Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

I move, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Most members of this House would agree that Radio New Zealand is an iconic institution in this country. Since it first broadcast on our airwaves in 1925, our public radio broadcaster has delighted and informed audiences of all generations. But even iconic institutions must adapt to the modern age or else they will grow irrelevant and eventually fade. That is why this Government is progressing this bill to futureproof our public broadcaster for years to come.

The bill proposes two key changes. The first puts in place a new charter that reflects Radio New Zealand’s role as a modern public broadcaster, and the second makes Radio New Zealand technology-neutral, so that it can reach audiences beyond its traditional base. Radio New Zealand receives Crown funding of more than $35 million a year, and in order to thrive and get best value for money in the decades to come, it must undergo a transformation from a traditional broadcaster to a multimedia organisation that connects with diverse audiences in a range of ways. The pressures of innovative technology and changing consumer demands are not new, nor are they unique to Radio New Zealand, but these are the forces that are driving real and transformative change for our national radio service.

Recent research by New Zealand On Air revealed some interesting findings about the way in which New Zealanders are using and accessing content. It confirmed that the traditional media forms of linear and live radio still attract the largest audiences in New Zealand, but online audiences are growing fast, especially amongst the younger demographics. The research found that although New Zealanders are not necessarily abandoning one platform for another, we are consuming more content overall from a variety of sources. Digital platforms are playing a bigger part in our lives. Radio New Zealand has already been responsive to these changes and, although there has been a decline in listenership across traditional platforms, over the last 12 months its online audience has grown significantly as its multimedia strategy is implemented.

The number of unique visitors to the Radio New Zealand website is up 64 percent to 600,000 a month. The youth-focused website The Wireless is using the internet and digital media to reach different audiences. Around 30,000 unique users access this site a month—year-on-year growth of 71 percent. Requests for audio via platforms such as iTunes and apps have grown 90 percent in the last year. What this demonstrates is a strong demand for content online as well as the more traditional on air content. Although this shift to multiple platforms is encouraging, there is more work to be done, which is why this bill introduces a new and updated charter for Radio New Zealand.

As outlined earlier, the bill incorporates a revision of the charter to better reflect Radio New Zealand’s role as a modern multimedia organisation. Under section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act, Radio New Zealand’s charter must be reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals. The new charter is incorporated in what will be a new section 8 of the Act as substituted by clause 5 of the bill. Under the revised charter Radio New Zealand is expected to foster a sense of national identity by contributing to tolerance and understanding and by reflecting and promoting ethnic, cultural, and artistic diversity and expression. It is to provide reliable, independent, and freely accessible news and information, a particularly important role in times of crises.

The charter lays out expectations around programming. Radio New Zealand content is to inform and entertain the people of New Zealand, is to be challenging, innovative, and engaging, and is to foster critical thought and inform wide-ranging debate. The content is to be predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand, and to reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, including Māori language and culture. At the same time Radio New Zealand’s programming is expected to provide an awareness of the world and New Zealand’s place in it.

The new charter also affirms Radio New Zealand’s international statutory obligation to provide an international service in both English and Pacific languages to radio stations in the South Pacific. The charter identifies the diverse forms of cultural expression Radio New Zealand should support, including drama, comedy, literature, and the performing arts. Its support of New Zealand music, both in composition and performance, will continue. Radio New Zealand is expected to provide programmes that balance special interest with those of wide appeal, recognising the interests of all age groups.

Finally, having created this tremendously broad range of radio material, Radio New Zealand is charged under the charter with preserving and archiving broadcasting material of historical interest. In 2012 its holdings were transferred to the care of the New Zealand Film Archive, now known as Ngā Taonga Sound & Vision, as part of the Government’s objective of rationalising the care of, and access to, New Zealand’s audiovisual heritage.

The new charter contains a new obligation to take advantage of the most effective means of delivery, including its website. The provision will help make Radio New Zealand technology-neutral so that it can reach audiences beyond the traditional listener at home to those using smartphones and other devices anywhere and anytime.

As an early adopter of new media, Radio New Zealand is now well established as a multi-platform broadcaster, providing flexible listening options for its audiences. For example, in the financial year 2013-14, 3.5 million podcasts were downloaded. Regular users of the Radio New Zealand mobile app grew by almost 62 percent during this time. Radio New Zealand’s website also offers live streaming, a text-based news service, and audio on demand. So although Radio New Zealand has made good progress, updating this legislation is important to enable Radio New Zealand to maximise the public value of content and help it to grow as a multi-platform broadcaster.

I do want to signal that I have been asked by Radio New Zealand to undertake clarification at the Committee of the whole House stage to make clear that although Radio New Zealand services must remain commercial-free, this does not prevent it from taking advantage of opportunities such as, for example, its recent presence on iHeartRadio, which is, of course, in itself a commercial app that includes advertising, or licensing its content for re-use by commercial providers. At the same time changes will also need to be made to the commencement date of the legislation. We will also look to make the research obligations on Radio New Zealand more flexible without reducing its accountability.

In concluding, the new charter affirms the breadth of programmes and services New Zealanders expect from their public radio—services that could not be delivered by a broadcasting business that is wholly reliant on commercial revenue. New Zealanders greatly value Radio New Zealand as one of our most respected and indispensable cultural institutions, and this bill will futureproof it for generations to come. I look forward to further progressing it through the House.

I listened very, very hard to that speech, and I am not sure that we were talking about the same bill. I listened very hard for the words “sorry” and “embarrassed”, but I did not hear them. Did you hear them? I did not hear them. I listened very hard for those words because this could be the bill that has been sitting for the longest time on the Order Paper in the term of this Government, while it has been in power.

The bill was introduced in June 2009—so nearly 6 years ago—and here we have the Minister talking about it as futureproofing and modernising Radio New Zealand. Well, I am not sure how this bill is actually modernising Radio New Zealand, when it is based on a review of the Radio New Zealand charter that was finished in 2006, which is nearly 10 years ago. So if that is the Minister’s idea of modernising, well I think that tells us all something tonight.

Just a little history lesson for the Minister, in case she is not aware of the history of this bill. There was a statutory requirement under section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to incorporate a review of the Radio New Zealand charter every 5 years. As I said, the review was completed in 2006. The legislation appeared in the House in 2009 under this Government, but it sat—it sat—and it has not come back. Tonight is a historic occasion because this bill is finally back before the House.

Of course, Labour supports this bill because it undertakes to fix something that should have been done 6 years ago. The problem we have is that this is not modernising. This bill has actually skipped a review. Actually, there is a legislative requirement for there to be a review every 5 years. Well, there has not been a review for nearly 10 years. It would be interesting in the Committee stage for the Minister to clarify just exactly what that means.

It is now incorporating a review that was done before this Government took office. If that is not incompetence, I do not know what is. If it is not blatant disregard for the importance of Radio New Zealand, then I do not know what is. The Minister says that it is an iconic institution. Well, that Government could have treated it with more respect by passing this legislation 6 years ago instead of leaving it languishing on the Order Paper.

Labour believes in public broadcasting. We have invested in it over a long period of time and we will do so again. New Zealanders need to hear their own voices and their own stories, and we need media that is independent and free of commercial influence. This is not a big ask. Every OECD country has an independent, commercial-free public television broadcaster except New Zealand. We have only Radio New Zealand. Yes, it is iconic. Yes, it is a public treasure. But this Government does not respect it. This Government treats it with blatant disregard.

I want to just refer back to what a former Minister, Tony Ryall, had to say about Radio New Zealand in 1993. He said: “I believe that we should be putting up for tender the provision of a concert programme network and the provision of a national radio network. At present, it costs taxpayers some $20 million to provide those networks, but those services could be provided to an equivalent, if not better, standard by an alternative provider.” His Government still believes this, and the extraordinary amount of time that it has taken to get this legislation back before the House is testament to that.

This Government tolerates Radio New Zealand because it knows that to get rid of it, or to make it commercial, as it did with Television New Zealand (TVNZ), would be a step too far. New Zealanders would not stand for it. So this Government tolerates it. It freezes it. It refuses to be interviewed by it. It treats it with disdain. It is shabby treatment of a national treasure.

The Government has to pass this bill. This is embarrassing for it, and it was embarrassing to hear the Minister get up tonight and talk about modernising Radio New Zealand when there has been a piece of legislation to update the charter sitting on the Order Paper for 6 years. It has to pass this bill, but the real agenda of this Government is to erode public media. That is what it has been steadily doing for the last 6 years.

The legacy of this Government, of the National Government, is frozen Radio New Zealand funding, frozen for 6 years. This is the seventh year that Radio New Zealand has existed under the same funding regime. And the Minister has the gall to say how fabulous she thinks Radio New Zealand is. Well, it needs investment and it needs to be treated with more respect because it is the only public broadcaster that New Zealand has.

New Zealand On Air has had its funding frozen for that same 6 years. This Government abolished the TVNZ charter. It commercialised TVNZ, and that was just confirmed to my colleague Kris Faafoi in a select committee recently where it acknowledged that TVNZ is now a fully commercial operation. It just happens to be owned by the Government. There is no TVNZ public television charter. It is a fully commercial entity.

This Government appointed the Prime Minister’s electorate chair to the board of New Zealand On Air and tried to influence the screening of a documentary on child poverty before the 2011 election. Stephen McElrea—does everybody remember that story? Well, he is still on the board of New Zealand On Air and he is still exerting influence.

The Government gave a loan of $43 million to MediaWorks to bail it out. It sold TVNZ land to Skycity. There has been the debacle around the appointment of the Māori Television chief executive, Paora Maxwell, with links to the Māori Party and to the National Government. There has been the frightening purge of journalists, quality journalists, from Māori Television. There has been an inquiry into Shane Taurima, but a refusal to countenance an inquiry into political interference in Māori Television or New Zealand On Air.

And now, when a show like Campbell Live looks like being axed, all the Prime Minister has to say is that its primary role was entertainment and not to hold the Government to account. Well, that statement tells us a lot, does it not? When the Prime Minister believes that the primary role of New Zealand’s last daily current affairs show is not to hold the Government to account, then we have crossed a line, and that line is democracy.

The bill may pass its second reading tonight, and we may pass this bill. Hopefully, it will not sit on the Order Paper for long until it comes back to the House. We may pass this bill, but under this Government there is no doubt that there is a clear agenda to repress an independent, questioning media, and Radio New Zealand represents that. It is the last bastion of public media in this country. The passage of time in passing this bill is negligent, it is incompetent, and the attitude of this Government to accountability in general through independent, questioning media is an absolute disgrace.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this second reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I must begin my contribution by acknowledging that member who just sat down, Clare Curran. I can understand that she is passionate, and occasionally I think she is actually very passionate about public broadcasting. I actually commend her for that, but for her to mention Shane Taurima when she talks about an apparent conflict of interest—for her to bring Shane Taurima’s name into the debate is probably a big mistake. To think that a Labour Party candidate could run political meetings in Television New Zealand’s public-funded—I am thinking that I will not go there. That member actually brought that up, but I will just leave it at that. If the Labour Party does it, then it is OK. I mean, jeez! That is just such a wrong thing to say. But, as I began, I have to commend Clare. She is very passionate about public broadcasting, and I do agree with her: public broadcasting is a necessary thing in New Zealand.

There are programmes in this country—whether it is radio or television or on other platforms—that actually need the support of the public and need the funding that is necessary, because often they are not able to be done by commercial means. I am very grateful to Radio New Zealand for continuing to broadcast some of the programmes that are on its platform. As the Minister of Broadcasting has said, this institution has been going since 1925, and what this bill actually does is amend the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to bring this old institution from 1925 into the modern age so we can actually futureproof it. As everyone knows, our children do not necessarily watch television. My 16-year-old child does not watch television in real time. He time-shifts. He records on his—

💬 Hon Member: iPad.

No, no, no. It is a Sky remote thingumajig. Sorry, I am sounding so old.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: MY SKY.

MY SKY. That is right. He actually watches it online. I do not think children, teenage children, listen to radio. I listen to radio when I am driving. I do not necessarily listen to a radio at work—

💬 Simon O’Connor: The Edge.

I do not listen to The Edge. I listen to the radio only when I am driving. I do listen to music when I am driving and I do turn on Radio New Zealand when I am driving, as well. You know, the time that you can actually spend driving listening to the radio is not very long, so I tend to go to the iHeartRadio Radio New Zealand app that I have actually downloaded. As the Minister has said, the technology is actually improving so fast that we want Radio New Zealand to be technology-neutral, so that it is not limited to the wireless radio of the past but something that is akin to the modern-day technology, whether it is actually listening on our phones as we are walking to work with our headphones on, or whether we actually do it from our computer, or whether we actually listen to it on radio.

National is committed to delivering Better Public Services. I just want to sort of talk about what Clare said. This has actually “languished”, she said—I quote her—on the Order Paper since 2006. We are a very, very busy Government, but if we go back to 2006 it was the Labour Government. We actually took over at the end of 2008, and, actually, Labour was in Government for 9 years—9 years. Labour members feel so passionately about public broadcasting that they did nothing about it until 2006, when it was reviewed. It actually languished there, and when Labour actually got voted off in 2008—2006 to 2008 is a 2-year gap, and nobody did anything about it. If Clare Curran had been a member of the Labour caucus back then maybe she could have been so passionate within her caucus as to convince the caucus to actually do something about it, but they did nothing. They did not do anything.

But this Government has been busy. We have had the global financial crisis. We have had the Christchurch earthquake. We have actually been a very busy Government, but we are acting. We are coming back to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill.

💬 Brett Hudson: Creating jobs.

We are creating jobs—74,000 jobs a year, to be exact.

I just want to sort of go back to what the Minister actually said about the sense of national identity when it comes to Radio New Zealand. It is very important, because, you know, I was not here in New Zealand back in 1925 when Radio New Zealand began. I was not even here back in 1970-something. I was not even here in the 1980s. I moved to New Zealand and became a New Zealander back in the late 1980s. I have been in New Zealand for nearly 30 years. In that time the New Zealand population has changed drastically. New Zealand is no longer looking to England, thinking: “mother England”. We are actually global citizens, New Zealanders are. You know what? The population composition has changed, and I am very grateful to Radio New Zealand for its Asian Report—I think now it is called Voices. One of my old reporters who used to work on our television programmes on Television One, Asia Dynamic and Asia Downunder, Lynda Chanwai-Earle, does it on Radio New Zealand—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: See, that’s the difference. We’ve got members who’ve done this stuff.

Yes, she has actually done it. Lynda’s actually a very good reporter, and she is actually a very good producer, as well.

The kinds of stories that come out on these programmes are—I think there was one programme she actually did about one of only two commissioned officers of the Royal New Zealand Air Force during the Second World War, who was known as “Willie McWong”; actually he was William Wong of Dunedin. Those kinds of stories actually resonate with me, because they tell the stories of the past. I think these stories must be told. When I was doing television, I was very proud to tell the stories of people like Chew Chong from Taranaki, who was instrumental in the butter export of New Zealand. He was the first man to block butter and think of exporting it to England—mother England. That was the beginning of the dairy industry, and it came from Taranaki and a Chinese man by the name of Chew Chong. There is even a museum about it in Taranaki. What I am actually getting at is the sense of national identity of New Zealand now. As a nation we are a mix of many ethnicities. I am very proud of the work that Radio New Zealand does and I hope it will continue to do so in the multi-platform way that it is able to do.

You know what? As a listener I do not like radio ads. I do not even like television ads. I tend to skip them if I can. Often we actually want, as viewers and as listeners, for Radio New Zealand to produce programmes without commercials. But it does not actually mean that Radio New Zealand should not be thinking in a business sense. It needs to draw more audiences. It needs to be more active in the way that it can actually draw businesses to support its programmes, not just rely on funding. Do you know, when I was producing television, television was very expensive to produce. Radio is too, but I recently went and did an interview with a young man who does podcasting. When podcasting first started I did not even know what it was, but to think that a podcast that is generated from Christchurch has listeners from around the world—that is the modern age of technology, and Radio New Zealand, as an early adopter of technology, has great advances that it can actually make. I actually commend the work that the Minister has done. I commend the work that Radio New Zealand does, and we actually support it. I commend this bill to the House.

Can I just point to some of the opening remarks that the Minister Amy Adams made in her speech, saying that the intent of this bill from the Government, the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, is to make sure that Radio New Zealand is relevant, and futureproofing Radio New Zealand. Futureproofing and keeping Radio New Zealand relevant has been such a priority for this Government that this piece of legislation was referred to the select committee in June 2009, and it has languished on the Order Paper through the 49th Parliament, through the 50th Parliament, and it has got to the stage now where the Government has got hardly anything on the Order Paper, so this massive priority in public broadcasting has all of a sudden found its way back on to the Order Paper and it is getting its second reading. Some of the names on the select committee—some of the members in this House would not even know who they are. It is two Parliaments ago. This is how much of a priority this Government is making over public broadcasting.

Such a priority this Government has made over the last 6 years that it has frozen the budget of Radio New Zealand. Can I just, at this point, make a disclaimer and actually thank Radio New Zealand and the staff of Radio New Zealand for the work that they have done under increasingly tight financial conditions. They, as the Minister has said, are having to tread new waters. The technology is changing, and I will talk about that later, but Radio New Zealand has got to the stage where it has, at a select committee, said it has got to the bone and it cannot make any more cuts. So that is the reality of the priority that this Government has given public broadcasting.

Let me say, as someone who has actually worked in public broadcasting here and overseas—I have not had the pleasure of working for Radio New Zealand—that I do not want Radio New Zealand to be strong purely for political purposes, for the Labour Party. I think Radio New Zealand should be strong because there needs to be an independent journalistic outlet that questions people from all around this House. It should be coming after all of us, regardless of which side of the House we are on. If we have done something wrong, or done something unpopular, then we need independent journalism that will take people like us to task. It is absolutely—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Absolutely.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Judith. She is going to switch her vote and come over with us. This is a done deal.

Having independent media is very important, and we support this bill because it sets out a charter that began its life under a Labour Government. But what has happened over the last 6 years is that, although it is nice to have a charter, the cold, hard reality is that this current Government has starved Radio New Zealand of the funding to be able to do some of the things that are in this piece of legislation. That is one fact. My former employer, Television New Zealand (TVNZ), which probably is not happy with me since I have become a member of Parliament because of the criticism that I have poured on it, has moved from an institution that used to have a charter and a dual remit of being a public broadcaster and a commercial entity to basically becoming purely a commercial entity. I say on the record now that at a select committee hearing not so long ago I asked the chief executive of TVNZ whether it saw itself as a public broadcaster any more. He basically said: “No, we’ve got a mandate to make money. That’s all we care about. That’s what we’re going to do.” On that side of the House that might be OK, but on this side of the House we do care about some of the tenets of public broadcasting, and one of those is making sure that you are a participant and making sure that constituents, or Kiwis, can participate in the democratic process.

I was shocked last week to see a headline in the New Zealand Herald where basically TVNZ said it did not want any part to play in party political broadcasts any more. The New Zealand Herald ran that story, and then on the Friday it ran an editorial saying that it agreed with TVNZ. But the devil was in the detail there, because basically it wanted the money that is spent for those party political broadcasts to be spread far and wide, like to its own newspaper and its own websites. So there is a bit of behind-the-scenes stuff going on there.

But I actually think that TVNZ, as a State broadcaster, and the likes of Radio New Zealand, do have an important part to play in a democratic process, whether that is making sure that constituents, voters, can get the information that they might want in order to make up their minds on who to vote for, or making sure that there is strong journalism in New Zealand. I think that what we are seeing at the moment is that it is a very interesting time in journalism. With the possible cancellation of Campbell Live and with other changes in journalism, things seem to be getting dumbed down. I am a realist as well. MediaWorks is a commercial entity; Radio New Zealand is not, and, also, TVNZ is not. So I think there is an onus on State-owned or public broadcasters to make sure that they are delivering a decent standard of journalism in New Zealand. And because of the way that technology is changing, and we are seeing a lot of merging of media companies at the moment—you will see the New Zealand Herald and RadioWorks come together to make New Zealand Media and Entertainment—the standard of journalism is changing. I think that that is a real threat to democracy in New Zealand and to accuracy, preciseness, in journalism.

So we need to have a standard bearer, and I think that Radio New Zealand, and I hope one day TVNZ in some form of public broadcasting guise, might be able to play this role. But that is not going to be a reality under the current Government, because public broadcasting just simply does not seem to be a priority for it. Let us look at its track record in other areas. TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7, which were set up by the previous Labour Government to make sure that State broadcasting had a space in the digital media, were cut off by Jonathan Coleman, a previous National broadcasting Minister.

I do not hesitate to agree with the Minister that public broadcasters have to change their game. I do not watch much TV either these days. I have got an internet connection; I watch Netflix. I watch what I want to watch and when I want to watch it. But we need to make sure that New Zealand stories are told and are in that sphere, and if we do not have a Government that supports the likes of NZ On Air, supports the likes of TVNZ and local broadcasters and local content producers, and supports Radio New Zealand, then we are going to be in serious danger of having all this content from around the world coming into New Zealand and not having any of our own stories to tell. When I grew up, back in the day, there were lots of New Zealand faces and lots of stories—

💬 Hon Member: Like what?

—it was so long ago—out there, whether it be children’s TV or whether it be documentaries or whether it be factual programmes, as well.

💬 Hon Member: Under the Mountain.

Under the Mountain—no, Terry Teo and things like that, and Video Dispatch, were very important when I was growing up.

But I think that if we are going into this digital age and we do not have a prioritising of New Zealand content, then I think future generations of New Zealanders will miss out. We will not have New Zealand stories on air. We will not hear our voices on the radio. We will get stuff piped in from overseas. Essentially, changes in technology mean bigger pipes and you can get things faster. One of the first things I said last year around the changing technologies around broadcasting was that you can have a bigger pipe, but if you are still sending sewage down it, it is still sewage. Our viewers and our listeners do not want sewage coming in from overseas. We want good stuff—good stuff—that is New Zealand made, is our stories, our own voices, and our own people and our diverse communities in New Zealand, to make sure those stories are being told.

This piece of legislation, in a way, is good, because it started under a Labour Government that said there needed to be a review and a charter for Radio New Zealand. There needs to be a review every 5 years. We have already missed one, and we are likely to have the second miss because of the lateness of this piece of legislation coming through the House.

So it kind of irks me a little bit to hear the Minister over there saying that they want to futureproof Radio New Zealand and make sure it is relevant. If they really cared about it—and let us be honest, and let us cut to the chase, they do not—they would have done this a long time ago, and they would not have cut the budget of Radio New Zealand. They would not have sold off TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7. They would not have made TVNZ purely commercial. But it is quite clear that this Government does not care about public broadcasting.

It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I would like to commend the previous National speaker, Melissa Lee, and Ms Curran for the very clear passion that they both share. They do not share the same views, but they clearly both share the same sort of passion for this topic. Like Mr Faafoi, who has just resumed his seat, I am going to perhaps be a little calmer and more measured in my views on this, lest people observing this wonder whether there is some artificial stimulant in the water. I would just like to reassure them that there is not. This water is homeopathic water. It is merely water diluted by lots of water. It is very powerful stuff.

Minister Adams, when she introduced the bill in this reading, gave some context as to where we have come from to get to what we are preparing for today. This bill is about helping Radio New Zealand adapt to technological possibilities and channels and the opportunities that that creates for today. But looking back gives us some context of where we have come from, and come so quickly. It was in 1925 that we first had a public radio broadcaster. That is 91 years that we have had a public radio broadcaster in New Zealand. That is a phenomenal achievement when you think of it. Of course, none of us were there to witness that first day or those early days, but we can imagine, perhaps from stories in our own families over the generations, what it might have been like—the old wireless technology, valve technology, which had to warm up before it would work, antenna technology, and reception that was not so great so the signal would be difficult to hear. It would cut in and out, but people would cluster, families would cluster, around to hear the news, to be entertained, to learn more about New Zealand, to learn more about the world. They would get up in the middle of the night, as the stories are told, to hear about the All Blacks’ exploits in countries far away, and to hear the passion of commentators as they described the games, described the points, described the tries.

And today we have high-definition video. We have very high-quality audio. We have digital technology for our radio broadcasts, as well. We have not only our traditional airwaves but the internet as a medium for broadcasting audio, video, and, in fact, written content. We have so many other forms of technologies, but at the heart of it, when we are consuming this—and I will refer specifically to Radio New Zealand content, whether it is over the airwaves or over the internet—it is still delivering a broadcast of content that is informing New Zealanders about their communities, their country, the world and our place in it, and the exploits of New Zealanders in cultural events, in sports, in business, and in achievements around the globe. It remains as much of a valuable tool in informing and entertaining Kiwis and their families as it was 91 years ago, but it is, if we give it the support, able to do so by leveraging and harnessing the technological capabilities that are available today. When we look at why this bill is coming to the House, it is around this Government’s commitment to delivering Better Public Services. That includes the continuation of a reliable, independent public radio capability. In fact, we do not want just to continue that capability; we want to expand and protect it for the future, which is why this bill supports Radio New Zealand expanding into new media platforms and adjusting to changing technological environments.

As Minister Adams pointed out, there are two core sets of changes in this amendment. One is a revised charter, and the second is to make Radio New Zealand technology-neutral, although I would use slightly different language there because I would not like to give people the impression that “neutral” in this context is uninteresting or bland. It is quite the opposite. In this case, the technology is about exploiting all of the technological capabilities of the 21st century—so one that will exploit web technology and mobile applications, will stream audio, will stream other content, and will give far more opportunities for Kiwis to be informed.

But let us look first at the Radio New Zealand charter. The charter is a very practical and pragmatic shift, or reinforcement. It makes a stronger statement about Radio New Zealand’s role as a public broadcaster. In fact, in the recent annual review in the Commerce Committee—in that public hearing, Radio New Zealand reaffirmed its commitment to a core free-to-air service and no advertising. It also said—and I take a note, because the members opposite, particularly the previous Labour speaker, Kris Faafoi, talked about how dire the circumstances for Radio New Zealand are. The comment from its chair was that despite difficult circumstances, they, the board, were confident that they would meet their anticipated budget for the next year. This is a business that also has to operate in an environment that is close to global financial crisis. In trying financial circumstances it is delivering more content on more channels to more people, and its people are saying that they can do it, and they will do it again next year. The board, the chief executive officer, and, in fact, the entire team of Radio New Zealand deserve our congratulations.

Importantly, if the charter is reaffirming Radio New Zealand’s role as a public broadcaster and a commercial-free service, the text has been drafted and organised so that it is more accessible to the public. After all, if this is a public broadcast service it does make very good sense that the public should be able to understand the charter, what its intentions are, and how Radio New Zealand will go about delivering that.

I would just like to make a note or two about the select committee process in 2009 when this bill was referred to the Commerce Committee. Unlike 2005, when about 163-odd submissions were heard and, despite all of that public interest, despite the clear interest in the charter revision and the amendment, Labour sat on the bill and did not bother passing it—despite that public interest, no, it clearly felt that light bulbs and low-flow shower heads were far more important to New Zealanders than, actually, their public broadcasting radio service. Well, in 2009 when the bill went before the select committee for a second time there was a single submission that was made, and that submission supported the amendments to the charter. But the select committee did not sit on its hands. It also sought advice from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and from the Clerk of the House of Representatives on whether to propose an amendment that would require Radio New Zealand to broadcast summaries of Parliamentary proceedings.

I can say that that amendment was made in relation to the fact that Radio New Zealand was no longer making those sorts of broadcasts. The Commerce Committee was advised that that was contractually controlled by the Office of the Clerk and, technically, out of the remit of that particular select committee, but that the broadcaster may have no editorial input and that would preclude a contract with Radio New Zealand. Although that is unfortunate for New Zealanders in that it was determined that they probably would not be able to broadcast these proceedings, we can at least celebrate that it was reaffirming Radio New Zealand’s right to exercise editorial control over whatever it is that it is broadcasting. So the bill was recommended back to the House by that select committee without amendment.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: When was that?

That was in two thousand and—yeah, a few years ago.

What I would like to talk about now is the futureproofing part of this bill. What we see here is a change and amendment that will support far more web content: webcasting, audio, video content. But what is really exciting is the launch Radio New Zealand has had of The Wireless, something that is growing at a phenomenal rate and is really connecting with other demographics.

The Green Party supports this bill, and we absolutely support Radio New Zealand and public broadcasting more generally. There is nothing really controversial about the bill itself. I suppose the only comment that we can make is that the Government certainly took a very, very long time to get this bill before the House. It is not a very complex one. I am not sure why it has taken the Government so long, but it was required by statute to have a review of Radio New Zealand’s charter, and that review was undertaken in 2006. It has taken a very, very long time for this bill to come back to its second reading.

The real problem for Radio New Zealand, and for public broadcasting in New Zealand generally, is the fact that it is incredibly underfunded. I think the comments made by Government MPs really gloss over the fact that we have underfunded public broadcasting. There has been a funding freeze since 2008. That effectively means there has been a 10 percent cut to Radio New Zealand since the National Party came into Government. Of course, it would like to say: “Well, that’s great. We’re providing the same great service but we’re spending less money on it.” But it is clear that this is having an impact on the ability of Radio New Zealand to deliver that important service to New Zealanders.

In 2007 there was an independent audit by KPMG that concluded the organisation was already at that time seriously underfunded, understaffed, and under-resourced. It recommended an immediate funding increase of $6.7 million. Instead of that, this National Government has frozen the funding for the 7 years that it is has been in power. That has clearly had an impact. There have been very high-quality journalists who have not been able to be retained because they are not able to receive any sort of increase in salary, despite the fact that costs of living are going up.

We have a bit of a crisis in public broadcasting because, I believe, the National Party members do not really believe in public broadcasting, despite what they say. They do not believe in public broadcasting, they do not really believe in democracy, and you can hear that in their talking points on this bill when they talk about how Radio New Zealand needs to be more like a business. Well, the purpose of public broadcasting is not to be commercially viable. The whole purpose of public broadcasting is to provide what the market is not going to provide, and that is independent journalism, which is essential for citizens in order to have a functioning democracy.

If we look at New Zealand compared with other OECD countries, our level of funding for public broadcasting per capita is abysmally low. It is almost as low as the United States, which is, in fact, the only country in this study that spends less on public broadcasting per capita than New Zealand. I can tell members of this House and those watching on Parliament TV tonight that public broadcasting is virtually non-existent in the United States. It is part of the reason we have such a toxic media environment and such a broken democratic situation in the United States, the country that I come from.

So if we look at other OECD countries and the amount of money that they invest in public broadcasting, because it is so important and critical to democracy, we can see that Australia spends three times as much as New Zealand per capita. The UK spends nearly five times as much per capita. Of course, small countries that are similar in size to New Zealand—for example, Denmark spends significantly more per capita, about 6 times as much as New Zealand. So New Zealand is falling behind and, of course, it is in the interest of this National Government to ensure that there is not an independent, well-funded public broadcaster, because then there will not be anyone there to ensure that the electorate is hearing in-depth analysis and policy debates. That makes it easier for this National Party to get elected when it can rely on superficial branding to get elected and there is no scrutiny of the actual policy that it is implementing.

The Green Party believes in democracy. We believe in properly funded, independent public broadcasting, not only on radio. We would immediately increase funding to Radio New Zealand so that it has a proper budget and we would also ensure that there is proper public broadcasting available on television. We need a non-commercial television station, which has not occurred since we lost TVNZ 6 and 7. Of course, I think we need to go a lot further than that if we want to provide quality content and information. It is not just about news and current affairs, although that is incredibly important and essential to democracy. It is also about entertainment and culture. After all, we do not want our children in New Zealand growing up with accents like mine. It is important for New Zealand to preserve its independent identity and it is valuable, I think, to New Zealanders. I think the National Party is very defensive on this because it knows that its own voters believe in Radio New Zealand and believe in public broadcasting. What it would like to get away with is saying it supports these things but not actually funding them.

The truth is we cannot afford not to have public broadcasting. National would have you believe we do not have enough money for this; that is like saying we do not have enough money for elections. If we want a properly functioning democracy we need a properly funded public broadcaster both on television and on radio, and if the National Party—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: How much would you give them? How much?

—actually supported Radio New Zealand, then the Government would increase the funding by at least the $6.7 million that KPMG recommended, and, probably, at least indexed to the rate of wage inflation.

I will just conclude by saying that the Green Party wants to see a diverse, quality, strong, and independent media that contributes to the maintenance of effective democracy and Aotearoa New Zealand’s social, cultural, economic, and environmental well-being. This National Party understands the cost of many things, but the value of very few. Thank you.

It has been an interesting debate while I have been sitting in the House, particularly the interaction between the Government members and the Labour Party members, trying to figure out who took the longest to get nowhere.

I just want to quote a few statements with regard to this particular bill. This is what has been said previously about this bill: “This bill languished under the last administration, whereas this Government is committed to fulfilling its legislative responsibilities.” It just never got around to doing it. “This is an unfair situation for Radio New Zealand, and it shows that the previous Minister [of Broadcasting] had other priorities. It is highly desirable that the related legislative process be concluded as soon as possible to ensure that Radio New Zealand can operate to an up-to-date and clear public service mandate. The adoption into legislation of the revised charter supports this Government’s manifesto commitment to provide certainty in relation to the operations of public service broadcasters.” Those quotes were from the Minister of Broadcasting at the time, the Hon Dr Coleman, of the National Government, back in 2009.

Members on the Government benches have made much of the fact that the original review around the content of the charter was made in 2005, with 135 submissions at the time, and that the Commerce Committee at that time considered those submissions and then came up with a few tweaks and so on for the charter. It then came back to this House, which then needed to be turned into legislation, which then went back to the Commerce Committee.

So there has been much made by the National Government members in an attempt to override what they knew was going to be a drumming when they came into this House with this bill. The reason why they were going to get a drumming—and they knew it—was that those statements were made in 2009 about how important this piece of legislation was, and they were made by the Minister about how terrible it was that it had been left for 3 years and nothing had happened. And now here we are 6 years later under a National Government looking at the same piece of legislation, which, fascinatingly, even though it has changed almost not a jot since 2009, is now apparently—according to the speakers from the Government benches—going to completely update and modernise Radio New Zealand for the new digital age and for the many media platforms that are available now.

That is a miracle. It is a miracle that when something just sits on the Order Paper for 6 years it suddenly becomes the answer for the future. Maybe we should just leave everything on the Order Paper and then eventually it will morph itself into the future. Well, that would be lovely but you know, like I know, Mr O’Connor, that that is not going to happen.

But let us just take some other quotes. This speaker on this bill said the following: “I commend Dr Coleman for his courage to take action over this bill, a bill that was an example of the Labour Party resting on its laurels and not getting legislation through this House. It is a brave move by Dr Coleman to take this legislation on and move it quickly through the House.” So what happened to that courage, which started in 2009 and now we are here in 2015? What happened—

💬 Chris Bishop: We got busy.

What happened, Mr Bishop? What happened to the courage? Did all the courage leave the House when the members of the original Commerce Committee that looked at this bill left? Is that what happened, Mr Bishop? There is no more courage left to drive such important legislation through this House, and that is why it has spent 6 years sitting on this Order Paper?

It fascinates me that we have had National Party members stand and passionately argue how important—how important—public broadcasting service is for New Zealand. And it absolutely is. New Zealand First absolutely agrees that there must be an independent, non-commercial public broadcaster for New Zealand. We agree and we believe, as the Green Party spokesperson said, that there should be a public broadcasting non-commercial television station. Ms Collins holds her head in her hands—now she sits on the Education and Science Committee. What a shame she was not on the committee when she was a Minister because she would have heard her Government members on that select committee at the time also raving and being very passionate about Learning Media and its opportunity to create digital content in visual and in radio form that would retain the voice of New Zealand across our public service radio. But Miss Collins was not there and now holds her head in her hands in a back seat, backbench position.

Of course, what happened was that this Government on the one hand said that this was a wonderful thing and Learning Media had this opportunity and could keep the New Zealand voice there for New Zealanders. Then the Government drove it out of business by opening Learning Media up to 100 percent competition while at the same time it had its hands tied behind its back with regard to what it had to provide for the Government for free.

So it is fascinating to listen to the Government members stand and argue how much they believe in public broadcasting, and how much they believe that this institution should remain and should be well funded. They have not funded it properly for the last 7 years, but today, after 6 years of this being on the Order Paper—so Radio New Zealand not technically having a legal charter, or at least not a charter that has been reviewed in the modern age, and not increasing its funding in any other way—they have decided that it is incredibly important and that they must push it through.

It will be interesting to see what is in the Budget. Is there any money, Mr Bishop, in the Budget for Radio New Zealand? Is there any money, Mr Bishop? Will you finally give public broadcasting money? After all the statements made, will that Government finally give public broadcasting any more money?

💬 Chris Bishop: Wait and see. It’s a good Budget.

Is that a no, Mr Bishop? Is that a no? Is that a no, Mr Bishop?

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s a good Budget. It’s a good Budget, Tracey.

That is a no. There you go. So, unfortunately, for Radio New Zealand and those people in New Zealand who believe in public broadcasting, do not look to this Government to try to fund it appropriately. They will talk the talk in the middle of night. They will talk the talk, but they will not walk the walk. So do not expect anything inside this Budget.

The only other thing that New Zealand First would say is that it is incredibly important that we keep an independent voice, but is Radio New Zealand currently as independent and informative as it should be for the New Zealand public? I think one needs to go and have a look, and we challenge the broadcaster itself to go and have a look. Is it unbiased in its political reporting, for example? Does it gain comment from across the whole of the political spectrum on issues that are of importance?

We would challenge it to go and have a look at the percentages of its reporting and the percentage of comment that it seeks from political party spokespersons on issues that are of importance—important enough for it to put on the radio station and make programmes about, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It appears to be picking and choosing political parties in order to gain a bias. New Zealand First would argue that there are voices in the political arena that New Zealanders need to hear on issues like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on issues like foreign investment, and on issues that this Government has been trying to push through again and again through a misrepresentation to the New Zealand people.

We would suggest that it is not only timely for this organisation to have its charter passed through here so that it can actually provide comprehensive, independent, accurate, impartial, and balanced regional, national, and international news and current affairs. We would encourage it to seek comment from every political party inside this House on a regular basis and in an apolitical manner.

Do not be frightened of the National Government. Make sure that you keep in the charter comments that are here in the charter. We would absolutely support that this bill needs to be passed now so that Radio New Zealand can actually get on with its business. We also would support that if there are any crumbs left in the Budget, Mr Bishop, perhaps we could throw a few to Radio New Zealand. Otherwise, New Zealand First joins with the other Opposition parties in saying that we actually believe in public broadcasting and we would fund it to the level it should be appropriately funded at.

What a joy to follow that member, Tracey Martin, who has just resumed her seat. Everything from now on has to be better, does it not, really? I mean, for goodness’ sake! Let me take up the cudgels on behalf of Radio New Zealand after that horrible attack from New Zealand First. Radio New Zealand should be able to put on commentary from the politicians whom it wants to hear from, not the ones it is made to hear from—good on Radio New Zealand.

I would like to take up a point that Kris Faafoi made. He said that we had no commitment to Radio New Zealand. Well, actually, I remember 1YA—of course, I was a child at the time—and we had this fabulous programme on Sunday mornings called Flick the Little Fire Engine. That was Radio New Zealand when I was growing up, and I think it is still on, actually, in some parts. It is the same programme over and over again, which is pretty fantastic—it is called recycling. But, really, we have $35 million worth of taxpayer money of commitment—

💬 Simon O’Connor: How much?

$35 million every year going to Radio New Zealand. If I tell you how much taxpayer money goes to Newstalk ZB—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Zero.

Zero. How much goes to Radio Live? Hmm—zero. How much goes to Radio Hauraki? Zero. How much goes to Classic Hits? Zero. How much goes to the Breeze—my favourite station, personally, because it plays good music when I am driving? Zero. That is it—zero—and yet we have $35 million a year of taxpayer money going to Radio New Zealand. I think that is money well spent, myself. I just love being interviewed by Mary Wilson on Checkpoint. Nothing gets better than that. There is nothing like that, with the sort of rabid interviewer coming down through the line, ripping your heart out—fantastic stuff. Then there is Morning Report—unfairly, I think, referred to occasionally as “Moaning Report”. That is very unfair, because I actually really enjoy listening to Susie Ferguson and Guyon Espiner. I challenge New Zealand First—and Tracey Martin, the deputy leader—to come up with one reason why they would want to interview New Zealand First.

Radio New Zealand has a very balanced view. It is not always fond of the Government, especially when it is us. But, having said that, I still think Radio New Zealand is in a really good place to be. They are, in fact, the people who do not have to get advertising to pay their wages, unlike every other radio station with whom they compete. They have an obligation to produce something that we expect, which is sound, balanced radio. Occasionally they get it wrong. I was listening to The Panel one day just last week when that lovely Jim Mora, whom I am very fond of, had on that lady—you know, she is the one who does those baking soda cleansers. She was commenting—I have no idea why—along with somebody else, similarly left wing. They were commenting in a really balanced way: all left. I thought: “Well, isn’t that great?”. I thought that, actually, the public can listen to this and they will make up their own minds. But do you know what? Radio New Zealand, apart from all that—and we all have our little sorts of things about it—I actually think generally does a really good job.

Kris Faafoi said we are not interested in public broadcasting. Well, yes, we are. He also wondered why Television New Zealand does not want to run all these TV political ads at election time. I will tell you why. Mostly, they are really boring; mostly, they really are. When Mr Assistant Speaker and I were growing up—well, he was growing up a lot earlier than me, I have to say—there was not any choice. People, basically, were chained to the TV—the one station, and at one stage, the two stations—waiting for the little kiwi to come out at about 9.30 p.m. to tell us to go to bed. That is what it was like. I know Dr Megan Woods is looking at this and saying: “Is this true?”. It was. Worse than that, it was in black and white. That is actually what we used to have with our public broadcasting dollar.

But let us just wonder this: why do we have public broadcasting? Actually we had it, to start with, because there was no commercial interest or ability to bring it about. But I think it has actually won a place in people’s hearts. Where else is one going to learn about bird calls, other than Radio New Zealand? That is a good thing. Should you wake up at 5 o’clock in the morning, for some strange reason, and need to go back to sleep, what else are you going to do? Turn on Radio New Zealand at 5 o’clock in the morning and you will go back to sleep. It is fantastic. But I am digressing. The fact is that Radio New Zealand has $35 million of taxpayer money every single year. That is $35 million more than every other radio station that it competes with. I actually think that is quite a good deal, frankly. If I were Radio New Zealand I would be pretty pleased with that.

I would also like to say that I actually think Radio New Zealand has really improved its performance around communicating with, and making itself accessible to, the public. As we have heard, from all the speakers tonight, everyone is saying they have things like Netflix and stuff like that. Well, actually, I do not. I generally try to watch some television—normally not the news, because it is always a bit dull and depressing; I actually like seeing ordinary TV, occasionally. But do you know what? We have so much more choice nowadays. So many of the Radio New Zealand programmes are really good. If you cannot listen to them at the time, then you can listen to them on the internet later on. It has a very good service on the internet, so that it is very quickly available. If you want to go and check your interview, what has happened, what is going on with something, or what the bird call was for today, it is actually available, and I think that is important. That is no different, by the way, from the commercial stations with which they compete.

But I will say Radio New Zealand has certain obligations. For instance, its leaders come to our Commerce Committee and report to us every year on their annual review. They come to us to talk about what they have done with the $35 million that they get every year—more than every other radio station and broadcaster. They tell us what they are doing. I was really pleased this year to be able to say to the Radio New Zealand board, when they turned up with the chief executive, that I think they are doing a great job. I know it is a lot of money. It is actually a huge amount of money. But having said that, Radio New Zealand is something that a lot of people listen to. I am one of those people who listen to it during the day if I have a chance to. But, then again, I also listen to Newstalk ZB.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.