Robertson Grant: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9029. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): 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.GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.GRANT ROBERTSON: 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!GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.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.