Kedgley Sue: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12257] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As I said earlier Radio New Zealand is unique in our media landscape. It is the only medium aside from Maori Television that is in genuine public ownership. As I also pointed out we have a highly unusual situation in New Zealand with regard to our media. We have no rules to limit the size of any media company or cross ownership between the different media—between television newspapers and so forth so we have a lot of cross ownership—and we are the only country in the Western World that allows total foreign ownership of all our media companies. That is thanks of course to Maurice Williamson and the previous National Government in 1990 when they wanted to allow the complete foreign ownership of TV3. As a result of National’s contribution of allowing 100 percent foreign ownership of all our media we basically have four foreign multinational companies controlling all our media—virtually all our radio and television stations except for Radio New Zealand TVNZ and Maori Television. 
I think we need to reflect for a moment on how fortunate we are to have one radio station in New Zealand—one broadcaster—that is totally driven by public objectives rather than by commercial objectives and that sees listeners as citizens rather than as consumers to whom it is trying to peddle things to buy. The truth of the matter is that the purposes of a not-for-profit organisation are vastly different from those of one whose objective is the pursuit of profit. That is why we have public service broadcasting. We have seen the helpless confusion in the TVNZ hybrid. We have been discussing animal-human hybrids in the Health Committee and TVNZ is one of those bizarre hybrids—part commercial and part public service. It cannot seem to work out which parts are which and whether it should be pursing public-interest or commercial objectives. 
To have Radio New Zealand is something to be deeply deeply grateful for—that we have one radio broadcaster not owned by any commercial entity and that does not constantly interrupt its news and programmes with advertisements for this or that commercial product and that we have a radio broadcaster that does not have commercial sponsorship. We do not have  
“Charlie’s Morning Report” 
 or  
“Mitsubishi’s Linda Clark” 
. In fact we have a radio station that has no vested interest—no commercial pressures—and that is a counterbalance to the incredible private ownership of all the rest of our media. We need to keep that in perspective and to be deeply grateful for Radio New Zealand—and indeed for its visionary charter. 
Gerry Eckhoff complained that those of us with different views do not get a look-in on Radio New Zealand. He was implying somehow that there was a bias against the ACT party. I think that would be extremely hard to try to prove in any way because I truly believe that Radio New Zealand is fair and independent. But that reminded me that the other day it was revealed that the editor of the  
National Business Review  
was providing media training for Don Brash the leader of the National Party. In any other country that would have created an absolute scandal. A so-called independent journal in New Zealand—a supposedly credible newspaper—was providing media training to the head of the National Party in New Zealand. If this were any other country that would have been seen as a total scandal—as an indication of the complete and total bias of the  
National Business Review 
. But there was barely any concern about that presumably because so much of our media is in private ownership. Our media are owned by four or five multinational corporations and we think that is normal. We do not expect to have truly impartial balanced media in New Zealand because the truth of the matter is that almost none of our media have a specific obligation and mandate in their charter to be balanced independent and comprehensive in their news and current affairs. 
 We have heard a lot of whimpering from the Opposition about Radio New Zealand. I guarantee that almost every single speaker tonight—and indeed every member in this House—listens to Radio New Zealand. Members will be glued to  
Morning Report 
 morning after morning. Tomorrow morning there they will be listening to  
Morning Report 
 and everything else yet here they are whimpering on about Radio New Zealand. They know that it is outstanding and is one of the only organisations that provides truly comprehensive independent current affairs and news in New Zealand. I think we have had a lot of weasel words from people who I guarantee spend a great deal of their time listening to Radio New Zealand. 
We tend to focus a lot on television. A lot of debate goes on about television but radio is very immediate and has a very wide reach. A dollar spent on radio goes far further than a dollar spent on television. In America at the recent public service television conference that the member for the National Party referred to earlier in this debate people were talking about how there has been a renaissance in public service radio in America and other countries. I predict confidently that we will see a renaissance in Radio New Zealand which was rather savaged in the 1990s. I think it lost 20 percent of its staff. Radio New Zealand was starved of funding in the 1990s. Fortunately it has now had some proper funding and can do what it was set up to do which is set out in its charter: to inform and engage New Zealanders through providing challenging and innovative radio. I would go so far as to say that Radio New Zealand is innovative and does provide a wide range of programmes. 
It is good that we are adding this little dimension that has got so on the nerves of members of Parliament here to my absolute astonishment. As a result of the submissions that were made in the Commerce Committee we are now adding to the charter that Radio New Zealand should provide programmes that also look at spiritual and ethical issues. We have heard a lot of cant about that—that we are undermining the secular State and all the utter drivel said in the House tonight. This bill does not undermine the secular State. All it states is that amongst the programmes that Radio New Zealand broadcasts it will consider including ethical issues. One would think it was a radical crazy idea to have a radio station that would consider ethical issues. We have seen the Opposition’s horror that a radio station should have to examine ethical issues. Others have made this point: is it that some members have lost the ability to understand the importance of ethics in our society? 
And what is wrong with looking at spiritual issues? In a world that is riven with conflict over religious and spiritual issues I would have thought it was a great asset that we have a radio station that as well as doing all the other things it does such as providing a comprehensive balanced and authoritative current affairs and an independent voice also looks at the spiritual and ethical dimensions of life. Is there something wrong with that? Is it only acceptable to be rational and logical? Are we no longer able to think of other ideas? No one has any objection to having commercial objectives but somehow we all feel uncomfortable about and sneer at the thought of having ethical or spiritual objectives. That is very very sad. 
The Green Party does not share those concerns. We are absolutely delighted to support this bill to support Radio New Zealand and to support the addition of the words “spiritual and “ethical” to the charter. We believe the Opposition members do not actually believe some of what they have been saying and that they would agree with the Green Party that Radio New Zealand is one of the only independent voices in New Zealand.