio New Zealand board will be required to inform the shareholding Ministers of the results of surveys it will carry out. Previously, these have been preciously kept secret. However, what is the point of that? Why should the board waste money doing that? The charter states that after the board has provided the results of those surveys, as part of the annual report, it must report on “the measures, if any, it has taken in response to those results.” So why waste money doing those surveys, when the Government lets Radio New Zealand totally off doing anything about the results anyway?

Finally, I have to agree with one of the National Party members—I cannot remember who it was—who said that Radio New Zealand is already in breach of its charter. If members read the charter, they will see that Radio New Zealand is required to provide comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced national news services and current affairs. I have no problem with the news services. Yes, they are independent, balanced, and impartial. Current affairs? I do not think so. As I said, the commentary on the bill states that the bill will ensure that the charter “reflects more accurately the needs of New Zealand society.” I would say that the need of New Zealand society is to have more money in its pockets. Radio New Zealand should look at selling some land in Auckland, for which it was recently offered $8 million. It would not then have to go the Government, cap in hand.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of this legislation.

We have heard a lot of disparaging of, and, indeed, clobbering of, Radio New Zealand in this House today, so I would like to start by saying thank God we have Radio New Zealand; thank God I am able, and many others are able, to listen to a radio station that is not interrupted every few minutes with commercials; thank God we have a radio station that is not dominated by commercial interests; and thank God I can listen to Worldwatch at night when I have not found any other radio station that has international programmes consistently like Worldwatch on Radio New Zealand.

Thank God we have a radio station that has a specific charter to provide comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced news services and current affairs, etc. Thank God we have one radio station that before the last election sat down and worked out how it should provide impartial and balanced coverage. I find it extraordinary that some persons here are even trying to suggest that Radio New Zealand might not be balanced and impartial. I think it is one of the mediums of communication in our land that actually is balanced and impartial. So thank God we have Radio New Zealand! I am not speaking just for myself, either. Its annual report states that almost half of the listeners who listen to Radio New Zealand have been listening to it for more than 20 years.

We have also heard a lot of disparaging remarks about a couple of amendments in the bill. One amendment, in particular, that has generated a lot of sneering in the House is the requirement that Radio New Zealand should, amongst other things, promote programmes that contribute to the spiritual and ethical development of life in New Zealand. What is so incredibly problematic about discussing spiritual and ethical issues? Excuse me, but do we not have whole radio stations devoted to sport and endless programmes on money? Why should we not have some programmes that examine ethical and religious issues? Is there some kind of great sin in that? I am surprised that the National Party is so opposed to that provision. Maybe some members have noticed that religion seems to be a rather dominant force in the world today, and it might be helpful if we had programmes that contributed to our understanding of religious and ethical issues. To try to suggest, as the previous speaker did, that that is somehow undermining the secular state of New Zealand is utter nonsense. Hopefully, what that requirement will do is contribute to our understanding of religious and ethical issues, which are very dominant in the world today.

That said, we think the charter is a wonderful document. We agree with the chief executive of Radio New Zealand who said that it provides Radio New Zealand with a clear set of guidelines that are flexible and not too prescriptive. We strongly support the charter, and the modest amendments in the bill to require Radio New Zealand to look at all age groups—in particular, children and young people—to look at religious and ethical issues, and to have regular surveys. We strongly support that, but we are concerned that there seems to be something of a parallel here with TVNZ. On the one hand, we are giving Radio New Zealand this charter with its lofty ideals, and imposing new obligations on it in this bill; on the other hand, we are not providing Radio New Zealand or, for that matter, TVNZ, with the funding they need to implement their charters. In my view, that is the main issue we should have been addressing in our review of the charter in the Commerce Committee. It is slightly ironic that we did that whole review of Radio New Zealand without getting to the heart of the problem, which is that the whole organisation is totally cash-strapped. We did not address the funding issue at all, and to me, that is a major problem.

Others have spoken about the headlines we have all read, such as “Radio New Zealand blows budget for news” and “Newsroom on the verge of implosion”. As others have mentioned, there is clearly a serious morale problem within Radio New Zealand. We acknowledge that, but we believe that funding issues are an underlying problem. Radio New Zealand is being expected to implement this lofty charter without sufficient funding. We suspect that deeper issues, including staffing, have also contributed to the alleged implosion.

However, having identified problems of morale, etc, we should nevertheless hesitate to become involved in sorting out those issues. We must remember that Radio New Zealand is part of the fourth estate, whose independence we should be jealously guarding. We should resist the temptation to get our sticky little political fingers into that crisis and try to sort it out by deciding who should, or should not, be running Radio New Zealand—or who should not be deciding this or that. Clearly, those are issues that Radio New Zealand should sort out, and let us hope that they do, because there clearly is a serious problem. But we should also recognise and appreciate that we have independent radio in New Zealand, and an independent fourth estate. Our democracy would virtually cease to exist if we did not have radio and television channels that were truly independent, impartial, and unbiased, but instead had radio stations that were effectively the channel of corporate interests or the State.

The Greens will certainly be supporting this bill. We cannot see why everyone is in such a state of consternation about the fact that Radio New Zealand should have to make a few programmes that contribute to spiritual and ethical understanding. It seems eminently sensible. We think it is extremely sensible also to ask Radio New Zealand to look at the full range of age groups, and to consider focusing more on children and young people, which is obviously one of its weak areas. It is not succeeding very well in reaching that particular audience. We think that requiring Radio New Zealand to commission surveys is extremely important. It is all very well having a charter, but how do we measure it? One of the few ways we have of doing so is through quantitative and qualitative research, and we have required that that be done. Ultimately, we are concerned that there is no point having these charters, worthy though they are, if we are not going to provide Radio New Zealand, or Television New Zealand, with the revenue they need to implement them.

By and large, I totally agree with the observations made by the previous speaker. I have to say how depressing it is to see the vision for public radio that is held by National and ACT, in particular. If they had their way, they would replace the independent New Zealand – owned public radio network that is beholden only to the people of this country, and hand it over the media moguls in Ottawa, Sydney, London, or wherever.

That is their vision. I find it absolutely amazing that parties that presume to represent the people of this country would be happy to do that. I support Radio New Zealand, and want to take this opportunity to thank it for the excellent work it does in reflecting the diversity, the vitality, and the richness of this nation. Well might people in ACT and the National Party sneer and jeer; frankly, if members want a definition of patriotism, then thank the people who work at Radio New Zealand, who reflect the nation’s way of life to us.

We want to get this bill through. I compliment the select committee on the work it has done, and I compliment all those who work for our excellent public radio network.