Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

I move, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill represents the final step in the first 5-yearly review of Radio New Zealand’s charter. The Radio New Zealand Act, which incorporates the Radio New Zealand charter, is a major part of the public broadcasting landscape. This bill and the process of its development are part of the ongoing maintenance that is so essential as we keep our sights on the objectives of that charter.

In December 2000 the Commerce Committee was asked to undertake the review of Radio New Zealand’s charter, and it tabled its report on 21 December 2001. That report was supportive of the charter, and suggested only a few minor legislative changes to assist Radio New Zealand to engage fully with the spirit of its charter. The Government considered the report and agreed with its recommendations. As not all parties supported the inclusion of the proposed amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) of 2003, the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill incorporates those amendments. The Commerce Committee called for submissions on the bill, and all submissions received were generally supportive of the proposed changes. The select committee did not recommend any change to the bill except to amend the commencement date of the bill to January 2004. This date was changed again during the Committee stage we have just sat through, to 1 July 2004.

The bill proposes three areas of change. Firstly, the bill proposes changes of wording to incorporate certain concerns raised by submitters during the initial review of the charter. Those changes were supported by the committee. It adds the words “spiritual, and ethical” to existing requirements that Radio New Zealand provide programmes that contribute to intellectual, scientific, and cultural development. Those additional dimensions recognise the wider role of public broadcasting in contributing to the information needs of New Zealand’s increasingly diverse society and culture. There is also a new requirement to include programmes for a full range of age groups, designed to ensure that the needs of children are included.

Secondly, the bill proposes requiring Radio New Zealand to provide an international radio service to the South Pacific—Radio New Zealand International. That gives recognition to the importance of this service, which has been part of Radio New Zealand’s operation for 13 years.

Thirdly, the bill proposes requiring Radio New Zealand to survey the views of non-listeners of Radio New Zealand, and to inform the shareholding Ministers of the result of those surveys as part of its annual report. That will assist in assessing Radio New Zealand’s performance against its charter obligations, and inform future programming decisions that may increase the size of its audience.

During the Committee stage, many members of this Parliament and others would have been rather surprised to hear the objection of members of the Opposition to the inclusion of the words “spiritual, and ethical” in that charter. Even more surprising is the announcement in the documents that background those select committee discussions that the National Party confirms its view that it would privatise, or sell in some way, Radio New Zealand in the future.

Radio New Zealand’s charter embodies its public broadcasting remit to provide innovative, comprehensive, independent, high-quality services for all New Zealanders—public services for all New Zealanders. That remit is of even greater importance to a diverse and democratic society in a fast-changing and globalised world. Reviewing the charter periodically is important to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of New Zealanders. Recognising that the charter has served the public well, this bill incorporates minor amendments intended to enhance the charter by encompassing Radio New Zealand’s role more fully. The proposed amendments in the bill extend and embed the responsive and interactive relationship with audiences that is so essential to the role of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge submitters on the bill, the valued work of the members of the original Commerce Committee in their thorough and considered review, and also the members of the current select committee and the Committee of the whole House for hearing and progressing this bill so efficiently.

National opposes this bill, and it does so on a number of bases, and I want to refer to some of them. As I said earlier, the addition of spiritual and ethical dimensions into the charter is in our view unnecessary and inappropriate. They are seen to be add-ons; if they were at all important, the Minister of Broadcasting in his wisdom would have ensured that they were included right at the start. They were not there at the beginning when the charter was originally legislated for, and that they have been added in now suggests this is a Government that is trying to be all things to all people. Obviously, it is not succeeding—and it certainly is not succeeding now—and in imposing that obligation on the public broadcaster it loses sight of the make-up of our society, in my view.

💬 Hon Member: We are a multicultural society.

Yes, we are a multicultural society, with many dimensions to it now, and for this Government to expect the public broadcaster to cater to the needs, both spiritual and ethical, of our multidimensional, multilayered, multicultural society is beyond belief, as far as I am concerned. How does a public broadcaster cater for spiritual beliefs that, at one end of the spectrum, include Ringatū or Paimārire, and at the other end of the spectrum include the beliefs of people now living in New Zealand who are of the Buddhist faith or of the faith of Islam? How is the public broadcaster expected to cater for that wide range of beliefs, and what examples is it to take in trying to do that, particularly from a Government that at every opportunity seems to want to take out some of the spiritual things many of us think are very important in the protocols and officialdom of our society—particularly in this Parliament? I am referring to the removal of the saying of grace at State dinners, and attempts by the Government to take out the daily prayer in this House.

But at the end of the day I do not expect any public broadcaster to cater for my spiritual or ethical beliefs. Those are mine, and mine alone. Every person in this House will have a view about ethics, and those views do not necessarily coincide. If a public broadcaster is to cater for the so-called broad ethics of New Zealand society, what are they? How is the public broadcaster meant to discern them from, particularly, the goings-on in this House? So those additions are a nonsense and inappropriate, and should not be included in this bill.

Secondly, the bill, as the Acting Minister of Broadcasting has said, imposes an obligation on Radio New Zealand to extend its audience to include “varied interests”, and to encompass “a full range of age groups”. In contrast to the first obligation that is being imposed, I guess that is a laudable responsibility. But, if we think about our society, how is Radio New Zealand to cater to the Polynesian population in south Auckland, or in John Tamihere’s area, for instance? How is it meant to do that? How is it meant to compete with Mai FM, in particular, in reference to those audiences? It is a laudable responsibility to impose, but, realistically, how is a public broadcaster meant to deliver on a charter that is so wide in its objectives, is vague in some of them, and, at the end of the day, seeks to impose one size on all? It will not work. We have to wonder whether it is more of the same from a Government that is intent on telling New Zealanders how to live their lives. The Government will use the public broadcaster to somehow impose its view of the world, in all its varied and many facets, on the population of New Zealand.

On the other hand, clause 3(4) is probably necessary. It is one area of the bill that I think may be of value—but only limited value. Clause 3(4) asks Radio New Zealand to commission annually surveys of its current audience, and those who are not part of its audience, as a way of getting feedback as to how it is doing in terms of both quality and quantity. As I said, that in itself probably has some benefit, but it loses impact when we have the situation whereby Radio New Zealand does not participate in industry-wide surveys. To get a real feel for how this broadcaster sits in the scheme of things, we really need some comparative surveys. Radio New Zealand is happy enough to survey its own audience, but seems reluctant to participate in industry-wide surveys that would give the public of New Zealand—especially the taxpaying public—an idea of just where Radio New Zealand sits alongside the many other radio broadcasters in this country.

All in all, I think it is an abuse of this Parliament that this bill has sat here for nearly 18 months. As I said, it adds on things that, if they were really important, the Minister of Broadcasting—who has received a lot of praise from his colleagues this evening—ought to have made part of the original charter. He did not. Those additional obligations have been imposed at a time when Radio New Zealand has been struggling and losing audience. Although at the time of the end-of-year financial review some assurances were given that things were improving, we have yet to see that. We have also yet to see how Radio New Zealand will balance the tension between appealing to a wide audience, being interesting and innovative, and all of those things, while still delivering on a charter imposed by this Government, which seems absolutely besotted with charters. Charters cost taxpayers’ money. That is our money.

That is why the National Party will keep this organisation under close scrutiny. We must do that on behalf of the public of New Zealand. At the moment, Radio New Zealand serves a very limited part of that listening audience, and we will be watching to see whether it improves over the coming time.

I rise to support this bill. I note that the previous speaker was at the opening of the Māori Television Service. I commend her for being there, but the Māori Television Service will not be the only broadcasting entity under threat should there be a change of Government. I call on members opposite to deny categorically, right now, that they will do to Radio New Zealand what I think they want to do to the Māori Television Service. I want you also to deny that you will do to Television New Zealand what you intend—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

I challenge the Opposition National Party to categorically deny that it will hock off Radio New Zealand, just as it will hock off Kiwibank, hock off Television New Zealand, and hock off a number of other State-owned enterprises in this country. I admire Georgina te Heuheu for at least being at the opening of the Māori Television Service. I know she believes in that service, and I know that, in her heart of hearts, she believes in Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand, but the rest of her colleagues do not. Although we are hearing a lot of mealy-mouthed words about the Radio New Zealand charter, it is all just pinpricking. I believe there is a real threat that right now National, in its policy rooms and back rooms, is hatching a plot to hock off Radio New Zealand. This Government will save Radio New Zealand and keep it being the cultural icon of this country.

It is a great honour to follow a contribution like that of Mr Gallagher. It is not often that we see a contribution like that to the debate from the Government. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, and to tell Mr Gallagher that New Zealand First will not support this bill, despite his rendition. We believe that this bill is a backward step for broadcasting, and we can see no good reason for it, at all. New Zealand First does not believe that the charter for Radio New Zealand needs to be modified in this way, at all. We believe that the charter has been reviewed principally in order to ensure that it is a model of political correctness in every way. The bill is totally ludicrous. There is not even a definition of “spiritual, and ethical” development. The bill is a mere 1½ pages in length, and was not even changed by the Commerce Committee—including those words “spiritual, and “ethical”. I wonder how many definitions of “spiritual, and “ethical” development we will hear from Radio New Zealand. We all have our own definitions, so there will have to be many definitions. Even if the broadcaster goes 24/7, it will not meet everybody’s needs in that way.

New Zealand First believes that this bill is an absolute nonsense and a waste of parliamentary time, particularly under urgency. We have spent far longer on debating this bill tonight than it took the select committee to consider the bill. I see that the select committee took only 14 minutes. That really makes one wonder how important this bill is, particularly as it has languished on the Order Paper for months—since April 2003. It really does make one wonder. Will this bill change the lot of New Zealanders? No, not at all. How many variations of spiritual and ethical belief will we hear from Radio New Zealand? We do not know that. There is an infinite number of such beliefs. How will this bill advance the lot of New Zealanders? It will not do so, at all. This bill basically raises far more questions than it will ever answer. Also, what are the delivery outcomes for ensuring that the charter is met? It will be difficult for Radio New Zealand to even work out whether it has met the requirements of this legislation. To be fair to the people of New Zealand, all people’s views have to be met, but the reality is that those views are all so diverse that that is an impossible challenge for Radio New Zealand to meet. It is interesting to note, too, that we see those dimensions creeping in to all parts of our legislation.

This is a very sad day for Radio New Zealand. It is sad to set up an organisation to fail, despite its very best attempts. This charter is so wide and vague that it will not work. It is a balancing act at the very best of times. It reminds me of this statement by Winston Churchill: “Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” That is what Radio New Zealand has been lumped with tonight. We know for a fact that the number of Radio New Zealand listeners is decreasing, and we would be really interested to hear—and we have not heard this tonight—how the words “spiritual, and ethical” in the charter will reverse Radio New Zealand’s disastrous ratings. The charter appears to be of no value in that regard. What have we seen since its introduction? We have seen a revolt. People do not want to be told what their spiritual and ethical values are. They do not want to follow through on the charter, and they have voted with their fingers by getting up out of their chairs and changing from listening to that oh, so totally politically correct radio station. It does not matter what is put in the charter. It will not help Radio New Zealand at all, because it cannot meet the requirements of the charter.

Clause 3(4) provides, in new paragraph (d) to be inserted in section 7(2) of the principal Act, that surveys will be commissioned annually of “persons who are members of its current audience to establish whether those members consider that the quality and quantity of its services are being maintained in accordance with subsection (1)”, and new paragraph (e) goes on to add “surveys, commissioned from time to time, of persons who are not members of its current audiences.” Just from what I have heard tonight, I believe it will be far easier to carry out surveys in terms of paragraph (e)—“... commissioned, from time to time, of persons who are not members of its current audiences.”—than it will be to survey people who are actually listening to Radio New Zealand. We agree with the implementation of surveys; that is one of the few parts of the bill that we agree with. But then we must ask why the surveys are not carried out like those carried out on other broadcasting stations. The State broadcaster definitely has a totally different set of rules for its operation from anybody else.

This bill is appalling for Radio New Zealand. The bottom line is that Radio New Zealand cannot be all things to all people. We can see that from the number of listeners who are dropping off—who are not listening to Radio New Zealand. That is absolutely appalling. If it were a private radio station, we would see many changes. Heads would roll. The indicators of such a loss of audience would inspire some sort of action on the part of the directors of a private station. But do we see any action being taken by Radio New Zealand? No. It appears to be accepted that Radio New Zealand is required by the charter to provide programmes that other radio stations do not provide, and that many of those types of programmes will never generate a large number of listeners.

Does anybody really care about the loss of the listeners? It does not appear so. When we read the performance targets of Radio New Zealand, we find that they do not inspire the confidence of any New Zealander, with a goal of losing no more than 10 percent of the previous year’s listeners. How long will it take before nobody listens to Radio New Zealand? If it sticks with that target, its audience will be halved within 6 years, for a start. The loss of listeners is a big indication that there is something very wrong with the public broadcaster, and the charter will not correct that. There are impossible compliance challenges for Radio New Zealand in the charter. In fact, any organisation would be extremely brave to take this type of charter on.

The bill is not really about changing the role of Radio New Zealand. All we are seeing, as the previous speakers have mentioned, is a tinkering with the charter by adding the words “spiritual, and ethical”. A large amount of money has been spent on implementing the charter. It would have been far better spent on modernising the equipment so that people could get a better level and quality of broadcast, rather than tinkering around with “spiritual, and ethical” considerations.

New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We do not like to see organisations being set up to fail.

As I said earlier, Radio New Zealand is unique in our media landscape. It is the only medium, aside from Māori Television, that is in genuine public ownership. As I also pointed out, we have a highly unusual situation in New Zealand with regard to our media. We have no rules to limit the size of any media company or cross ownership between the different media—between television, newspapers, and so forth, so we have a lot of cross ownership—and we are the only country in the Western World that allows total foreign ownership of all our media companies. That is thanks, of course, to Maurice Williamson and the previous National Government in 1990, when they wanted to allow the complete foreign ownership of TV3. As a result of National’s contribution of allowing 100 percent foreign ownership of all our media, we basically have four foreign, multinational companies controlling all our media—virtually all our radio and television stations, except for Radio New Zealand, TVNZ, and Māori Television.

I think we need to reflect for a moment on how fortunate we are to have one radio station in New Zealand—one broadcaster—that is totally driven by public objectives rather than by commercial objectives, and that sees listeners as citizens rather than as consumers to whom it is trying to peddle things to buy. The truth of the matter is that the purposes of a not-for-profit organisation are vastly different from those of one whose objective is the pursuit of profit. That is why we have public service broadcasting. We have seen the helpless confusion in the TVNZ hybrid. We have been discussing animal-human hybrids in the Health Committee, and TVNZ is one of those bizarre hybrids—part commercial, and part public service. It cannot seem to work out which parts are which, and whether it should be pursing public-interest or commercial objectives.

To have Radio New Zealand is something to be deeply, deeply grateful for—that we have one radio broadcaster not owned by any commercial entity and that does not constantly interrupt its news and programmes with advertisements for this or that commercial product, and that we have a radio broadcaster that does not have commercial sponsorship. We do not have “Charlie’s Morning Report” or “Mitsubishi’s Linda Clark”. In fact, we have a radio station that has no vested interest—no commercial pressures—and that is a counterbalance to the incredible private ownership of all the rest of our media. We need to keep that in perspective, and to be deeply grateful for Radio New Zealand—and, indeed, for its visionary charter.

Gerry Eckhoff complained that those of us with different views do not get a look-in on Radio New Zealand. He was implying, somehow, that there was a bias against the ACT party. I think that would be extremely hard to try to prove in any way, because I truly believe that Radio New Zealand is fair and independent. But that reminded me that the other day it was revealed that the editor of the National Business Review was providing media training for Don Brash, the leader of the National Party. In any other country, that would have created an absolute scandal. A so-called independent journal in New Zealand—a supposedly credible newspaper—was providing media training to the head of the National Party in New Zealand. If this were any other country, that would have been seen as a total scandal—as an indication of the complete and total bias of the National Business Review. But there was barely any concern about that, presumably because so much of our media is in private ownership. Our media are owned by four or five multinational corporations, and we think that is normal. We do not expect to have truly impartial, balanced media in New Zealand, because the truth of the matter is that almost none of our media have a specific obligation and mandate in their charter to be balanced, independent, and comprehensive in their news and current affairs.

We have heard a lot of whimpering from the Opposition about Radio New Zealand. I guarantee that almost every single speaker tonight—and indeed, every member in this House—listens to Radio New Zealand. Members will be glued to Morning Report morning after morning. Tomorrow morning, there they will be, listening to Morning Report and everything else, yet here they are, whimpering on about Radio New Zealand. They know that it is outstanding and is one of the only organisations that provides truly comprehensive, independent current affairs and news in New Zealand. I think we have had a lot of weasel words from people who, I guarantee, spend a great deal of their time listening to Radio New Zealand.

We tend to focus a lot on television. A lot of debate goes on about television, but radio is very immediate and has a very wide reach. A dollar spent on radio goes far further than a dollar spent on television. In America, at the recent public service television conference that the member for the National Party referred to earlier in this debate, people were talking about how there has been a renaissance in public service radio in America and other countries. I predict confidently that we will see a renaissance in Radio New Zealand, which was rather savaged in the 1990s. I think it lost 20 percent of its staff. Radio New Zealand was starved of funding in the 1990s. Fortunately, it has now had some proper funding, and can do what it was set up to do, which is set out in its charter: to inform and engage New Zealanders through providing challenging and innovative radio. I would go so far as to say that Radio New Zealand is innovative and does provide a wide range of programmes.

It is good that we are adding this little dimension that has got so on the nerves of members of Parliament here, to my absolute astonishment. As a result of the submissions that were made in the Commerce Committee, we are now adding to the charter that Radio New Zealand should provide programmes that also look at spiritual and ethical issues. We have heard a lot of cant about that—that we are undermining the secular State, and all the utter drivel said in the House tonight. This bill does not undermine the secular State. All it states is that amongst the programmes that Radio New Zealand broadcasts, it will consider including ethical issues. One would think it was a radical, crazy idea to have a radio station that would consider ethical issues. We have seen the Opposition’s horror that a radio station should have to examine ethical issues. Others have made this point: is it that some members have lost the ability to understand the importance of ethics in our society?

And what is wrong with looking at spiritual issues? In a world that is riven with conflict over religious and spiritual issues, I would have thought it was a great asset that we have a radio station that, as well as doing all the other things it does, such as providing a comprehensive, balanced, and authoritative current affairs, and an independent voice, also looks at the spiritual and ethical dimensions of life. Is there something wrong with that? Is it only acceptable to be rational and logical? Are we no longer able to think of other ideas? No one has any objection to having commercial objectives, but somehow we all feel uncomfortable about and sneer at the thought of having ethical or spiritual objectives. That is very, very sad.

The Green Party does not share those concerns. We are absolutely delighted to support this bill, to support Radio New Zealand, and to support the addition of the words “spiritual, and “ethical” to the charter. We believe the Opposition members do not actually believe some of what they have been saying, and that they would agree with the Green Party that Radio New Zealand is one of the only independent voices in New Zealand.

There is only one radio programme worth listening to in the mornings, and that is Newstalk ZB, especially on Tuesday mornings at 8.15. It is the most informed political comment in the country.

💬 Katherine Rich: Who is the host?

My colleague has asked who the people on it are. They are the Hon John Tamihere and myself. So I plead guilty. I might be the only person in this House who does not listen to State radio in the mornings. I listen to Newstalk ZB.

Do members know why private radio stations do not need a charter? They do not need a charter because they actually adhere to the objective of this charter, which Radio New Zealand does not adhere to. They are objective and they are independent, and that is because they participate in industry surveys, and they get the message very quickly, very sharply, and very painfully—because it affects them in the pocket—if they are not delivering what the customers want to hear. I would argue that the news services of Global News or Newstalk ZB were more objective and fairer, and had more voices of dissent, than State-owned radio.

I did not get to have another call in the Committee stage, but I wanted to continue talking about this report that two former directors of Radio New Zealand, Dr Denis Dutton and John Isles, put their names to. It was a survey of feature programmes on Radio New Zealand. It was a very fair survey. It did not seek to establish whether there was bias in Radio New Zealand; it just sought to establish whether there were enough diverse voices, and whether, as a public radio, it was reflecting the voices of the public. As Sue Kedgley has so rightly pointed out, it is owned by every taxpayer in New Zealand, and, through Parliament, its adherence to the charter is scrutinised. This report roundly recommended and concluded that Radio New Zealand at the moment is not adhering to its charter.

The Minister of Broadcasting has done a number of things that compromise Radio New Zealand severely, so I do not blame the people at Radio New Zealand for this; I blame the Minister. In May 2003 the Minister held a function on the premises of Radio New Zealand, and he said to the staff that they “had every reason to feel nervous, bullied, and uncertain under the previous administration”. State-owned broadcasting should be robust enough and independent enough to survive a change in Government—and there will be a change in Government, to the centre-right. Radio New Zealand must be robust enough to sustain that. If people like Martin Gallagher, who gave one of his rare but welcome vein-popping speeches—

💬 Simon Power: It was his maiden speech.

It was a wonderful speech. He was passionately declaring his loyalty to save public radio. If that is the case, that broadcaster must be able to sustain a change of Government. The Minister has been compromising it. He said: “Under the National Government, Radio New Zealand struggled against political reluctance to maintain its funding, and through public pressure and its own lobbying managed to secure the continuing existence of two networks. Many of you here will have taken part in those battles, because you know that public radio is worth fighting for.” I question the wisdom of the Minister of Broadcasting allowing Radio New Zealand to be used for the delivery of such an overt political message. It is questionable, especially when concerns of political bias are levelled at that organisation.

The Minister’s theme that public radio is under threat from its political opponents does appear to have currency with the broadcaster. The broadcaster has, clearly, been influenced by the Minister to take his views on board. The website asserts that this is “a time when the whole concept of public radio is under attack”. The Radio New Zealand statement of intent for 2003-04 declares, under the heading of “Strategic Issues”, that the institution of Radio New Zealand was “eroded” during the 1990s and needed “rebuilding”. There is not a lot of wisdom in the State broadcaster putting issues like that—a criticism of the previous Government—on its website when it is required to be independent, fair, and unbiased. It is expressing a clear political and philosophical view. That is why I believe that it is not adhering to the charter at the moment, that is why I do not think we should be adding anything more to the charter, and that is why the ACT party did not support this amendment to the charter going in the Statutes Amendment Bill.

Ms Kedgley seems to miss the point there. She said that we are whinging on about the State being secular. Well, those issues of spirituality should be required to compete in the marketplace of ideas with their own funding and support, and not be supported by taxpayer funding. That is the point we make. Statutes Amendment bills are meant to be used for non-controversial issues, and we have seen from the debate tonight that this issue is far from non-controversial.

The survey that Dutton and Isles authored and commissioned showed that the voices of some sectors of the public are not aired on public radio. There are no voices of market liberals, for instance. There are very few voices of the centre-right. There are a few voices of the conservative-right, but, certainly, if one considers market liberals—the voices of freedom, the voices that are pro-capitalist—one finds they are never heard on public radio. Public radio is not representing a large number of the community out there, and probably that is the sector of the community contributing most to the taxes that fund public radio.

I say that if this Government is serious about protecting public broadcasting, and if the Greens are serious about protecting public broadcasting, then they have to face up to the fact that it is not as glorious, wonderful, and perfect as they think it is, and that it needs to be a robust and independent organisation that is already sticking to its charter, rather than more things being put in the charter, and it being put under even further pressure and set up to fail.

I rise to support the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I will try to keep my voice down a little, because I know that some of us are actually trying to do some work.

💬 Simon Power: Some of your colleagues are trying to sleep.

Not some of my colleagues; in fact, some Labour members were trying to go to sleep, and now they are off to bed, I think. The bill covers three aspects of Radio New Zealand operations. Briefly, the first is amendments to the charter to encourage Radio New Zealand to contribute towards New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical development. A lot of people have a bit of a problem with that, and I do not understand why. Commercial radio stations have a charter, and their charter is money. They go after it. They provide what they need to get the ratings they need, so that they can get advertising dollars. That is their charter; that is their mandate. I think Radio New Zealand has a slightly different focus, and that is fair enough.

Secondly, there are amendments that require Radio New Zealand to feature programmes that provide for varied interests, including, now, a full range of age groups. Who can complain about that? This broadcaster is a public broadcaster. We should be looking for a public broadcaster to look at a variety of interests—ethical and spiritual, different age groups, and the like. That is something commercial radio stations frequently do not do, because that is not where their dollars are. That is not what their charter, if one can call it that—the financial incentive—covers. I am not knocking the financial incentive. I am absolutely in favour of advertising being the driving force of commercial interests, but I am suggesting that there is a place for a State-sponsored radio station to provide those things that other outlets simply cannot do.

The last amendment of substance requires Radio New Zealand annually to survey not just its existing audience but also attitudes amongst those who do not currently listen to Radio New Zealand.

Some of the charter prescriptions do seem a little bit woolly, but that is actually their strength, in some ways. They should not be seen as prescriptive. They are really just an acknowledgment of aspects of our lives other than just the material. The broadcasting mandate of Radio New Zealand is the public, and, whether we like it or not, the public do have spiritual and ethical values. Those against these provisions have the difficulty of providing a rationale against the use of the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. It is not driving a particular dogma down anybody’s throat; it is simply recognising that aspect of society, which sometimes goes unacknowledged by the market-driven providers of radio. I am surprised that those who want to place, for example, Treaty of Waitangi obligations in legislation, can possibly be against the lesser consideration of that which is spiritual or ethical. Is that not the basis of Māori Television—something we are actually against? But I do not think we can complain too much about the provision of both spiritual and ethical development; too much time has been spent debating that particular issue.

The amendment to the Radio New Zealand charter brings some consistency in terms of the programming requirements for two publicly owned broadcasting media—Television New Zealand’s charter and, now, the charter of Radio New Zealand. It brings consistency to both. Clause 3(2) requires Radio New Zealand to provide programming that caters to “a full range of age groups”, and it is particularly pleasing that that provision is included, as it will ensure that Radio New Zealand provides programming that is specific to child listeners and not just to the elderly.

One of the ongoing issues on which we have sought resolution is the issue of accountability by Radio New Zealand to its public. That is something that, for private providers, is accomplished through the market mechanism. This bill requires Radio New Zealand to survey not just its audience but also its non-audience, so that it might delineate the wishes of the rest of the radio-listening public, provide for their interests, and attract new listeners accordingly. This amendment is a commendable attempt; however, we are severely disappointed that the Commerce Committee has remained too timid to deal with the real issues surrounding Radio New Zealand’s surveys. It is, however, an operational matter; nevertheless, it should compete on a level playing field. An ACNielsen survey recently found that one in five radio listeners listened to either National Radio or Concert FM. It would be very interesting indeed to see if a comparison with the monthly commercial radio surveys showed there is consistent listenership of Radio New Zealand, yet we do not know that, because Radio New Zealand has decided not to take part in the industry’s standard surveys. Why not? It should. The select committee has gone so far as specifying that Radio New Zealand must undertake annual surveys of its audience of a quantitative and qualitative nature; it would have been easier to specify that Radio New Zealand take part in regular, industry-wide radio audience surveys. It is disappointing that the committee has not addressed that, and, accordingly, I think Radio New Zealand will continue to kid itself about its true level of public support until it faces reality and subjects itself to the scrutiny of the regular, industry-wide surveys. It is that point that I am surprised has not been picked up to a much greater extent by the Opposition.

United Future will be supporting this bill. However, that support is with some reservation.

As I rise to speak to the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, I must say that it was very interesting to hear the Acting Minister of Broadcasting’s speech. Never has a Minister read so much and said so little. Basically, when we listen to what the Minister has said we are left with the impression that everything has gone along swimmingly at Radio New Zealand, and that this Government has an unblemished record. Well, I think that members on this side of the Chamber know that is not the case, because, despite a lot of rhetoric about Radio New Zealand, this Government did at one stage cut its news budget, and the company has had a long stream of employment disputes. We need mention only the names of Lynne Snowdon and Sean Plunket to remind listeners that Radio New Zealand has not been a happy place over the last 4 years or so.

We have been looking at the Radio New Zealand charter for the last 4 years, and it is interesting that we are debating what is a two-page bill in urgency. I must say that there has not been a groundswell of support for this bill. There have not been protests in the streets, and there have not even been calls, or emails, or letters from listeners demanding that we get this bill through the House. I imagine that most Radio New Zealand listeners would not even know that this bill existed, but here we are in urgency putting it through.

I think it is worthwhile looking at what this bill tries to achieve. Although the member from the Greens says it is good to have a radio station that will evaluate ethical or spiritual issues, that is not what this bill is about at all. This bill is about putting into the charter a requirement to reflect the ethical and spiritual needs of New Zealanders. The Acting Minister was challenged during the Committee stage to tell the Committee what that meant—what did the Government think were the ethical and spiritual needs of New Zealanders? I think one thing that we have established is that New Zealanders are not all the same. Certainly, not every New Zealander chooses to listen to Radio New Zealand. Some of the listenership measurements are actually quite small, and in some major metropolitan areas Radio New Zealand is lucky to get 5 percent of listeners. So a lot of New Zealanders are not choosing to listen to Radio New Zealand. We need to have explained to us how this new addition to the charter would make any difference. One of the things that we understand is that although those two words will be inserted into the charter, very little will change in terms of what programming is offered by Radio New Zealand.

It is also worth looking at the new requirements to carry out surveys. It was not rocket science, but during the select committee process we asked Sharon Crosbie and officials why Radio New Zealand had pulled out of the national survey by ACNielsen. We were told that it was too costly—it cost $100,000—and that Radio New Zealand was not competing with other commercial broadcasters. We asked how, in that case, Radio New Zealand would know what listeners want to hear and how listeners were judging it. It told us that it would do its own survey. Interestingly and coincidently, the survey cost $100,000. Rather than talk to a wide range of people, Radio New Zealand spoke to just those who listen to Radio New Zealand. We asked whether it was obligated also to interview and survey those people who do not listen to Radio New Zealand, because one of the things we are seeing with the listenership figures is that the number of people tuning into Radio New Zealand is actually decreasing each and every year. A startling thing about Radio New Zealand is that one of its objectives is not to lose more than a certain number of listeners every year. In our view, that is a bit like a turkey looking forward to Christmas.

It is not the role of State broadcasting to tell us what to think, or to reflect what our ethical values are. Mind you, if we are going to discuss ethics, it might be of use for Radio New Zealand to start giving a few messages to Labour members, such as not lying and not signing paintings that they do not paint themselves. Those may be some of the ethical issues that are addressed by this new requirement to reflect ethical needs. What we are seeing here is social engineering. It is the sort of patronising approach to radio listeners that says somehow the Government knows best, and that it can insert a requirement for the broadcaster to reflect what it thinks should be our ethics and our spiritual needs.

In terms of Radio New Zealand, I do not think there is any doubt that there is a huge amount of support for the station and for public broadcasting in this country. Government members would have us believe that they have a monopoly on interest in public broadcasting, but that is not the case. When we look at the cost of bringing this legislation through the House, I think we have to be very careful not just to bring through what is feel-good legislation. This bill is not about governance or structure, and it is not about changing the nature of the service; it is about changing a couple of words in the charter. I think it is quite clear that this Government is totally obsessed with charters. If something moves, the Government thinks it needs a charter. We have seen the way that it has constrained Television New Zealand and involved that broadcaster in what is a political debate. I think we are also seeing the same kind of thing with Radio New Zealand. It is the role of a State broadcaster to reflect a certain part of the community, but it is a sad day when we look to radio to try to direct us about what we should believe and what our spiritual and ethical needs should be. It is the sort of “We know best.” approach that we are very used to seeing from this Government.

Looking at the way that the Acting Minister, Mr Benson-Pope, has handled this particular bill through the House, I think it is not a credit to the work that Minister Maharey has done to date. Mr Benson-Pope is not even in the Chamber listening to the debate. After reading his speech he decided that that was all he was required to do. I think he drew the short straw in the Labour Cabinet. He probably felt he had the credentials to be the Minister of Broadcasting. I imagine he piped up and said that he listened to the radio, and that was probably all that was required.

We all have expectations of State radio. I do not agree with the Green member that it is always independent, but I think it is up to all members of this House to challenge what is broadcast, when required, and to hold all broadcasters to account to make sure that they do cover a wide range of views. But what we are seeing here with the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is just a lot of expense. A two-page bill is being dealt with under urgency, when it does little more than add a couple of weasel words to an overly bureaucratic charter.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, because I support the changes to the charter. I listened very carefully to what the previous speaker had to say, and I am sorry she missed what is the intent of the changes to the charter. I believe they are about informing people. We in the Government like people to be informed. We like to encourage people to think and debate the current issues that are topical today, both nationally and internationally. We are lucky in New Zealand that we have a good choice of radio to listen to. Talkback does not appeal to me, but I am an avid listener to Radio New Zealand, and I support the programmes it is putting out to New Zealanders.

I bridled a little bit at the member’s comment about social engineering, and her accusation that that only ever happens when this Government is in power. I have to ask that member what she considered the policies of the former National Government were. If that was not social engineering, I do not know what is.

The international radio service that is provided to the South Pacific is incredibly important to a lot of people who are geographically isolated. That in itself is very valuable. I am pleased to support this bill, and I look forward to it going through the House quickly.

Finally, I get to make a contribution in the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I rise to speak in opposition to the bill, and I do so for a number of reasons. I was interested to hear the contribution from the previous speaker, and also the contributions from both the Greens and United Future. Those members talked about the importance of having an independent, State-owned, subsidised radio station. I am not sure whether I am philosophically in agreement with that, but that is not what the debate is about. The reason why we are opposed to this bill tonight is the very reason that they put forward—that this radio station is valuable and we want it to survive.

There is an old cliché that goes with socialist Governments: if it moves tax it; if it keeps moving tax it a bit more; and if it stops moving, subsidise it so we can get it moving again. This is a subsidised radio station to start with. The Government cannot apply that cliche, so what does it have here? The Government has a charter that is so convoluted, and so difficult for anybody to ever achieve its objectives, that it will strangle the radio station that way. The Government cannot tax it until it is dead, so it will strangle it with its charter.

Words fail me, but members should look at some of the social engineering and rhetoric in this charter. It could be introduced only by a socialist Government, such as the one on the other side of the House. The words “spiritual, and ethical” are in the bill, but the Minister said in the first reading that those words do not mean religious denomination. I was confused and not quite up to speed with what they mean, so I went to the Concise Oxford Dictionary to find out. They do mean religious denomination, so obviously, in the new Radio New Zealand charter, the Labour Party will recreate a new Concise Oxford Dictionary according to the principles of Helen Clark. That is what it will do.

We have had a bit of discussion recently in public and in the media about the whole issue of religion according to the Prime Minister. She says she is agnostic. Maybe one of the members on the other side—the Minister over there—will take a call and clear some of this up for us. Maybe he will, maybe he will not—there has been no evidence of it so far. Maybe “spiritual” means agnostic, but that is not what the Concise Oxford Dictionary says. That is the whole basis of our opposition. The fact is that this will create endless ambiguity around what Radio New Zealand is supposed to deliver. “Spiritual” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

So then we turn to Radio New Zealand. This legislation says that Radio New Zealand has to meet the needs of all age groups. So it is going to meet all spiritual needs and the needs of all age groups? I am really starting to despair. It is a bit too late, at 11.30 p.m., for those at home in Taranaki - King Country to be listening to this debate on their valve radios, but those listening to their cowshed radios in the morning will not understand for one moment what they mean by the Radio New Zealand charter. They will not have a clue what it means.

United Future surprised me when its members said in very passionate speeches that they supported the passage of this bill, and the introduction of the words “spiritual, and ethical” into the charter. I always understood that for United Future the words meant religious denomination. Obviously, the public of New Zealand are confused about what United Future stands for. I thought that is what the words meant. Clearly, they do not, so that is a revelation to those who might be listening out there.

One part of this legislation might be useful, and it is that the Government will conduct surveys to find out what both the listening public of Radio New Zealand and non-listeners think about the service. But the problem with that is that this Government has conducted many surveys in its term. It listens to the ones it wants to hear and ignores the ones that come up with a result that is not what it wants to hear. So will the Government take any notice of the responses from the survey? If the Government does take notice of surveys, can it explain to me which survey was conducted, and how that survey came up with the notion that it should introduce into the charter of Radio New Zealand the term “spiritual, and ethical”?

I do not know of any survey or any public opinion poll that suggests that that should be so. Certainly, those who made submissions on the bill had concerns about it, and raised those concerns in their submissions. Certainly, members on this side of the House who have contributed to the debate have overwhelming raised that as an issue of concern. The Government was not even going to allow this issue to be properly aired. It was going to slip it through in an omnibus-type way so that it could not be debated tonight. The fact is that those kinds of bills are supposed to be non-controversial. We cannot introduce into the charter of Radio New Zealand terms like “spiritual, and ethical” and not expect at some stage that it will be controversial. I hope that a Minister, or somebody on the other side of the House who might have a view on this issue, will take a call and explain to us what they mean by that.

The charter as it stands at the moment—as it is prescribed in this legislation—will do nothing but strangle Radio New Zealand, and that will be a great pity. There are a number of us who listen to it. There are a number of us who believe that at times it is fairly balanced. There are a number of us who participate in debates on Radio New Zealand. We do not understand, so we wish the Government would explain to us how, under this charter, Radio New Zealand will be able to live up to all these objectives.

Further on in the legislation, we see that the Government will also include in new section 7(1)(ga) of the principal Act the term “Radio New Zealand International”, which means that Radio New Zealand will have to cater for the Pacific Islands and other nations with different languages. So now we have Radio New Zealand catering to all age groups, meeting all the spiritual and ethical needs of the nation, and also having to cater for multiple languages. This station will have to work a miracle. The subsidy the Government will provide will have to increase tenfold, or it will have to double, triple, or quadruple the amount of air time the station has. I do not know what it will have to do, but it will certainly have to perform a miracle to achieve the objectives set out in the charter as prescribed here tonight.

It is interesting to note that several Ministers are here tonight, and not one of them has taken a call to explain to us in this third reading what this all means, how it will be achieved, and when they think they will be able to achieve this objective for the public of New Zealand.