Genter Julie Anne: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10077. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party supports this bill and more important we support the role of public broadcasting in creating a healthy strong democracy. I have to say that we have a vision for a well-funded high-quality multi-platform public broadcasting environment where New Zealand stories and voices are seen and heard. We do not want our children in New Zealand all growing up with accents like mine just because there is a lack of New Zealand content on television or on the radio. Radio New Zealand is currently our only public broadcasting entity and it does a great job in very tight circumstances.I have to say that this bill although we can support it truly is just around the margins and is not taking the steps that we need to fulfil this vision we have of well-funded high-quality public broadcasting in New Zealand. This bill has been languishing—you know not coming back to the House—for a very very long time. It was in front of the Commerce Committee in 2009. It got a single submission because it was not that controversial. It has taken that many years to come back to this House for the third reading.At a time of massive change to broadcasting and journalism increasing globalisation an age when information is more free and yet at the same time more siloed than ever before and the public is more disengaged with our democracy the best thing that we can say about public broadcasting—about the National Government’s 8 years with this portfolio—is that this uncontroversial bill should have been passed 7 years ago. It is really the only thing the Government has done on the positive side of the ledger when it comes to public broadcasting. We can say it has done a bit on the negative side. We have had the funding freeze for Radio New Zealand basically since National came to power which is actually a substantial cut to its real operating budget. Radio New Zealand has managed to still provide probably the best most insightful critical journalism that is out there in New Zealand despite these budget cuts. But we have seen the complete removal of non-commercial television in New Zealand with the National Government killing TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7.All this bill does is update the Radio New Zealand charter which is part of the normal 5-yearly statutory review. This review started in 2005 and it is now 11 years later. Over 8 of those 11 years we have seen the impact of the funding freeze on Radio New Zealand. I know that at the committee my colleague Gareth Hughes asked why Radio New Zealand was not bothering to ask for additional funding given that it has this annual operating deficit of $1.4 million and further deficits are forecast capital spending is 5 to 10 years behind and the estimate of the real-term funding cut is in the order of $4 million to $6 million each year. The answer according to my colleague Gareth Hughes was that it is pointless beating your head against a brick wall.So there it is. The Government’s approach National’s approach to public broadcasting is a brick wall which is not too surprising because having an informed electorate and a broad and deep debate on the merits of policy solutions for our country is not in the interests of this National Government.Hon Steven Joyce: Now that’s arrogant.JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is simply not.Hon Steven Joyce: No that’s arrogant.JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is not. If it were otherwise we could have a debate about policy and maybe the Government would be supportive of public broadcasting but it finds it easier to win elections on a few silly slogans. Government members love going on the commercial radio stations and playing up the different personalities of people in their caucus rather than debating whether or not policies are going to achieve what they say they are. Ironically the Government did blow $26 million of taxpayers’ money on a failed flag legacy campaign supposedly to have a conversation about who we are in the world but it will not adequately fund Radio New Zealand one of the major cornerstones of our public culture. It would not fund TVNZ 7 the only non-commercial television station that we had when that would have cost $15 million a year but it could find $26 million for the flag referendum where we were trying to replace—rather than have a real debate about our constitution let us just replace the Union Jack with a silver fern to represent our love of rugby.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Come back to the bill.JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Greens believe that Kiwis deserve high-quality broadcasting here in New Zealand. No one else is going to provide it; this Government is clearly not going to provide it. But the commercial media simply is not able to deliver the level of debate and investigative journalism that is necessary to have a healthy democracy. We know that. The commercial imperatives simply will not deliver the funding that is needed for quality journalism.Quality journalism is public good. I know National does not understand the concept of public good. It thinks that if it cannot be commercialised it is not worth having. You can hear that very clearly—it thinks that dollars are the only evidence of something being of value when in fact there are many things that are of value to New Zealanders that do not make money. One of those things is democracy. The argument that we cannot afford to have quality public broadcasting in New Zealand is the same as saying that we cannot afford to have elections because it is that essential to the functioning of democracy.This is really about choice. The Government has chosen to be a brick wall on public broadcasting but it does find the money to subsidise smelters oil drilling and casinos. Ultimately that is its agenda. If we do not fund public broadcasting adequately then what will happen is we will not have the information that voters need to make the choices about whom they want running the country and which policies are going to best achieve the New Zealand that they aspire to have. We can support this bill. It is well overdue. It does not really make a difference one way or the other. I mean yes it is great that we still have Radio New Zealand. I would not be surprised if in a fourth-term National Government Steven Joyce got his way and we did not have Radio New Zealand—if we flogged it off and simply had commercial radio and television because that makes it easier for National to hide the fact from New Zealanders that it is letting them down and that it is looking after its rich mates and big business and overseas multinationals. That is the agenda of the National Party.