Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

I want to make some introductory comments about the reason for this bill and the nonsense of its introduction into the House, which the Minister of Broadcasting did some time ago now. It has been on the Order Paper for some time and, clearly, has not been urgent.

The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill largely deals with additions to the charter, and places further responsibilities on Radio New Zealand, when in fact the charter itself has not been around for very long and the public broadcaster has had trouble delivering on it, in any event. The title is fair enough, but the National Party opposes the bill. We see no good reason for the Minister to have introduced it, particularly at a time when the broadcaster was in a state of dysfunction, of declining audiences, and of budget blowouts. At one stage the organisation was being described as so dysfunctional that internecine warfare was going on. Yet the Minister had the temerity, I would say, to bring in this bill, to create an impression that all was well—when in fact all was not well—and that this broadcaster could take on more responsibilities. We will come to that, as this Committee stage proceeds.

The bill is only a two-page bill. On the face of it one might think that, as it is only two pages, maybe it is not very important or controversial, yet in its own way it is very controversial. That is another reason why, in my view, the Minister ought not to have brought this bill to Parliament. Late last year there was a conference that brought together public broadcasters, including visiting broadcasters from overseas, to look at the place of public broadcasting. The place and role of public broadcasting are under scrutiny worldwide. Surely, it would have been better and more appropriate, and would have made more sense, for the Minister to take the findings of those discussions and to put more effort and time into clarifying the role of a public broadcaster, particularly in a multilayered, multicultural society such as ours, and in an environment where New Zealand listeners are spoilt for choice through commercial radio. The bulk of the population now is in the 18 to 35-40 demographic, so how do we get a public broadcaster to cater for the listening aspirations of that age group? How, indeed, do we get a public broadcaster to cater for a wide range of listenership? This bill adds more obligations to Radio New Zealand’s current responsibilities. How does it manage to do that when the role and place of the public broadcaster internationally are now being scrutinised?

We are here in urgency to debate and no doubt see the passage into law of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill—not with National’s approval, however. The Hon Steve Maharey in his thinking, I guess, decided it was necessary to add in more obligations. The legislation is controversial in that the charter is now amended by the insertion of the words “spiritual, and ethical”, which add to the obligations already on the broadcaster to deliver a very wide range of dimensions in a multilayered, multicultural environment.

First of all, I would like to state that New Zealand First is against the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is a nonsense; it is unnecessary. It adds some unnecessary pieces to the charter, and I really cannot understand why the Government has even bothered to bring this bill here under urgency, in order to push it through Parliament. It is ludicrous legislation. We have a situation here where, as Georgina te Heuheu has suggested, the bill adds further responsibilities to Radio New Zealand, via its charter. Well, Radio New Zealand has a big enough charter, and it is having enough difficulty in meeting its current charter obligations, without adding additional pieces like the spiritual and ethical piece. If we consider the wide range of multicultural, ethical, and spiritual facets of New Zealand society today, we can see that the charter would require effort virtually 24/7 just to cover that portion of it. This legislation adds an unnecessary burden to the charter, which is now so overloaded with the spiritual and ethical side of things that, unfortunately, there will be no room for anything else. It is nonsense legislation, and along with the other New Zealand First members, I believe that it is totally unnecessary.

There is one good point I will note. Clause 3(2), which is to amend section 7(1)(c) of the principal Act, contains the words “and a full range of age groups”. That means I am now probably catered for in this bill, whereas before, perhaps, I was not. It is also interesting to note that in clause 3(5), which amends section 7 of the principal Act, the broadcaster is required to do a survey annually not only of its own listening audience but also of the members of the audiences of other stations—people who are not currently listening to the broadcaster. I observed at the time that that was an interesting option, because there are some merits in finding out what everybody else is listening to, and trying to incorporate that into the programming of the public radio station.

But let us face it: there will not be a chance to add any other parts or interests into Radio New Zealand’s programming, because it is so overloaded and so overburdened by the spiritual and ethical side of things. This is just a nonsense bill. This Government is scraping the bottom of the barrel to even bring this bill to this House, let alone to bring it in under urgency. It is a waste of our time to have to debate it. I ask the Minister to pull this bill and do away with it now, to stop this waste of our time.

As I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, the first question I have for the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, is this: why are we here under urgency to debate this bill? Why are we here to debate a bill that is only two pages long, and that actually achieves very little except to insert a few words into Radio New Zealand’s charter? I may add that they are two little words that mean very much: “spiritual” and “ethical”. I would like to hear the Minister explain to the Committee how a radio station can deliver to New Zealanders their spiritual needs or reflect their ethical needs. I do not think that is the role of a State broadcaster, and I am not even sure that a broadcaster is capable of doing that. It is very difficult to know from the bill what the Government means by “ethical needs”. Is it further social engineering, and giving an indication to New Zealanders of what they should be listening to, thinking, and eating? The sort of bill that we see here really goes along the lines of telling New Zealanders what they should do with their lives. I think the charter itself set out some very basic principles for Radio New Zealand, but now, with the further development of the charter and addition of these new words, Radio New Zealand is getting into areas that I do not think the New Zealand public wants the State broadcaster to get involved in.

As I said, we are here to debate this bill under urgency. One would imagine that the reason for doing that was that there was a dire need for this bill to be put in place. In fact, I think most of us in this Chamber know that there has been no groundswell of protest calling for this particular bill. Radio New Zealand itself has made no mention of this bill, nor has it required that it be driven through Parliament. I think Radio New Zealand is struggling to reflect the responsibilities of the charter already, without broadening some of those requirements. In fact, when I look for the reason for pushing this bill through under urgency, I do not find one reason why we are here to debate this two-page bill.

I think we always need to be mindful that when we put legislation through the House, an immense cost is borne by the New Zealand public. Time and time again we see this Government putting through legislation that does not actually make a difference to New Zealand life, and legislation that does not make a difference to the business or organisation for which it is intended. We are seeing a greater amount of what I would term “feel-good legislation”—that is, legislation like this, which the Government can point to and say it is a nice idea that we can now reflect New Zealanders’ spiritual needs within the Radio New Zealand charter, when there is really no core reason why the legislation needs to be put in place. Once again, I mention the huge cost to Radio New Zealand, and to the New Zealand public, in putting this legislation through Parliament.

This bill is, of course, now well out of date, and that is why we are looking at making a change to the commencement date. This Government is way behind in its legislative programme, so quite often, as we have seen with the reprinted bill here, the date when an Act comes into force is being changed. This bill is not about restructuring Radio New Zealand, giving it a bigger budget, or changing its role. In this two-page bill we see just a lot of mealy-mouthed words and tinkering that really have very little to do with the provision of State broadcasting services to the New Zealand public. I do not think people will notice any change to the quality of what they hear. I do not think this Government has in mind what the ethical needs of the New Zealand public are. It certainly does not have in mind what the spiritual needs of the public are. In fact, there was quite a debate about the word “spiritual”, because United Future, I think, wanted to put in the words “religious beliefs”, so that those beliefs would be reflected within the Radio New Zealand charter. But that amendment was ruled out.

I was waiting to hear from the previous speaker the enthusiasm that should naturally follow from this particular bill, in terms of the wonderful service Radio New Zealand provides to our country. With due respect to my good friends in New Zealand First, I was a little disappointed with their contribution. I think if they check with their own party president, Mr Doug Woolerton, they will find that he is a very avid listener to National Radio and that he knows all the programmes. They should double-check with their party president regarding National Radio.

This bill is necessary, and I will give as an example of that the recent launch of the National Radio FM service in the Waikato, which I attended. It was an absolute privilege to be part of that, because it accentuated the wonderful vitality that is Radio New Zealand today. It accentuated for me that Radio New Zealand is very, very serious about catering to a range of varied interests and age groups in our country. It is really good to see that Radio New Zealand, and particularly National Radio, is not just catering for people of my chronological age. It is very serious about reaching out to a wider audience, embracing younger New Zealanders, and looking for and fostering young talent—particularly some of the bands that can now be heard on National Radio, and that National Radio is providing an audience for and focusing on. That, frankly, is very exciting.

Lest we forget this, I remind members the shareholders of Radio New Zealand are all of us, and that is why we have a charter. The shareholders do not live in Toronto, London, or Washington. The stakeholders in Radio New Zealand are every man, woman, and child in this country. Radio New Zealand is about maintaining and preserving our culture, our nation, and our society. I think that by and large—albeit still with relatively limited resources, although under this Government the resources have been increased—in terms of what Radio New Zealand has, it does an excellent job. I am particularly enthusiastic that we acknowledge the different spiritual dimensions of our society and that National Radio acknowledges that. It is very enthusiastic about catering for a full range of age groups, so that there is not a crusty old National Radio that caters just for people like me with my very conservative tastes—and that is where Doug Woolerton and I would have a bit in common—but one that reaches out to a younger audience, and builds a younger audience over a lifetime.

I also think it is excellent that we focus on—I think this is very, very important, and I notice the Acting Minister is here in the Chamber with us, and I know that he will agree with me—the international radio service to the South Pacific, Radio New Zealand International, which may include a range of programmes in English and Pacific languages. That is a benchmarking and an underscoring of the very important role that New Zealand and our national radio service have, in terms of our immediate neighbourhood. Radio New Zealand is actually doing that, albeit it came about through Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade funding, etc., in a different funding stream from the usual broadcasting funding. Radio New Zealand has historically had a very proud and constructive record in the South Pacific and, of course, because it has a very significant listenership it is one of the important links between the South Pacific nations and New Zealand.

Unlike the speakers from the Opposition, I am enthusiastic about this bill. I know that it is a short bill, but I think it puts some very important, good, positive things into the Radio New Zealand charter. To those who do not listen to National Radio and Concert FM—and I am sure the Opposition members should listen to them—I say they should tune in some time, because they are exciting and diverse. I think National Radio and Concert FM are doing a very good job. I think it is important that the charter helps them. It is really wonderful to have radio that deals with the issues, looks at all sides of the issues, and does not just repeat some people’s prejudices.

Finally, I say I am enthusiastic about this bill. I will also place on record that I think the Minister of Broadcasting, Steve Maharey, has done a fantastic job in this portfolio. He has vision, and he has a passion for our national broadcaster. I wish Radio New Zealand well.

First of all, I say to those who were sneering at why we are considering this bill that it is my understanding the Government sought to put the provisions of this bill in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Members refused to do so, and required the debate we are now having. So we should not hear too much nonsense about why we are wasting our time here. It is because of the members of this House that we are debating this bill tonight. Also, there is a requirement in the Act that every 5 years Parliament consider the Radio New Zealand charter—and what an excellent provision that is.

So we considered the charter. Submitters to the Commerce Committee—ordinary New Zealanders—requested that we added the words “spiritual, and ethical” to the objectives. I find it absolutely fascinating that those words seem to create such anxiety and concern in this Chamber. What is wrong with considering ethical issues? Would that we did it more often, given there are so many issues to consider today. We have been looking at human-assisted reproductive technology, genetic engineering, and cloning. What are those issues? They are ethical issues that require ethical debate. Thank God that we are going to call on Radio New Zealand to provide us with some ethical debate. Thank God, also, that Radio New Zealand already does an excellent job of having discussions on religion, and so forth. I think that is absolutely excellent. It may have escaped some of the members’ attention in this Chamber that religion is a major issue of controversy and dissent in our world, and it would be great for all of us, I am certain, if we had some understanding of other religions. And if we had some debate about spiritual and ethical issues, I am sure that New Zealand would be all the better for it.

Like the previous speaker, the Green Party is extremely enthusiastic about supporting this bill. I think we have to remind ourselves that Radio New Zealand is absolutely unique in our media environment, in being a genuinely publicly owned medium. It is the only medium in New Zealand that is completely owned by the public. Television New Zealand is a strange hybrid of commercial and public service, but Radio New Zealand is genuinely a public service organisation. We should be very, very grateful for that. Thanks to the Maurice Williamson amendment in 1990, New Zealand is the only country in the Western World that allows total foreign ownership of media companies. As a result of that amendment, a handful of foreign companies own virtually all New Zealand’s media. We have Tony O’Reilly’s APN News and Media controlling most of the radio stations and the New Zealand Herald, and CanWest owning radio stations, and TV3 and C4. Rupert Murdoch owns Sky, and we have Kerry Packer and so forth. Basically all of our media are in foreign ownership. If all of our media are in foreign ownership, we have to ask why foreign owners would give a damn about New Zealand’s identity and culture. In the final analysis, they do not. Their bottom line is returning profits for their foreign shareholders.

So thank heavens that as an antidote to all the foreign-owned media in New Zealand and to counterbalance the foreign ownership of our media, we have one strong publicly owned medium, in the form of Radio New Zealand, with a charter that spells out that it must provide independent, impartial current affairs and news. We have in Radio New Zealand an organisation that is free from vested interests, and that does not always put commercial objectives ahead of its public service objectives. I think that we are incredibly lucky to have Radio New Zealand. It provides the only radio stations in New Zealand that one can listen to without being constantly interrupted by commercials. I think that is something that many, many listeners value enormously.

I am pleased to take a brief call. I would like to begin by acknowledging this House’s debt to my colleague Steve Maharey for his tireless and quite visionary work in this area. In that regard, I would like to thank one of the preceding speakers, my colleague Martin Gallagher, for the comments he made, and also the previous speaker, Sue Kedgley, for her enlightened comments.

I do not wish to take a great deal of the Committee’s time, but I would like to make some observations about the comments we have heard this evening. In terms of New Zealand First’s objections to this bill, in the form of Mr Catchpole, I guess the New Zealand community can only marvel at any objection to the words “a full range of age groups” being added to a charter of this kind. Like members of the Committee, I guess listeners will also ask themselves why anyone, let alone a political party, would have such an objection.

But of greater interest were the extraordinary objections from the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting. Ms te Heuheu earlier objected to the inclusion of the words “spiritual and ethical” in the charter. As a demonstration of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of that party, I guess that is not entirely surprising. But what the Committee may be interested to share is the fact that during the discussion and correspondence around this bill, the National Party confirmed in writing that it had no objection at that time to the inclusion of the word “spiritual” in the charter. It did object to the word “ethical”, and that brings me back to my earlier comments about Mr Catchpole. Why one would object to ethical considerations in a document of this kind, or ethical considerations for a full range of age groups, one would have to wonder.

But I would like to thank the National Party for being so unaccommodating and not allowing this matter to proceed in the simple procedural way suggested by a Statutes Amendment Bill. In doing so, the National Party has allowed us another insight into its policy. It is not often that we see National Party policy, but in the same documents I am referring to, I can inform the Committee that National lodged a further objection to recommendation 9, which relates to Radio New Zealand International indicating that it would not support such a recommendation at all. For the information of those who do not have these documents, recommendation 9 recommends to the Government that the Act acknowledge Radio New Zealand International as an international radio service to the Pacific region.

I would like to thank the National Party for being so clear about its continued privatisation agenda for this service. I think New Zealanders across the country, not just listeners to Radio New Zealand, will be very grateful for yet another insight into how vast the policy gulf is between the parties in this Chamber.

Is it not interesting that we heard from Sue Kedgley of the Greens about all these foreign-owned media outlets in New Zealand, and the foreign owners who do not care at all about New Zealand? That must be why when picking up the Dominion Post and the New Zealand Herald every day, we see nothing of New Zealand news! It must be why when we pick up North and South and Metro every month we read nothing about New Zealand, because Kerry Packer does not care! If that is the case, why was Sue Kedgley on the cover of North and South? I think we need an explanation. Obviously, she is the favourite of Kerry Packer, or maybe it is because she is foreign-owned, too.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Some of the covers are shocking.

I agree with my colleague over there—some of the covers are shocking.

I would like to say why the ACT party did not agree with the word “spiritual”—not so much the word “ethical”—being included in the charter. It goes back to Marian Hobbs. In May 2002—believe it or not—Marian Hobbs wrote asking for permission to use it in the statutory amendments legislation. We all know that Parliament is meant to function and that it is not good to hold it up unnecessarily, but that legislation is meant to be used for uncontroversial matters. It is definitely controversial, whether or not we agree with it, to insert the word “spiritual” into a charter that is required to be adhered to by a State-owned broadcaster. The ACT party firmly adheres to the convention in this country that the State is secular and is not required to promote spiritual values. We already have radio stations and broadcasters that promote spiritual values. It is not the role of the State broadcaster to do that.

I would like the Minister to take another call to tell us why it is necessary to put these two words into the charter. Why is it necessary to have the words “ethical and spiritual”? We all know more or less what “spiritual” means, but what are we meant to take from the word “ethical”. In these days of relative morality, ethical can mean anything. It can mean anything goes. It can mean that anti-westernisation—taking out the Twin Towers—is just as relative and ethical as our condemnation of that sort of terrorism and behaviour. We start to get into trouble when we bring into a charter words that are nebulous and not clearly defined.

I always argue that if we want to save public broadcasting in this country, and if we believe in public broadcasting, then we have a duty as Parliament to scrutinise that public broadcaster and make sure it is delivering the conditions of its charter. Radio New Zealand’s charter has an obligation to objectivity and impartiality in its news and current affairs. A report was finished in December last year that two former directors of Radio New Zealand put their names to—John Iles and Dr Denis Dutton. It was a very thorough report, and it systematically showed that current affairs—the so-called features programmes of Radio New Zealand—were not adhering to the charter at all. They were overwhelmingly pro-interventionist as opposed to non-interventionist.

If one just takes a specific area like education—and it happens in all areas—a new policy would come out from, say, the Post Primary Teachers Association, and Radio New Zealand would run the statement without any dissenting opinion. A statement from National, ACT, the Education Forum, the Early Childhood Council, or the Business Roundtable would either be ignored or run with a dissenting voice.

That is fine. I am not saying that the centre-right view should be run unopposed, but the broadcaster should be consistent and have more voices of dissent across all ranges, because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about a publicly owned broadcasting company that has a duty to all of the public—not just the public who agree with the Government of the day.

The incumbent Minister of Broadcasting has been praised, but he did a very, very foolish thing in May 2003 when he actually used the premises of Radio New Zealand to make political announcements.

I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill, though not quite so effusively as some of the Government members. We support the charter in its present form because it appears to date to have served both Radio New Zealand and the public quite well. We do not believe it is the role of the charter to include a high level of prescription—largely because such provisions risk becoming obsolete rather quickly—and we do not think it actually does.

Some members have brought up the issue of attaching the words “spiritual and ethical”. I really do not understand why people have a problem with that. The word “spiritual”, for example, is not quite the same thing as “religious”. It is not putting forth a particular denominational line; it is simply reflecting some of the attitudes people have over and above those of the material world. Spiritual values do not necessarily encompass religious values, although the two may, on occasion, go together. The simple fact is that as a public broadcasting medium, Radio New Zealand is there to reflect public attitudes. Some of those attitudes, whether we like them or not, happen to be spiritual, and happen to be—funnily enough—ethical, although that is something that the National Party and the ACT party, for some reason, have a degree of difficulty with.

Now this is a point that also has not been considered: while the charter’s existing wording arguably encompasses spiritual and ethical development, the additional words are consonant with this clause of the charter, and Radio New Zealand’s current practice, and can be supported. This proposed amendment also reflects a recent change to the statutory functions of the Broadcasting Commission, New Zealand On Air, in an amendment to section 36 of the Broadcasting Act, and are consistent with the equivalent provision in the Television New Zealand legislation. It brings consistency to the two arms of broadcasting, and that is important. It is something that members over there seem to have forgotten, or have not included in their discussions.

Another aspect is children’s programme recommendations. Who can disagree with that? As a public service, Radio New Zealand ought to include some of our younger listeners.

💬 Brent Catchpole: They do it now.

What is wrong with having it included in the bill? What is the problem if that is part of what Radio New Zealand is supposed to do? It is one of the functions it is supposed to perform. In response to a submission from the New Zealand Writers Guild, the committee debated at some length the extent to which Radio New Zealand should be explicitly required to provide for children. In response to that, it now does.

One aspect I guess I am not quite so comfortable with is that there seems to be a problem with surveying just how well Radio New Zealand is doing in terms of delivering what it is supposed to deliver. It might sound like a small thing to the Government, but I do not think that this issue has been quite as well addressed as it perhaps could be. Section 7(2)(D) of the Act prescribes that Radio New Zealand shall take account of surveys commissioned from time to time to establish whether the audiences for the services provided by the public radio company consider that the quality and quantity of those services is being maintained.

Why does Radio New Zealand not go into the same surveys as every other radio station in this country? That is a regulatory aspect that I think this Government ought to take a look at. It ought to be part of the mix. If we expect the public of this country to put their hands in their pockets and pay for this service—and I have no problem with that—the least we should have is a transparent means of accountability to those very people. They do with every other radio station in this country, and there is no reason why Radio New Zealand should be exempt. The Government should take a cold hard look at that, because how on earth do we know how many people are listening, and whether the people who are not listening are turning off because the quality of programme delivery is not as consistent as it should be?

The accountability aspect of Radio New Zealand is very important, and I want to spend a little bit of time on it. We believe we are entitled to greater information—not just about the quality and type of programming, but also about the greatest indicator of how well Radio New Zealand is doing its job, which is audience share. It is severely disappointing that the Government has remained too timid to deal with the real issue surrounding Radio New Zealand surveys—its refusal to participate in the neutral sector surveys that determine actual audience share for all radio stations.

I rise to speak in opposition to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. If anybody is listening tonight, they will understand why the National Party is working so vigorously to get back on the Treasury benches. Listening to the contribution from the newly appointed Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope, one would understand why a change of Government is necessary in this country.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: It is vital!

It is vital for a change of Government in this country.

There are a number of questions we need to put to Mr Benson-Pope tonight, and I hope he will take a call and respond to them. What does he mean by “ethical”? Does he mean making a decision and then doing a U-turn on it? Does he mean signing paintings that they did not paint, then destroying the evidence before the matter gets to court? What does it mean?

When one looks at the legislation the Government is putting in here tonight, with the words “spiritual, and ethical”, one has to ask where this Government is going. I went back to the second reading to see what the Minister, Hon Steve Maharey, had to say. He said: “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 value 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.”

Now that has made it absolutely clear, has it not? That has cleared it up for all of us. Now I understand what it means. Now we know—it is here in the Hansard. No wonder everybody is clear on this issue! Has anyone ever seen or heard so much gobbledegook about something? It is like talking about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is as vague as that. Nobody knows what it means.

If one goes to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which my good colleague did, to try to find out what some of these terms mean, one will find that they are very accurately described. They do mean religious, and they do mean denomination. Well, maybe in the agnostic spiritual manner that is being applied here by the Prime Minister, there is a new meaning. I am sure the Minister will take a call and explain this to us, but from my perspective, it looks like social engineering. The socialists are at it again. In the only national-owned radio station, as the member from the Green Party pointed out, they are interfering in the most agnostic way. It is social engineering of the highest order.

One size fits all does not always work. What we have in this legislation now is a clause that says that it will cover the full range of age groups. What does that mean? Does it mean that in the morning we will be hearing Mickey Mouse, in the evening we will be hearing opera, and sometime in the middle we will have Heavy Metal? Is that what it means? I do not know. I know that my kids have a different taste in music to mine, and I know when they were younger they had a different taste to what they have now. I know that my parents had a different taste in music to mine, so does that mean that they will run the full spectrum of radio entertainment in terms of programmes? I do not know what it means. Maybe the Minister can take a call.

It looks like typical socialism to me—one size fits all; Parliament knows best; the Labour Government will dictate in the charter what the radio programme will do. It will not allow those who are in charge to come up with something that is sensible or ethical. It will not have anything like that—certainly not ethical. Does it mean—and I think this is a question for the Minister as well—that Radio New Zealand will no longer run any of the Labour Party spin, because clearly that is not ethical? Or does it mean that it will never ever report any comments from the Prime Minister of New Zealand, because there is a very high possibility that they will not be ethical? They will certainly be agnostic—there is a question about that.

There is one part of this legislation—I cannot go through my whole speech being totally negative, it is against my better judgment to do so.

It is a shame that Shane Ardern did not get his opportunity to put his positive spin on this bit! But I must thank the Acting Minister for taking a call and showing us just what this Government really does think. It is extraordinary. In fact, how ironic, how inconsistent, how bizarre, and how “Steve Maharey” this bill is. This Government and this Prime Minister refused to acknowledge grace before a State dinner. This Government and this Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Who cares?

There we go—we have a member of the Government calling out “Who cares?”. This Government has put a motion to this Parliament to have the prayer removed from Parliament. I really must ask members, how ironic one can get when one has a Government that asks for the prayer to be removed from the proceedings of Parliament. There they are putting into this legislation the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. If Mr Benson-Pope thinks that that will overcome the irony of what this Government represents, then I really wonder what he has in mind for those two words. In reality this is a Government that does not recognise grace before a State dinner, it does not recognise the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church, and it does not want the prayer said before this Parliament. Yet the Government puts two words into a clause in this bill that expects us all to have an input into the spiritual and ethical side of Radio New Zealand.

It is unnecessary to put those words into the legislation. The Minister should seriously consider having those words taken out, considering the irony of this Government’s approach to the way it runs Parliament, the way it runs the State, and the way it considers the spiritual and ethical state of this country.

I move, That the question be now put.

In coming late to this debate I am impressed, frankly, with the quality of the speeches coming from this side of the Chamber, and I say that in all sincerity. Because, as my colleague Deborah Coddington pointed out, we are meant to be, and I emphasis those words “meant to be”, secular in this Parliament. Quite clearly we are not. We say a prayer at the start of proceedings when the House sits, and some would start to perhaps question whether that is appropriate. We have many people in this Chamber of hugely differing values and spiritual beliefs. Is it offensive, therefore, for a Christian prayer to be said at the start of a sitting of this House? That is a question that I think we need to reflect on.

But I would like to ask the Minister in the chair to define for me, and the Committee, what a “value” is, as it is in this bill. We often hear the words “inherent values”—the inherent value of having a charter for Radio New Zealand. What is the inherent value there? I think that is a perfectly legitimate question, because I can tell the Minister what the inherent value of a square or a triangle is. It is very, very definable. A triangle, for example, has three sides. That is inherent, and we know that—we understand that. But to describe a value and try to implant it into legislation is a nonsense.

The Resource Management Act requires—I do not know the particular section—that we pay homage to some spiritual value of Māori. What spiritual value? That spiritual value of Māori in the Resource Management Act was bought for $1.5 million. How can one buy a spiritual value—yet it happens constantly under that Act? With my colleagues I am demanding to know what that spiritual value is.

I do know what a cultural value is in terms of radio. I am well aware of that. I would describe Hokonui Gold in Gore as having wonderful cultural values for those of us in the south and those who would tune in. Many of us are rural people, and that is a hugely cultural radio station. Jamie McKay and the team down there do a wonderful job expounding the values of the culture of the people of Gore and that region. Why is that radio station not State-owned? Why does the Minister not rush down, put a cheque on the table, and say: “Because you have these cultural values at Hokonui Gold, we have to buy you.”? It is arrant nonsense to even suggest that such things should happen. However, it is quite clear in the charter of Radio New Zealand that this socialist Government wants its tentacles to reach right into the boardroom and have a large measure of control over State-funded radio.

We all know that the Government is very left wing in its attitude. Those of us who happen to have a different point of view do not get anywhere near the same airtime as those who hold the same socialistic, and indeed, even communist, values that members of this left-wing Labour Government have. It is quite wrong to introduce concepts of spiritual values. The animist beliefs of so many of this Labour Government who talk about the mauri within a mountain or a river are arrant nonsense. The spiritual value comes from within oneself. It does not come from a rock, a mountain, or a river. It is the ability of human beings to understand and appreciate the beauty of nature. That is the spiritual value that is deep within one’s being. It is not something that can be put into a charter, and it is not for the Government to force the people of this country to adhere to such matters. It is quite wrong and a considerable amount of nonsense to try to do so.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to remind the Minister at the beginning that this is a wide-ranging debate, that this side of the House has been very enthusiastic in opposing the bill, and that we have plenty more contributions. In fact, I was just about to caution my parliamentary colleague, ACT member Gerard Eckhoff, that ACT may be allocated more airtime on Radio New Zealand in future. Tonight the Labour Government is trying to introduce the word “ethical” into the charter. That means that a lot of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark’s, U-turns, spins, etc. may not be allowed to be broadcast on Radio New Zealand. Maybe that is good news in disguise, and ACT and National may be allocated more airtime.

I come back to the meaning of the new word, “spiritual”, that has been introduced into the charter. I remind the public that in the second reading debate on the bill the Hon Steve Maharey paused for a moment on the matter of the spiritual and ethical element and went on to say that “spiritual” does not mean a religious denomination. I am just hoping that the Minister will take a call to tell us when the Labour Government has taken over the task of redefining the meaning of “spiritual” as set out in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which states that “spiritual” means “as acted on by God, divine, inspire”, so it does not quite have the same meaning told to us by the Hon Steve Maharey. I would like the Minister to take a call to clarify whether the Labour Government will commission a new edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

I really want the Minister to take a call to reassure the public. The Minister Steve Maharey was really proud in saying that Radio New Zealand was forced to conduct a survey about the views of non-listeners and listeners as to what they wanted to hear on Radio New Zealand. I want the Minister to tell the public who the pollsters were who did the bad polling for the Labour Party. That company cannot be employed to do a survey by Radio New Zealand, because the pollster has been totally wrong in not telling the Labour Government that the issue that really concerns New Zealand is about separatism and race division in New Zealand. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, was totally caught, because the pollsters failed to detect that from the survey it did. So I would really like the Minister to take a call to name the pollsters for the Labour Government and to make sure that Radio New Zealand does not go down that track and engage those pollsters. We would never find out what non-listeners or listeners to Radio New Zealand might want to hear.

The Minister also owes us an explanation as to why the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill has been included in the urgency motion. The bill was first introduced on 23 December 2002. I guess that is pretty spiritual; it was close to Christmas 2002. It had its first reading on 1 April 2003, and we are debating it almost on its 1-year anniversary—1 April 2004—but the commencement date is not until July 2004.

What happened in the last year when Radio New Zealand did not include the words “spiritual” and “ethical” in its charter? I wonder what the listeners have missed out by Radio New Zealand not having those two words in its charter. The Minister had better take a call to explain to us, firstly, whether the Labour Government will commission a rewrite of the definition of “spiritual” that is contrary to the Concise Oxford Dictionary; and secondly, can the Minister reassure the public that he will not use the pollsters that the Labour Government used to conduct that survey?

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I bring to your attention that this House has agreed that the debate be taken as one question on three clauses. The debate started at 10 past 9, so it has not been going an hour yet. A number of speakers wish to contribute to this debate, and I note that the Government has been moving closure motions. I ask that those speakers who have been seeking the call for the last hour be given that opportunity. I make the point very clearly. You were not in the Chair at the time, but it was by agreement of the House that this debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3 be taken as one question.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need any assistance on this one. I thank Mr Tisch. I was not in the Chair, but I am up with the play. I have noticed a number of closure motions from my right here. I am not to know before I call them whether it is a closure motion. If those speakers want the call, they will get the call, and I give no assurances. I will judge how the debate is going.

I certainly appreciated the Minister getting to his feet and trying to give us an explanation of the reason for these additional dimensions in the charter. But I have to say that I am none the wiser as to why, some time after the original charter was prescribed by this Government, the Minister saw fit to make additions. But, of course, the additions that have caused the most reason for debate tonight have been the insertion of the words “spiritual”, and “ethical”. So on top of an already overladen charter brought in by the Minister in the early days of his responsibility, he has now seen fit to add a dimension that, in the Opposition’s view, is totally unnecessary and entirely inappropriate.

There are three grounds on which I object to it. The first is that some obligations are being put into the charter, on to a public broadcaster that, over the last 2 years, has had extreme difficulty delivering on the charter requirements and also with delivering within budget. It has had budget blowouts. It has had an emergency request for funding, and into that scenario this Minister has put some added obligations.

Secondly, these are add-ons. If the requirement for the broadcaster to deliver programmes that cater to both the spiritual and ethical dimensions of our community are so important, why was it not seen to be important at the time the original charter was developed? Why, if they are so important, are they now being treated as add-ons? The reality is they are not important. They are not appropriate. As I said earlier, we live in a multicultural society. How is it that this broadcaster can meet the needs of the Paimarire movement? How will it do that? What about the people from Islamic countries? How is it to deliver to those people? They are living in our country. They are part of the listening audience. How is the public broadcaster meant to cater to their needs? So what it will amount to is, no doubt, a bland coverage of what someone’s view is of the spiritual beliefs of New Zealanders. No broadcaster can cater to the spiritual beliefs of the multicultural society we now have in New Zealand. That is why we say that it is totally inappropriate.

Thirdly, these are requirements that should not be in the public arena, at all. If someone were to suggest to the compulsory school sector that it has an obligation to cater to the spiritual and ethical needs of our children—and why would one not say that; if one thinks a public broadcaster has that obligation, why not a public educator—we know that that would be a nonsense in any event. That is why we say that it is a nonsense to have these dimensions in this legislation. They are not proper or appropriate.

I have listened to colleagues reminding us about the fact that we no longer say grace at State banquets. When Queen Elizabeth II visited New Zealand, 2 years ago, and no grace was said at the State dinner in the Banquet Hall, I and a small handful of Māori who were there found it very offensive. Why is it that this Government imposes on the public broadcaster an obligation to somehow reflect the ethical and spiritual beliefs of the New Zealand community when, at a very important function, those beliefs are seen to be of no value whatsoever? The Queen as head of the Anglican Church was at that State dinner, and for some reason the Prime Minister saw fit to have the prayer removed, and it has been removed since.

I move, That the question be now put.