Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

Well, 6 years it has taken for this modernisation and futureproofing bill to come before the Committee—6 years; 6 long years. In the debate on the second reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill there was much discussion about the importance of Radio New Zealand National and how much we all valued it. But it took this Government 6 years to get this piece of legislation to this point of the debate in Parliament.

The review of the charter is supposed to be conducted every 5 years. As a result of the 6 years that this legislation has been sitting on the Order Paper, it has actually skipped a review. And so my first question tonight to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Amy Adams, is, in her, hopefully, comprehensive contributions on this bill, to ask for some clarity to be given to the Committee on what the legal status is of the Radio New Zealand charter, given that it has actually skipped a review that should have taken place some time within the last 6 years. Instead, we are now voting on legislation from a review of the charter from back in, I think, 2006—it might have even been 2005. So that is the first question that I have got for the Minister in the chair tonight, because I am sure she will have received some advice from officials.

However, there is no doubt that this bill is worthy of support, and Labour has supported it because of the importance of Radio New Zealand National and the Radio New Zealand charter. We believe, though, that the Government should be highly embarrassed for treating this bill and calling it a modernisation and futureproofing bill. We note that there is a Supplementary Order Paper before the Committee tonight. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it, but, ultimately, the fact that it has taken 6 years to get this bill back to the House shows the disrespect for Radio New Zealand, the fundamental disrespect for Radio New Zealand and the disrespect that this Government has for public broadcasting generally. We believe that that is just another example of the arrogant and out-of-touch nature of this Government.

It was 3 years ago this week, actually—the Committee might be interested to know, and certainly the people listening at home will be interested to know—that New Zealand’s only attempt at a true non-commercial public television broadcaster, TVNZ 7, got the chop. That was shut down due to the National Government’s refusal to continue its funding. TVNZ 7 was the brainchild of the former Clark Labour Government—and it made an extremely good fist of managing, with a reasonably small amount of funding, to bring us many jewels of programmes. However, the Government, as soon as it could, decided that it was going to discontinue that and give it the axe, and it did. Around that same time, the Government was under fire because it gave a $43 million handout to MediaWorks. It came under a lot of criticism for that. That was around the same time that it was axing the only public television broadcaster—the point of this is the attitude in general that this Government has to public broadcasting.

At the same time—around that time, if a little bit earlier than that—New Zealand On Air had been embroiled in a big controversy because of the appointment and the behaviour of one of its board members, who happened to be the Prime Minister’s electorate secretary, Stephen McElrea. He had questioned the timing of a New Zealand On Air - funded documentary, Inside Child Poverty, which was broadcast just 4 days before the 2011 election. Fast-forward 3 years, and there are now allegations of editorial and political interference swirling around Māori Television, the behaviour of the chief executive, and the impact on the current affairs programme Native Affairs.

Meanwhile, Radio New Zealand, New Zealand On Air, and Māori Television have endured—endured—a 7-year funding freeze, with the inevitable shrinking of New Zealand - made quality content. What is the impact of that? It is a huge impact. Here we have a bill that has taken 6 years to get before this Committee, 6 years to reform, review, and look at how its charter can be improved. That charter, and the improvements to that charter, we have no issue with; we have no problem with. We support the bill. What we do have an issue with is the way that the Government treats public broadcasting in general. It treats it with disdain and disrespect, and we ask how long—how long—can Radio New Zealand continue on under its current funding regime and still provide the quality service that it does?

A few months ago its own chair said in the select committee, in response to a question from me about the possible cuts as a result of the funding freeze, which is, essentially, a 25 percent funding cut over the last 7 years, “Clare, you’re right. The impact of inflation has eroded the purchasing power, but we are getting to the point where those limited rations are getting more difficult to handle. And I am quite happy to go on the record on that.”

That was the chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Come back to the charter.

In relation to this bill, which is about the supposed modernisation and futureproofing of Radio New Zealand, the Minister of Broadcasting has Supplementary Order Paper 94 on the Table. Before I talk to that I am hoping that she will get up and explain to the Committee what lies behind that. Labour has also got three amendments on the Table tonight as amendments to that Supplementary Order Paper, which we will talk to during this debate. We hope that that will be a constructive discussion. We support the Supplementary Order Paper as being the only indication that we have seen in the last 6 years of a desire by this Government to actually show that it is about modernising and futureproofing Radio New Zealand.

We have got just a few concerns with some of the clauses in that amendment and how they can be interpreted, and that is why we have put up some suggestions for some amendments to that Supplementary Order Paper. In general we support this bill. We think that Radio New Zealand is one of our most treasured parts of our broadcasting environment, and we think that the vast majority of New Zealanders support it. It has very high listenership and support in the community, and that is due to the fact that it is commercial-free, that it puts the public interest first, and that the people who work and create the content for Radio New Zealand are absolutely committed to telling New Zealand stories and to doing it in a way that is providing a high degree of editorial integrity and high-quality standards. We heartily support that and put on record our support for Radio New Zealand and all that it stands for.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I just want to take a quick call on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. There is no reason why not.

It has taken a long time to get here. If I look at my notes, the review began in 2005. It was completed in 2006, but it did not result in legislation during that Government’s term. It resulted in a review in 2009. It is now 2015. There you go.

There is Supplementary Order Paper 94 now on the Table with regard to this bill. New Zealand First, again, will support the Supplementary Order Paper. We think it makes sense. We did check with the Minister of Broadcasting’s office earlier this morning about this Supplementary Order Paper. It allows Radio New Zealand, once it has broadcast its main programming with taxpayers’ dollars and it has broadcast it free and commercial-free for the benefit of all New Zealanders, to sell it to, let us say, America or somewhere that wants to pick up that programme. We think that Radio New Zealand should quite rightly have the opportunity to sell it to them. We do not think that New Zealand taxpayers should subsidise the American radio market.

However, we did want to make sure that it did not affect in any way, shape, or form Radio New Zealand’s delivery to the Pacific. We just wanted to make sure that there was no way that that was going to commercialise or interrupt the supports that Radio New Zealand is required to do and is doing into the Pacific. We were assured by the Minister’s office—I have it in writing, so I will use it if I need to—that it does not do that.

All in all, it is time. It is time to pass the bill. It is time to get on with it. It is time to give Radio New Zealand the charter that it needs and the direction that it needs. It probably needs more money. I will just go as far as that, Minister. Perhaps we can look at that next year. But all in all, there is no reason to hold up the legislation. New Zealand First will support it. Kia ora.

I thought the House had not had enough of my dulcet tones tonight, so I thought I would take a call on this Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I do want to point to new section 8, which sets out the charter for Radio New Zealand as we know it.

New subsection (1) says it must be an independent and commercial-free public service broadcaster, new subsection (2) says that it has to have freedom of thought and expression around the foundations of a democratic society, and new subsection (3) says that it fosters a sense of national identity. I think they are very laudable principles to have as a public broadcaster. They should be defended at every opportunity, and not just from anything that is a real risk. So if there is a risk of lack of—

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come to report progress to the House.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill with amendment, the Standards and Accreditation Bill with amendment, and progress on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.