Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

I move, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill represents the final step in the first 5-yearly review of Radio New Zealand’s charter. As part of a Government that has a strong commitment to the principles of public service broadcasting, it is a pleasure for me to bring this bill back to the House. [Interruption] Public broadcasting over the last little while has seen some pretty uncertain times, but, as I am sure Ken Shirley will applaud, it is now in very safe hands.

As I said when I addressed the New Zealand broadcasting conference back in 1994, public broadcasting is, above all else, driven by an ambition or belief that broadcasting makes a contribution to the health of society and the health of our culture. This Government holds strongly to that belief, and we are working hard to ensure it is reflected in the reality of public broadcasting.

The Commerce Committee was asked to undertake the review of Radio New Zealand’s charter in December 2000, and the committee’s report was tabled on 21 December 2001. That report was supportive of the charter, and suggested only a few minor legal changes to assist Radio New Zealand to engage fully with the charter’s spirit. The Government considered the report and agreed with its recommendations. The proposed amendments were originally drafted for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), but not all parties in the House supported that course of action, so the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill was created instead and referred to the Commerce Committee.

The bill proposed three areas of change to the charter. The first was to propose some changes of wording to incorporate certain concerns raised by submitters during the review of the charter. Those changes were supported by the committee. The current charter requires our public radio broadcasts to provide programmes that contribute to intellectual, scientific, and cultural development—which is, of course, why Mr Shirley does not listen to it. This bill adds spiritual and ethical development to that list. That change recognises that in order to contribute to the health of our society and culture, public broadcasting needs to address those additional dimensions. There is also a new requirement to include programmes for a full range of age groups, which are designed to ensure that the needs of children are included.

I pause for a moment on the matter of the spiritual and ethical elements put into this bill, which do not mean a religious denomination. It means that New Zealanders, in terms of programming, do have concerns about values issues, which may well be religious issues, and about issues of spirituality in the broad sense that represents the wide range of cultures that make up our society. It is reasonable to expect that those concerns are explored on Radio New Zealand.

The second point is that Radio New Zealand is also required to provide an international radio service to the South Pacific, which is called Radio New Zealand International. The provision of that service has been part of Radio New Zealand’s operation for 13 years, and this change to the charter gives recognition to the importance of that function. It is important. We know that other nations—such as the Australians, who have a very large budget—broadcast into the Pacific, but one of the most exciting things about the way we do it is that we do it from the Pacific Island point of view. We do not run a broadcasting programme that comes from New Zealand and tells Pacific Island nations how the world should be; we have a lot of people who are able to provide the view of those nations through that service, and we keep them up to date with what is going on around the world and what is happening here in New Zealand.

Finally, Radio New Zealand is required, for the first time, to survey the views of non-listeners to its broadcasts, and to inform the shareholding Ministers of the results of those surveys as part of its annual report. We are very keen to know why people listen to Radio New Zealand, and why they do not. It is the nation’s broadcaster, so we want to know what both those listeners who tune in, and those people who do not, are looking for. We do not expect or even think that all New Zealanders will glue themselves to Radio New Zealand all the time—I think there are 168 radio frequencies available to people throughout this country—but we want to know that people regard their national broadcaster as a broadcaster they will tune into to meet particular needs they may have: news, current affairs, a particular programme, or whatever. Radio New Zealand is there as something that everyone sees they have a stake in, and that they feel is part of the infrastructure of New Zealand. The purpose of that new requirement is to assist in assessing Radio New Zealand’s performance against its charter obligations, and to inform future programming decisions that may increase the size of its audience.

The select committee consideration of the bill led to the calling for submissions on the bill, and all submissions received were supportive of the proposed changes. The committee has not recommended a change to any of the provisions of the bill, except to recommend an amendment to change the commencement date of the bill to January 2004.

The Radio New Zealand Act, which incorporates the Radio New Zealand charter, is a major part of the public broadcasting landscape. The ongoing maintenance of the charter is essential if we are to keep our sights on what it is designed to achieve. I make special mention of those groups and individuals who took time to make submissions—at the time of the review and on the bill itself. All those efforts are, of course, appreciated. I am also grateful to the members of the original Commerce Committee for their thorough consideration and review, and to the members of the current select committee for the expeditious way in which they heard submissions and reported back on this bill.

I am aware that this is the first review of the charter. I am also aware that it has been a protracted one. From the first instruction to the Commerce Committee in December 2000 it has taken a good 2½ years to reach this stage. While cognisant of the fact that these reviews are required every 5 years, I will certainly be looking at ways in which we can streamline the process. But the notion that we will review the charter—for both radio and television—is essential. It is something that is owned by the people of New Zealand. Whatever they may do with their broadcasting, we want them to have a stake in what goes on in Radio New Zealand. One of the key ways of doing that is to review that charter regularly. That gives people the chance to talk about what they want to hear and affirm what they are hearing on Radio New Zealand, and it ensures that what takes place in the nation’s broadcaster is relevant to their lives and allows them to explore what it means to be New Zealanders, through all the programming styles, genres, and content they get on Radio New Zealand. One way to do that is to have an effective review of the charter every 5 years.

As a member of a Government that believes Government does have a role in broadcasting—as do all progressive nations all over the world—I look forward to what is a small but significant change to this legislation. I look forward to the fact that New Zealanders will feel this is a step closer to what they want to hear on their nation’s radio broadcaster, and I thank, once again, all those who have been involved with this bill.

The Minister of Broadcasting said this legislation should be a step closer to what New Zealanders are looking for, but I wonder whether it is a step further away. If we look at the insertions the bill makes, we see three little words, but they are words that I think some New Zealanders will take issue with. It is a sad day, really, when we look to State radio to guide us when it comes to our spiritual development. It is a sad day when we look to public broadcasting to guide us when it comes to ethical development. When did National Radio ever become a teacher of ethics, a teacher of spiritual development, or even a teacher of culture?

People listen to National Radio because they get something out of it. They like the quality of the news and they like the programmes. Many of us grew up with National Radio blaring while we had our breakfast in the mornings. We grew up listening to Mr Humphrey . It seems he has been on air for most of my entire life. But I wonder whether there are greater priorities when it comes to focusing on things that can be done with National Radio. For example, would it not have been better to take the cost of putting this bill through—this 2-page bill—and put it into better-quality studios, better-quality programming, or an FM strategy so that those in the South Island who, like me when growing up, listen to a very crackly Mr Humphrey could get clearer reception of National Radio?

It is sad that we think any broadcaster can teach us about spirituality or ethics. I do not know what ethical programming might deliver. Perhaps it might teach people not to sign paintings they have not painted—who knows? United Future may have been disappointed to hear from the Minister that spiritual programming does not mean religious programming, because a lot of submitters thought that was what that word would deliver. There was a lot of debate about what the correct word was. Some people wanted the word “religious” to be in there, but a compromise was struck, and the word “spiritual” was put there instead.

I think it is good that there has been one change, which was basically as a result of Opposition debate. That change is the inclusion of requirements for the surveying of the current audience of Radio New Zealand. Unfortunately, Radio New Zealand pulled out of the commercial survey programme, ostensibly because, it said, the programme cost too much, but then it went on and spent exactly the same amount doing its own in-house survey, which it paid for itself. Initially, the survey just looked at the current audience, and one of the arguments I put forward was that there was no point in Radio New Zealand continually surveying just its current audience, because, considering that audience numbers were declining over time, it was continuing to survey a reducing group. So I was quite pleased to see an amendment that Radio New Zealand was to look not just at its current audience but at those who were not listening to Radio New Zealand, in order to try to identify ways of attracting that audience.

It seems to me that surveys are pretty important, because a broadcaster needs to know what people think about the programmes it is airing, and needs to be open to criticism about programmes when people say they do not like what it happens to be airing. Some listeners, particularly last year, started to turn off their radios as a result of some of the changes that had been made.

I would have to say that, when we are looking at spiritual and ethical development, that should also apply to Radio New Zealand itself. I think there are some staff members within Radio New Zealand who perhaps feel they have not been dealt with ethically—and certainly not spiritually—over the last year. If I look at some of the concerns that, I am sure, Sean Plunket has had about his treatment, or that staff member Lynne Snowdon has had about her treatment, I wonder whether this desire to behave ethically, or to have in the charter the promotion of ethical development, was applied to the treatment of those particular staff members, or in fact to other staff members who have had a difficult time in the last couple of years. But there has been quite a lot of progress. With a new person in charge there, we hope to see some changes made to Radio New Zealand. I would like to see a concentration on some of the things that would actually make a difference to programming—things like studios and equipment, and FM band usage, and not just bits of paper and the insertion of words that will not change a helluva lot.

As I said, it is pretty sad when we think that one broadcaster can take part in the teaching of ethics within a country, or even in the spiritual development of a country. That is not really the role of State radio. The role of State radio is to provide a service that all New Zealanders can tune into, and that, at least, lets them hear some programming that reflects them. We should not be in a position where we have to reconfirm that public radio is there for all New Zealanders of all age groups. That has always been the case. If we look at the schedule for Radio New Zealand, we see that there has always been the intention to have a wide range of programming for different sorts of New Zealanders.

But there is no point in having State radio if people do not listen to it. One of the things that concerned me when we were going through the estimates and financial review process this year, and the year before, was to see the declining numbers of people tuning in to National Radio. That really did concern me, because if New Zealanders are not pricking up their ears to listen to a wide range of programming on National Radio, then it is just broadcasting into the ether, and there really is not that much point to it. So, despite National Radio being a public broadcaster, there is still an obligation on its part to try to attract people to listen to it, and to make sure that when people turn it on they hear a wide range of programmes that they actually enjoy.

So National disagrees with this bill. We think the money spent on bringing it through the House should have been applied to other things that would actually make a difference to the quality of programming. Anybody who has been interviewed in the press gallery Radio New Zealand studios lately would realise that the staff there should be supported in their desire to have a higher-quality studio than they currently have. But, once again, the main reason we cannot support the bill is that we just do not see that the role of State radio is to teach New Zealanders about their spirituality, or the ethics that they should follow. When we start to have a Government teach us about ethics—particularly one that is unethical—we are going to run into real difficulty. With the Government teaching ethics, we will be looking at what the Government’s definition of ethics is. As I said before, who knows, we might see some programmes coming up about the ethics of not signing paintings one has not painted, or about the things that can go wrong if one says things one should not. We will see.

In terms of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, I hope the work that has been done is continued. I do think the money should be spent on improvements in programming and equipment, because if people do not tune into the Radio New Zealand network in large numbers, then there really is very little point in continued public funding of it, as New Zealanders will not feel they have a stake in it.

May I just remind listeners that that was Katherine Rich, No. 4 in the National Party, which tends to suggest—[Interruption]

💬 Hon David Carter: What number is this member?

I am No. 32 and dropping, but who cares, because at least when one is in the position where one has not been promoted, one has nothing to be demoted from.

💬 David Benson-Pope: And he can win his seat.

And I can win my seat, and I will continue to win my seat. Katherine Rich thinks it is fine to make gratuitous and insulting comments to us, and then complains when they are made back. If she is going to make those sorts of remarks, she has got to learn to take them, too, whether or not she is a female. She has to learn to take the heavy hits in this House when she decides to be churlish in the way that she is. She has got a lot to learn for No. 4.

💬 Hon George Hawkins: She’s hopeless.

I agree with my colleague that she is absolutely hopeless and reflects the dearth of talent on the National Party front bench.

The Commerce Committee is a four-four committee, and the bill was carried by majority.

💬 Steve Chadwick: That is great.

It is great. It means that the majority was sensible, and the minority, who frankly do not have enough spirituality amongst them to mount a seance, simply could not get their heads around an issue that is really very straightforward. This particular bill should never have gone to a select committee. That is the truth of it. It should have been dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill, but we are going through a period of time when the Opposition is a little bit concerned about people whose skin is a little bit darker than white, and is starting to suggest that these people are not allowed to have spirituality.

Well let me tell members opposite that one of the things they have not yet learnt is that if one wants to look at the way the nation is developing, the way they are playing their politics, in the next 10-15 years they will find themselves with even fewer votes again. Our population is growing amongst Māori and Pacific Islanders, and members opposite have to learn that. Pākehā have Santa Claus. Who believes in Santa Claus any more?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has been talking for several minutes now—it seems like an hour or more—but he has not once attempted to address the bill.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is addressing the bill.

Pākehā have Santa Claus, which is something that nobody believes is real. I hate to say that to all those little people out there who are listening. In what way is that any different from taniwha? Can somebody tell me? For the likes of National and ACT to be so churlish that they cannot even begin to understand what spirituality is, shows exactly why there is only one big party left in this country. The National Party members will have to learn to get their heads around some of those issues and to stop playing games about them. The issues of spirituality are the only issues in contention in this bill. Those issues are very important to New Zealanders.

💬 Hon David Carter: Name them.

I can tell the member opposite that I was fortunate to attend the opening of a court not so long ago. I was delighted to see that those who were involved in opening the court were quite proud of the fact that they could mihi, that they could have a powhiri, that they knew waiata, and that they knew Māoridom. I am talking about middle-class New Zealand Pākehā males who were keen to show their affinity with Māoridom and the spirituality that goes along with that. The parties opposite have a lot to learn about the way this nation is developing, if they think they will be able to form, in any way at all, something like a coherent Opposition, much less ever be able to get themselves into a position to become the Government again. In fact, Lord and taniwha forbid that they should ever be in a position to form a Government again, because they just do not want to learn it. When we look at what went on today in question time when my colleague Tariana Turia was being put through the wringer about stuff they do not even begin to understand, like the spirituality involved in this bill—

💬 Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have now listened to this man for 8 minutes without him at any time referring to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I suggest that you ask him to speak to the legislation before the House. He has not even mentioned it. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A point of order should be heard in silence without chipping from that Jill Pettis.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member is right. Please be seated.

💬 Hon David Carter: Well, deal with it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. The member has been addressing the bill. There is a contentious issue of spirituality in the bill. He has been addressing it.

💬 Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My second point of order is that during my point of order Jill Pettis incessantly chipped in, and you said you would deal with it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had finished his point of order and I had ruled on it. [Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will rise and apologise for—

💬 Hon David Carter: I will not.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made a derogatory comment to the Chair. The member will rise and apologise.

💬 Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During my point of order the member was incessantly chipping in, and you said it was after I had finished. It was not, and I will not be apologising.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber.

Hon David Carter withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You chose to expel the member who has just left, but in fairness to him he did have a second point of order about his being interjected on during a point of order. That is a very serious matter.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. I have dealt—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: But you did not rule on that, as I understand it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did rule on it—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: You ruled on the first one—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I ruled that he had finished the point of order, when it happened.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: But you did not bring Ms Jill Pettis to check.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on that point of order. Please be seated.

I can understand why the other side is a little bit sensitive about this, because it has tried to make these particular issues around spirituality and culture a negative debate within our society. If those members opposite knew the number of people who have come up to me in my own electorate and said that it is about time the Opposition political parties grew up and celebrated the fact that as a nation we are bicultural—and actually multicultural in many respects—and respected the indigenous culture of this country, it would make their hair curl. Our society has had enough of the splits and divisions that have been fostered by that side of the House.

When we look at the other issues in the charter around which programming is put together, we see that adding in this cultural and spiritual dimension will simply enrich what we have as a nation. I support it, and the majority of the select committee supports it.

I want to make one final thing clear to members opposite. We had only two submissions on the bill. We spent almost no time going over any substantial points in contention, because nobody came along and said that what we were doing in this bill was the wrong thing to do. It is time members opposite grew up and became statesmenlike in this House and contributed positively to a debate on these issues within our society.

New Zealand First will not be supporting the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. We do not believe that the charter of Radio New Zealand needs to be modified in this way. We believe that the charter is being reviewed principally to ensure that it is a model of political correctness in every way. The bill is very short—only 1½ pages. We want to know how the bill will advance the lot of New Zealanders, or the lot of National Radio. The bottom line is that it will not. I also want to know how many New Zealanders get their spiritual and ethical beliefs from Radio New Zealand. I would say, very, very few. It would be a sad society if that was how people obtained their spiritual and ethical beliefs. We have all heard that we are a multicultural society, so I must ask: whose beliefs will be broadcast more than anybody else’s? I know that the Minister said it will be very generalised, but I would hazard a guess that not many cultures in this country would consider that their beliefs were the same as everybody else’s. New Zealand First questions the value of this focus of the charter.

In September I read a New Zealand Herald report on Radio New Zealand’s continuing loss of listeners, even with its flagship morning programmes. It reported an 8 percent drop in the number of listeners, and the figures released show that, for the first time, the number of Radio New Zealand listeners has dipped below 500,000. All in all, this is quite a morale-damaging time for Radio New Zealand. I would like to know how much of this can be attributed to the charter. It is interesting to note, too, that Radio New Zealand does not take part in the usual ratings surveys used by the commercial broadcasters. Instead, it uses an independent survey programme that measures its performance against the charter. The New Zealand Herald actually said that Radio New Zealand was really pleased with the report that showed it had a drop in the number of listeners, and it said that the drop in the number of listeners was not even statistically significant. Any decrease in the number of listeners is significant. It is far more difficult to get people to turn back on to a station once they have turned off than it is to keep them on. People move on. There may be a small percentage that comes back, but a station does not usually get back the whole percentage that was lost. We all know that Television One experienced that with the news some years ago.

The addition of the words “spiritual, and ethical” into Radio New Zealand’s charter shows the extent that the Government is prepared to go to be the most politically correct nation in the world, and one must question why. This political correctness has come at a high price, a very high price, indeed, for Radio New Zealand, and that price appears to be the continuing loss of listeners. New Zealand First believes that there should be free and open communication, and that the role of the Government, particularly when it comes to radio broadcasting, should be confined to essential regulatory matters—because there are some matters that do necessitate State invention. I must say, too, that to be the most politically correct nation in the world does not excite the majority of New Zealanders. It does not do anything for us. Radio New Zealand has operated quite successfully in the past without this prescriptively politically correct charter. We would like to see further growth in the development of Radio New Zealand programmes. Perhaps the money that has been spent on this could be spent on developing new programmes or having new equipment. I must say that Radio New Zealand has got some really good programmes. I do listen to them, and I would like to hear more of them. I think this bill enforces impossible compliance challenges on Radio New Zealand, and makes it difficult for Radio New Zealand to measure its performance. New Zealand First is not going to be supporting this bill.

The Green Party is absolutely delighted to support this bill. We regard the review as basically a ringing endorsement of Radio New Zealand, and quite frankly when one contemplates the incredible commercialisation of virtually all the rest of the media in New Zealand—all the television media, and all the other radio stations in New Zealand—I think we should be deeply grateful that we have this public broadcaster, Radio New Zealand. It is an oasis, if one likes, from the commercial pressures that characterise the rest of the media, and from those constant advertisements, and so forth. I am extremely grateful and express my gratitude every day for Radio New Zealand.

I think it is very interesting to see the incredible sensitivity or reaction that people have had to the addition of the words “spiritual, and ethical”. What on earth is the problem that everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about? I wish we had more ethical debate here in this Chamber, and much more ethical consideration. Thank God that we are going to add the word “ethical” to Radio New Zealand’s charter. But we are not going to be teaching ethics on Radio New Zealand any more than we are teaching politics by having current affairs. What we are going to be doing, I hope, is hearing the ethical dimension on many of the important issues of our time, and one that springs to mind is genetic engineering. If we had programmes contemplating the ethical dimensions of genetic engineering, we would quickly realise what a folly it is to lift the moratorium. And as for “spiritual”, what on earth is the problem in recommending that there be spiritual programmes that explore spiritual issues?

I think this is a wonderful development. I look forward to hearing programmes about Islam, about the Jewish religion, about Buddhism, and about indigenous interpretations of spirituality. I think that New Zealand would be much better as a nation if we actually learnt a little about things like Islam, and, indeed, about Christianity. We may better understand some of the conflicts that beset our world. So I welcome the addition of the words “ethical” and “spiritual”. The astonishing reaction of my colleagues to these particular words is something that I find incomprehensible.

I would also like to comment on the fact that I am glad we are adding that Radio New Zealand will have to address all ages, and not simply elderly New Zealanders. If I have any criticism of Radio New Zealand it is that it has at times in its current affairs become a little predictable, and perhaps a little boring. It could do with a little bit of spice, impetus, interest, and challenge. Perhaps the new chief executive will bring those qualities to Radio New Zealand. I was concerned when I read the Independent and noticed that Radio New Zealand spent $250,000 on legal fees last year. That is very disquieting and unfortunate. It is also interesting to note that it reduced its news budget by the same amount of money—that is, $225,000 was slashed off its news budget, and $250,000 was spent on legal fees. We find it deeply regrettable that we are slashing the news budget. If anything, it should be strengthened if Radio New Zealand is to carry out its charter obligations. It is extraordinarily lamentable that it has spent all of that money on legal fees. Let us hope that with the new chief executive we will put all that legal fighting and the low morale behind us and that Radio New Zealand will begin a new era.

The fact that there were only a number of submissions on this bill is testimony to the support that this public broadcaster receives in New Zealand. We need to be very, very grateful that we can tune into a radio station that we know is, as its charter states that it ought to be, independent, and that it provides genuinely independent current affairs that we can trust, and that are comprehensive and impartial and not influenced by commercial pressures. We do not have, as with Television New Zealand does, current affairs programmes that are sponsored by the ANZ or, until recently, Mitsubishi Motors, which obviously calls into question their ability to be impartial and objective.

Thankfully, Radio New Zealand news and current affairs are not sponsored by Mitsubishi Motors, by ANZ, or by any other commercial organisation. It is not dependent for its revenue on commercial organisations. It does not interrupt its broadcasts continually with irritating commercials. We should be profoundly grateful that we have such an outstanding service. We look forward to its new era under the new chief executive. We hope that the low morale we keep reading about will be turned round with the new chief executive. We hope it will continue to implement its charter, and we are delighted we have had this review—a view that is quite contrary to the view of one of the previous speakers, who said that this should not have been reviewed, at all, and that it should have been left to regulation. [Interruption] I noted that he had was not following the mantra of his leader, because the Minister of Broadcasting said he thought it was great that we had this review and that it was important we had it.

💬 Mark Peck: Not the review; the bill should never have gone to the select committee.

My view is that I am delighted that it has come to this House, that we have been able to have this brief debate, and that this is not yet another example of important legislation that is sent off, buried in regulations, and not ever able to be discussed. We are very, very pleased to support this bill, and to support the addition of the words “spiritual” and “ethical”.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.