Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

Members, we turn now to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this bill, leave had been granted for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purpose of debate. Kris Faafoi had the call and he has 4 minutes and 12 seconds remaining should he wish to avail himself of that opportunity.

I will avail myself of the opportunity to complete the speech that I began on 1 July 2015. I guess that shows you the priority that the current Government has given public broadcasting. I will come back to the background to the bill, which will outline a pretty sorry tale of neglect and delay from the Government. Because we are taking all parts as one question, I did want to take the opportunity to point out that broadcasting, Radio New Zealand, and how we get news out to people has changed considerably.

A sign of that happened in the very suburb I live in, Tītahi Bay, this morning, where the mast that once carried the radio signal of Radio New Zealand out to New Zealand and further afield was felled. It has been up there for decades and is part of the landscape in my neck of the woods. Now it is no longer because at 9 o’clock this morning someone pushed the button, some explosives went off, and the radio mast that once stood there proudly as a beacon for all the locals to know exactly where they were at a particular time of night is no longer there. I guess that is a real signal that happened today that broadcasting as we know it has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. I think that is why there has been some disappointment on this side of Chamber as to the delay of the passage of this piece of legislation through the House.

A part of this legislation ensures that there is a 5-yearly review of Radio New Zealand, its functions, and its operations. One of those reviews was to happen in 2010, but that review has not happened because this piece of legislation has languished on the Order Paper. If you do the maths, you will see that another review of Radio New Zealand, its operations, and its functions should have happened by rights about this time or late last year, but that also has not happened.

So that is the sorry tale of public broadcasting under this current Government. I think it shows just another example of its delay and neglect of public broadcasting when you put it into the context of what used to be and what is now no longer. I am pointing towards TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7, which were the two digital channels that were started up by our other supposed State broadcaster, Television New Zealand (TVNZ), back in my days at TVNZ actually. I think it was 2008 that those channels were started.

TVNZ 6 was a real loss because of the content it had for our children. It was free to air. It had mostly New Zealand content, of a New Zealand feel. It was educational, it gave our children a sense of what it was to be a New Zealander at a young age, and it had good content. But, unfortunately, because of the overall attitude of the Government, that has gone and we are debating the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, which has been delayed.

I look to the quite substantive Supplementary Order Paper in name of the Minister Amy Adams—Supplementary Order Paper 94. The first substantive note in its explanatory note mentions the change in the commencement date: “Clause 2 is amended to substitute a new commencement as the date in the clause has passed.” So there you have it. The first lines of the explanatory note within Supplementary Order Paper 94, which the Minister has put forward, admit that the commencement date has passed. It has not just passed, though; it has passed by a good 5½ years, which, I think, is a reflection of the Government’s priority around public broadcasting.

I did want to point to what I think is a substantive provision within Supplementary Order Paper 94, and that is the inserting of new section 8AB, in clause 5. That is around commercial-free broadcasting. I will take the liberty of reading this just so that those at home, either listening or watching, or watching this on the internet later, can be fully aware of what I am talking about. New section 8AB says that “(1) The public radio company”—and that is Radio New Zealand or RNZ, as we know it now—“must, in fulfilling its Charter, provide its services in a commercial-free manner.” But it can offer some commercial services “(3) … if the provision of the service or services—(a) is consistent with its role as a public broadcaster; and (b) does not impact adversely on the provision of its services under its Charter;”.

It also allows Radio New Zealand, or RNZ as we know it now, to provide: “(4)(a) … media services to countries outside New Zealand, other than Radio New Zealand International or any radio services that might replace, in whole or in part, Radio New Zealand International:”. That is essentially saying that RNZ, as we know it now, can provide content to overseas broadcasters and it does not matter whether or not there are commercials on that broadcaster. It is very similar to the set-up that they have got with the BBC, which I also have some knowledge of working for. BBC World News, which we watch to get our international news, is a commercial arm of the BBC. It is allowed to sell advertising, but you will not see that content within the UK, because the BBC in its purest form in the UK is non-commercial. But there is a revenue stream allowed to be had with BBC World News, which I used to work for.

There is a good side and a bad side to this. It is good in that it opens up another revenue stream for Radio New Zealand to get funds to be able to do more of the things that we would like to see. But there is a tension on this side of the Chamber over the fact that for the last 8 years we have seen a funding freeze at Radio New Zealand, and that has affected its ability to do its core services. At the select committee, when asked about that by our broadcasting spokesperson Clare Curran, the board chair and the chief executive have been quite frank about the fact that they have been under extreme pressure to deliver their services under the frozen budget.

I will take this opportunity to directly quote them, because I do not want to quote them wrong. This was at the annual review of Radio New Zealand with the Commerce Committee. The board chair, I believe, said: “I’d say our financials are as healthy as they possibly could be under the circumstances of a budget that hasn’t been increased, in terms of Government financing,”. I think they were being a little bit polite there. They went on to say to Clare Curran: “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’m quite happy to go on the record about that.” That was someone in a management position talking about delivering those core functions, which are in this Supplementary Order Paper—delivering good news services and good content to New Zealanders. That person is worried that his ability to do that is constrained by the fact that the Government has frozen Radio New Zealand’s budget for the last 8 years.

I would ask that the Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, at some stage elaborate about how the Government is going to help Radio New Zealand achieve some of the objectives within this amended legislation when that budget has been frozen. I think that is a serious challenge that the Government has put itself under. Although it has aspirations to have a strong public broadcaster, it certainly has not backed up those aspirations with the taxpayers’ ability to fund Radio New Zealand.

I do praise Radio New Zealand for opening up another revenue stream by using commercial means to do that. Most public broadcasters around the world do that. But I think it would also show a decent amount of commitment from the Government itself if it backed up its aspirations for RNZ, or Radio New Zealand, or however you want to describe it, with actual funding that helped meet—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I would just ask the member—because he has travelled widely on this particular aspect, which is not part of the bill in front of him. Can he now bring himself—now he has been given some latitude—to come back to what is in front of him.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I am not going to question that ruling, but I think, because this is a wide-ranging debate on all sections, I was allowed some latitude on this issue.

There has been a lack of reviews over the last 8 years. If there has not been a review in 2010 and there has not been a review in 2015 and this piece of legislation implements a review every 5 years, I would ask that the Government commit in this process to making sure that there is more than just a standard review at its next opportunity—and I hope the Government will take the next available opportunity to have a broad review of Radio New Zealand. I would ask that the Government take a really good look at the functions and the operations and, if I may say, the funding of New Zealand. We are now two reviews out. The public and Radio New Zealand have deserved two reviews of its functions, in 2010 and 2015, but because of this Government’s inability to get this piece of legislation through, we have not got there.

Kia ora. I just want to take a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First. I want to correct the member Kris Faafoi with regard to the starting date of this bill. It was introduced on 2 June 2009, it had its first reading on 24 June 2009, and it was reported back by the Commerce Committee on 16 December 2009. So the first stage went through very quickly. Submissions were gained by the Commerce Committee, which did its job well. So it was on 16 December 2009 that the select committee reported back this bill. The second reading was on 19 May 2015, and we are in the Committee of the whole House now, which started on 1 July 2015—2015.

So one has to ask oneself what on earth is inside this bill that makes the Government drag its heels in this way so this bill, which looks innocuous—it sets a review and a charter for Radio New Zealand about how it delivers public broadcasting to New Zealanders. From a New Zealand First perspective, we would welcome a review. We would welcome the charter being finally put down by this Government so a review can take place, so that Radio New Zealand can answer the question of why New Zealand First does not get as much air time as, say, the Greens or the National Party.

But that is not the point here tonight. The point here tonight is, why is it that this Government is taking so long with this piece of legislation? It sets in place a charter, a direction, a statement for Radio New Zealand and, quite rightly, Mr Faafoi pointed out that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers put in a very logical, a very reasonable, a very smart opportunity, one may say—the Hon Amy Adams is the Minister and we know she is a smart woman; we know she is a woman who has her head screwed on. She has put in a smart opportunity there for this public broadcaster not to make money from the citizens who pay for it with their taxes, not to make money from the Pacific Islands, to which we actually provide a service, but to make money on the standards of programmes that New Zealand makes that are unique and that can be sold into America or the United Kingdom—smart, smart, smart, because she is a smart woman.

Why do we not pass it? Why do we not push this through tonight, all the way through—pass the third reading? The Government has the ability to do it. It has put this bill on the Order Paper, again and again and again, at the end of the Order Paper, just to drag it that little bit more. One suspects it is because, should a review be done, they will have absolute proof that Radio New Zealand is being starved for funds.

What it has, should this bill go through and an actual review be done, should a charter be in place—this Government will have to fund public broadcasting as it should be funded, and that is what this Government is afraid of. That is why this bill has dragged on and dragged on and dragged on, and I guarantee you this Government will not push it through in the next couple of weeks, either.

That is my contribution. New Zealand First would like to see this piece of legislation pushed through this House. Give Radio New Zealand a charter. Give Radio New Zealand the funding to do the job it wants to do. Stop hacking away at public broadcasting. Let us review what Radio New Zealand does. Let us make sure that it realises it is in an MMP environment, and give all political parties the appropriate percentage of representation. Let us get on with it.

Well, hear, hear to that from the Labour Party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): It was not the Labour Party, either. It was New Zealand First.

Well, golly, golly, is all I can say. Golly, which is not a swear word in Parliament. But, ultimately, the passage of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill through the Chamber is a bit of a travesty and a serious embarrassment to this Government. It has been said so on numerous occasions by members on this side of the Chamber. The Government seems impervious to that, and, I suppose, the conclusion that one can draw is that the National Government of New Zealand is not committed to Radio New Zealand and certainly not to public broadcasting in this country.

What is public broadcasting? It is the ability of New Zealanders to have their voices reflected back to them and to have good analysis and debate in a way that is impartial and is not coloured by commercial interests. Unfortunately, in this country that is almost out the door. Radio New Zealand is the last bastion of that, and it is clearly not valued by this Government.

I want to address my comments specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 94 by the Minister of Broadcasting, which is a relatively comprehensive Supplementary Order Paper, which was tabled in the House without the ability for a select committee to have a discussion, for there to be any debate, for there to be any submissions. Labour supports the Supplementary Order Paper, but it is quite comprehensive, and it disturbs me that such a comprehensive amendment to a piece of legislation that has sat on the Order Paper, essentially since 2009, can go through this House with comprehensive amendment without the ability to have a debate, have some discussion about it, and even for the Minister to comment. I have got some specific questions tonight for the Minister, which I expect to be answered during the course of this Committee stage. If they are not answered, then this Parliament is a joke. And the way that our system operates, there is no ability to have questions answered and for matters to be properly canvassed, especially matters that go to the core of how our democracy operates, and broadcasting is an essential plank of our democracy, even though the members on the other side of the Chamber may not agree with that.

The Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Amy Adams is, as I said, supported by Labour. We do not believe that this amendment will fundamentally weaken the existing charter, which is at the guts of this bill. What it does—and it does something that is new, and when the Minister spoke in the second reading she talked about modernising Radio New Zealand—is make provision for multi-platform provisions and for the generation of new content-related revenue streams overseas. A lot of New Zealanders now are watching content on their devices, or through their televisions using smart TVs or Chromecast or whatever apparatus they are buying from their providers. Ultra-fast broadband is actually improving people’s access, improving the speed and the ability to download and access content.

Radio New Zealand is doing its best, and I would like to give it that credit tonight—absolutely. It is doing its best to keep up and to provide those platforms. The big issue is that it is trying to do it within the existing funding envelope, which has been frozen since 2009, and that has ultimately taken it backwards in its budget by 25 percent. It is probably more than that, and it is time I did another calculation. What the Supplementary Order Paper does is update. It updates dealing with new platforms. What it does not do—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): This is the fourth and final call.

Thank you. What it does not do is empower Radio New Zealand to extend its operations on to new platforms and find opportunities to commercialise its content overseas, and that is because of that frozen budget. That is a really important point tonight for everybody listening to this. They may be listening through Radio New Zealand. They may be watching on Parliament TV, which is another small expression of public broadcasting in this country. There is no new money, so what Radio New Zealand is trying to do with its new platforms is do it within its existing envelope.

I have three amendments—if anybody on other side of the Chamber has bothered to pay attention to this—that try to clarify what the Minister’s intention actually was. We have serious questions about a couple of things, and I just want to touch on them. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of new section 8AB(3) inserted by clause 5 create boundaries around the services that the public radio company may provide but do not state who is to determine whether any proposed service is consistent with its role as a public broadcaster. That is absolutely critical. Is it the Minister? Who is the determiner? Is it the Minister? The Supplementary Order Paper is absent on this matter, and because there has been no select committee process and no chance to question officials, we want the Minister to tell us who makes that decision. If it is to be the Minister of Broadcasting, there need to be safeguards, and they are in my first amendment, which determines basically that if it is the Minister of Broadcasting, there have to be safeguards around that. This is absolutely critical as conflict of interest issues are at stake here for New Zealand. If it is not to be the Minister and it is to be the board, then there also have to be safeguards around that. We have another amendment, which goes to the heart of that. I request that the Minister of Broadcasting during the Committee stage on this bill actually answer those questions, otherwise we are passing a piece of legislation that is neglecting to answer some fundamental questions. We need those answers.

The other issue that people listening at home need to know about is that Radio New Zealand’s budget is frozen. Its ability to enact what is in this legislation, this Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has put forward, is severely compromised by its frozen funding. It is doing a laudable job of creating new platforms through the internet and using all the mediums that it possibly can to deliver news, but it is being deliberately starved. Its news budget is compromised. In order to build these new platforms in order to provide these new services it is compromising the existing budget. New Zealanders who love Radio New Zealand, who have thought of it as a treasure, a taonga, for our country in every survey that has ever been done, ought to be asking and need to have answered the questions as to why Radio New Zealand is in this situation and just what is going to be done about it.

Although Labour supports the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has put before the Committee, we have our own three amendments, which I am asking the Committee tonight to support. Labour’s amendments provide some clarity around the powers of either the board or the Minister in determining how those decisions get made. We need those answers. In the meantime Radio New Zealand is continuing. It is one of those organisations that we should really give a great big tick to in terms of how it does manage the limited budget it has. It has attempted to do that for more than 7 years. The Minister needs to answer those questions tonight.

I call Kris—sorry; I call Gareth Hughes.

💬 Kris Faafoi: I think you were nearly there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I was nearly there until I noticed Mr Hughes had not had a call.

I do not think you can call for a third umpire, Mr Faafoi, though it probably would be useful to have a third umpire sometimes in this Chamber. Mr Chair, kia ora, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise to support this bill, the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill.

I have been reflecting since the original review this legislation comes from, all the way back in 2006, on what changes we have seen at Radio New Zealand. The first one, of course, is that it is not called Radio New Zealand. It is now “RNZ”. We have seen some innovative new online content platforms, such as The Wireless. Of course, we have lost old Geoff and Sean on Morning Report but we have gained a Guyon and a Susie. We have seen a new Checkpoint streaming live to the internet and interviews being now conducted by Skype, not just in the Auckland or Wellington or Dunedin studios. Despite all those changes since the Radio New Zealand review way back in 2006, one thing is the same and that is the bird, every morning on Morning Report, which is fantastic to see.

This is entirely a non-controversial bill. The subject matter, at its heart, is incredibly important, and that is public broadcasting. It is something that the Green Party on this side of the Chamber—judging by the speeches I have heard in the Chamber tonight previously from Kris Faafoi, Clare Curran, and Tracey Martin—takes incredibly seriously. It is important to our culture, to our citizenship, and to our democracy, so the Green Party supports public broadcasting.

The changes to the charter are not bringing great change; you could say they are modernising. But I would like to touch on a point, which is the speed and the urgency with which the Government has moved this legislation through the House. As I have referred to, the review was in 2006 and legislation was not introduced until 2009, and here we are, 10 years after the 5-yearly review, and we are finally getting around to the Committee stage. We are not even at the third reading.

My question to the Government and to the Minister of Broadcasting is: is the speed and haste with which the Government is addressing this legislation symptomatic of the Government’s view towards public broadcasting? If you are taking it seriously, why have you acted so slowly? If you take it seriously, why has there been a funding freeze for 6 years? If you are taking it so seriously, why do you not listen to the KPMG report that said we had seen a funding cut requiring an additional $6.7 million just for Radio New Zealand to stay where it is, and what we have seen is a funding cut in real terms of more than 9 percent?

You have to ask whether the Government takes public broadcasting seriously when we see channels like TVNZ 7 being cut. This side of Chamber takes public broadcasting seriously, and my challenge to the Government is that if it takes it seriously, let us move with some haste. Let us put some adequate funding in so the excellent work that happens at Radio New Zealand, including Radio New Zealand Concert, etc., can continue and thrive in 2016.

I would like to make a couple of quick points on the amendments. I would like to acknowledge and thank the member Clare Curran for her constructive clarification amendments. The Green Party will be supporting the Government’s amendments. They in fact relate to my substantive point, which is regarding the slow lethargy in which the Government has approached passing this legislation.

One of the main amendments in the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 94 inserts new section 8AB, which deals with providing media services outside New Zealand on, for example, paid content services, stating that as long as the services are still in a commercial-free manner they can be then subsequently replayed, broadcast, or onsold to what are, essentially, commercial stations. We support that.

Why I say it is symptomatic of the lethargy—the point is that the Government has had to play catch up. The world is changing. We are seeing it with the content review currently being undertaken by Minister Adams. The Government is trying to play catch up with the new technologies, the new types of services, and the new role that Radio New Zealand is expected to play in 2016. The Green Party will be supporting the amendment, because it is pretty common-sense. The amendment to clause 2, of course, has to change the commencement date. The Government has taken so long to get this bill in front of the Committee that it has had to go amend the commencement date, because, of course, it has expired. The Green Party supports this common-sense law.

The Green Party supports the common-sense Supplementary Order Papers, but the important point for the Green Party is that we will prioritise public broadcasting. We believe it is the bedrock, the foundation of our democracy, of New Zealanders’ right to access information, to hear our stories, to see our culture, in all the various forms, on air and online.

As a last quick point, I would also like to acknowledge—I will be very brief, because my last point is around acknowledging the recent Māori radio networks’ call and analysis of Māori content on Radio New Zealand. When you look at the data—this is only over a small time period—it is incredibly small, so I believe that is a challenge to Radio New Zealand to make sure that all New Zealanders and all cultures’ voices are reflected, in particular the first people of New Zealand, tangata whenua. I hope Radio New Zealand can take those lessons and that analysis on board. Kia ora.

I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. As my colleague Gareth Hughes has just said, it has had a glacial run through the House, as the Government has thought carefully and considered whether or not it still wants Radio New Zealand. It had that conversation inside the caucus. I am sure there would have been a few National Party caucus members probably arguing to say we should hock off Radio New Zealand, but they managed to get themselves through that and finally get themselves back to—Chris Bishop is laughing, in that way that people laugh when they go: “Uh-oh! He knows. He’s worked it out.” I am sure that once upon a time Chris Bishop would have been in the group of National Party MPs and supporters who used to call Radio New Zealand “Radio Labour” or “Radio Moscow”—we heard that, too, coming out from National Party members.

💬 Chris Bishop: I love RNZ.

Oh, he loves it. He is even calling it by the right name. Well done—RNZ.

I want to say at the outset that I probably represent the electorate most closely affiliated with Radio New Zealand, Wellington Central. We have, actually, over the course of this bill’s life—I have run two separate public meetings on the future of Radio New Zealand. They have been well-attended, and there has been a very strong spirit of support for Radio New Zealand. At one of those meetings the chief executive, Paul Thompson, attended, and I do want to give him credit for having got out there and talked to New Zealanders about the future of Radio New Zealand and about how it is going to continue to adapt to the changing media environment. I want to echo the comments that other speakers have made that, in the circumstances, Radio New Zealand has done incredibly well at diversifying its delivery platforms, at taking on new technology, and at keeping up an incredibly good service for New Zealanders as a public broadcaster. It deserves huge congratulations for that. It has been innovative and it has stuck to its mandate to be a public broadcaster.

But we cannot look at this bill, at the principles of operation of the bill, at Radio New Zealand, and at the charter of Radio New Zealand without reflecting on the financial circumstances it finds itself in today. I became a member of Parliament in 2008—

💬 Chris Bishop: Fine year, very fine year.

A very good year it was to become a member of Parliament. Between then and now, my salary has gone up by around about 20 percent.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Phew!

Give or take—I know, it is a tough thing to say, Mr Chairman, but it has. We have been very well served here. In that period of time, Radio New Zealand’s funding has frozen. It has not had a single extra cent in that time. It has not had the recognition that costs have increased. All sorts of costs have increased for Radio New Zealand, ranging from salaries through to the technical specifications of its equipment through to the programmes that it buys in from overseas. There has been not a single extra dime from this Government to support the public broadcaster for New Zealand.

So if we look at clause 8A, we have got the “Principles of operation—(1) The public radio company must, in fulfilling its Charter, exhibit a sense of social responsibility by—(a) having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates; and (b) endeavouring to accommodate or encourage those interests when able to do so.” How can Radio New Zealand fulfil that mandate when this Government has frozen the funding? It cannot.

If you look at the first of those points—clause 8A(1)(a), “having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates;”—when I grew up in the city of Dunedin and I was an annoying student politician, there were three Radio New Zealand reporters who covered what happened in Dunedin. Today there is one person covering Otago and Southland. If there is what is called a “major” in the news business, which is usually a crime, and it happens to be in Invercargill or Tuatāpere or somewhere, that is it for the rest of the region, for that person, for the rest of that week. There is nobody else there.

This piece of legislation uses an important word about Radio New Zealand. It says it “must” do those things I just read out in fulfilling its charter. It is not an option. This Parliament is not saying to Radio New Zealand: “Kind of do it if you can.” It is saying: “You must fulfil these things if you’re to be a public broadcaster.” How do members opposite expect Radio New Zealand to do that? Well, we want them to have a choice, members opposite, to be able to do that. My colleague Clare Curran has a member’s bill—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Grant Robertson.

No other options; you have to pick me, Mr Chair. Clare Curran has a member’s bill in the ballot right now, to say to the Government: let us make sure we actually recognise that between 2008 and now there have been some increased cost pressures. Let us lift the funding of Radio New Zealand by the rate of inflation—not anything like the extra funding that we managed to get as MPs, but just enough to acknowledge that costs have increased. The Government could pick that bill up tomorrow, and I am sure Clare Curran would be more than happy if the Minister of Broadcasting said “You know what? I’d like to do that.”, because a public broadcaster, properly funded, is actually part of a functioning democracy.

I think my colleague David Cunliffe interjected before to say that Radio New Zealand had been deliberately starved. I think that is the only conclusion that we can draw; that this Government does not want a fully functioning public broadcaster that will hold it to account, because despite the “Radio Moscow” and “Radio Labour” taunts from over there, we all know that whoever the Government of the day is, it is Radio New Zealand, more often than not, that is holding it to account. It is Radio New Zealand that still has a functioning news and current affairs business. It gets out there and picks up stories and makes sure that Ministers have to come on air and answer questions—and other politicians, as well. None of us has got away easily. Mary Wilson is no longer on the radio, which makes life slightly easier for all of us, but, actually, there is still a role that the broadcaster that is Radio New Zealand plays in holding all politicians, all public officials, and all of those in the public arena to account. It cannot do its job if its funding continues to be frozen.

We have a laudable piece of legislation in front of us tonight, a charter that everybody in this Committee supports, that has the words in it that we all want to see about diversity, about freedom of thought, about entertaining New Zealanders: challenging, innovating, engaging, fostering critical thought. No one in this Committee is going to disagree with any of that, but it is not real if the organisation is not funded properly to deliver it. This is not just about politics or current affairs. It is about the wider good that Radio New Zealand does by being in the communities that it is part of, by being able to express the stories of New Zealanders. We support this piece of legislation, but we call on the Government to do the right thing and actually fund our public broadcaster, Radio New Zealand, to play the role that it should play in our community.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for allowing me another opportunity to speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I would like to pick up where my colleague Grant Robertson left off, and that is around the democratic function of good journalism. And I will come to the charter—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are not going to get repetitive, are we?

KRIS FAAFOI—which is within the bill, to be able to extrapolate those points a little bit later on in my speech.

I would also like to point out that although technology is changing the way that information is being disseminated—we talk about different platforms, we talk about convergence, online streaming; all these different ways of getting the information that we used to get through radios—something has to remain constant in order for us to keep listening, and that is some pretty important principles that are at the very heart of public broadcasting. That is around quality, independence, integrity, and reach, and other qualities like that which—regardless of the medium by which we are receiving the information—have to stay true. That is what we are worried about on this side of the House, when we are talking about freezing of funding.

I would like to put those in the context of journalism, and also what is within this bill, around the charter. Clause 8 goes into some detail on what is expected of Radio New Zealand around the charter. Clause 8(1) says that Radio New Zealand must be an independent public service broadcaster, and the purpose is to serve the public interest. Clause 8(4) says: “The public radio company provides reliable, independent, and freely accessible news and information.” Subclauses (5)(a) and (b) say that the services must be predominantly and distinctly of New Zealand nature, and they must inform and enlighten the people of New Zealand. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of subclause (5) say that this content should “provide awareness of the world and of New Zealand’s place in it:”, and “provide comprehensive, independent, accurate, impartial, and balanced regional, national, and international news and current affairs:”. So Radio New Zealand, because it is legislated to do this, plays a very important function in the fourth estate.

I think that over the last year there have been some worrying signs about the nature of journalism and the fourth estate. We have seen the demise of the current affairs programme 3D Investigates at TV3, we have seen the demise of Campbell Live at TV3, and we have also seen the demise on both major channels around that 7 p.m. slot—what used to be Close Up and Holmes back in the day has now become Seven Sharp. I will let people make up their own minds on that.

But there is an important function within this legislation that says that Radio New Zealand has to hold some pretty important principles of journalism up higher than other broadcasters or news media companies have to. I would actually like to praise Radio New Zealand for its efforts to be able to do that under the current freeze in budget that it has had. It has had challenges around having to deliver on different kinds of platforms, but I think it has done a pretty good job of keeping the integrity, keeping balance, and keeping impartiality—all those qualities that the charter within this bill requires of Radio New Zealand—under extremely difficult circumstances. I think it also means there is a greater importance placed on Radio New Zealand around journalism, and also—another debate that might need to start in New Zealand—that there should be funding for other news media organisations, to make sure that these kinds of principles around journalism are upheld in other areas too. That is another debate around NZ On Air.

But I would like to make sure that these principles around the integrity of journalism are upheld as best as they can be by Radio New Zealand, and that can only be done if a Government takes that entity seriously. I think—with this bill languishing on the Order Paper for well over 7 or 8 years—that the funding freeze that numerous speakers have spoken to on this side of the Chamber and the fact that in other areas of public broadcasting this Government has shown no taste at all for wanting to continue anything that holds people like us to account is not good for our democracy. I want to, as a former journalist, make sure that everyone in this House is held to account properly, and I think as a bastion of all those principles as laid out in this legislation, Radio New Zealand is legislated to do that properly.

But if we are going to put this in legislation, let us back up these words in this legislation with some commitment from the Government that it is going to help Radio New Zealand achieve that. If we do not, then all the words that are in this legislation are merely words. The ability of Radio New Zealand—a very important broadcasting entity—will not be that it can deliver on what we ask it to do. I praise it, because I think it is doing a good job within its constraints. We are again asking it to have a very important function in our democracy: to hold people like us, in this House, to account. If we do not give it the means to do that then I think that is not a good sign for democracy in this country.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 94 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

The amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 94 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams is ruled out of order as being a direct negation of the question.

Clause 4 not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 94 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 5 be agreed to:

In new section 8AB(4)(c)(ii), after “free to access”, insert “or the delivery platform includes commercial content or sponsorship references”.