Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14784] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 In the context of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill we have an opportunity just for a moment to reflect on the strength of public broadcasting in New Zealand across the various media—I am thinking obviously of television and of radio. I have had an opportunity as this bill has progressed through its various stages to talk about some aspects of it at some considerable length but I certainly do not plan to do that tonight as this is from any view of it simple legislation. But what I have done is bemoan the fact that we have lost an opportunity in this bill to be so much better than we might have been. 
Those in the Maori Party who are here tonight made a really good point in the earlier stages of this bill. They said that here was the opportunity to provide a secure funding line for Maori television and Maori radio—and I would add to that non-Maori television and non-Maori radio—to ensure that these facilities are appropriately resourced. Yet the bill as we know is quite silent on this issue. Sure it gives effect to the Government’s decision to enable the broadcasting funding agencies—the Broadcasting Commission known as New Zealand On Air and Te Reo Whakapuaraki Iriangi known as Te Mangai Paho—to be able to support the production transmission and archiving of digital content with the development of digital broadcasting in New Zealand and internationally. It makes some other changes to the Broadcasting Act that are particularly important. But my issue is this: in a setting where National supports this bill why did we not go further when we had the opportunity to deal with the issue that the Maori Party has raised and with another issue that I would like to dwell on just for a moment. 
That issue concerns those charter arrangements that burden and in my view cloister Television New Zealand from being something more than it currently is. I started off in this debate by saying that we should be proud of public broadcasting and are we? I do not think that we are. If we ask the further question as to why we are not then the answer to that is in substantial measure around this Television New Zealand charter. This charter will I hope be scrutinised and closely examined by the Commerce Committee in terms of the references that are made in legislation to it. But it is an impossible deal. We have a current charter we have a charter that was redrafted and now we have a charter that has been redrafted following the input of submissions. The charter is structured under a number of headings—eight in all—and we need only to look at the headings to see immediately what the problem is. 
I dwelt in earlier debates on one part of it “An Informed Society” and I looked at the elements that were stated as part of that broad heading to describe them as meaningless aspirational sentimental and non-measurable. So what I thought I would do tonight is to look at another part of the charter. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: They were the good parts. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Well we searched for a good part I say to Mr Finlayson. I thought I would just pick up the second heading which is “National Identity and Citizenship”. That is the main heading and there are a number of subheadings. The subheadings are “To provide entertaining educational and informative programmes that reflects”—it should be “reflect” but it states “reflects”—“the diverse range of cultures and interests that contribute to an understanding of who we are as New Zealanders”. That is the aspirational statement. Then come the fulfilment provisions including “Provide shared experiences”—I ask what that means—“that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity;”. Who is sharing that? Is that Television New Zealand sharing with us—the listeners the viewers—that sense of citizenship and national identity? The second is “Provide programmes that contribute towards intellectual scientific cultural sporting and spiritual development;”. I just pause to reflect on that phrase “spiritual development” for a moment. 
The third element is another opportunity: “Enhance citizens’ opportunities to participate in public life by featuring programmes that provide a forum for critical and many-sided debate;”. Well I am not sure that those who sit at home and watch Television New Zealand think: “Wow I feel great about this. I am participating in public life.” Surely that is a complete nonsense. Then there is an element: “Provide programmes about the diverse cultures history heritage and natural environment of New Zealand and its regions;”. We would say that is great; I would say that it is great also. There is also “Provide programmes that cater for minority interests;” “Provide programmes intended for general audiences that address minority interests;” and finally “Strive to enable New Zealanders of all abilities to engage with the fullest range of programmes.” What does that mean in the context of a broad-based aspirational charter? 
That is why I have said in the debates centred around this bill that we need to look again at that charter. We need to set some hard-nosed measurable goals so that it will be possible in that setting to say yes Television New Zealand is a good public broadcaster because it has achieved some goals that were set and are able to be reckoned in the market place as having been fulfilled or not. 
As for the bill itself as others have commented it is in two parts. It is a short bill consisting of Part 1 “Amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989” and Part 2 which is headed dangerously “Miscellaneous”. So one looks in Part 2 at a raft of stylistic amendments that have been made. I think we were both entertained and concerned by the comments in speeches that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu made in the Committee of the whole House in connection with Part 2 because she appropriately—very appropriately—drew to our attention the shortfalls in Part 2. It is a very curious part. One of the clauses is headed “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989” but as the Hon Georgina te Heuheu explained to what was as I recall it a hushed Committee and a crowded gallery these changes are much more than stylistic. They touch on punctuation they touch on grammar they touch on style and they touch on a raft of issues. 
I will conclude now—somewhat sadly I suppose—by just saying that here is legislation that could have been so much better. We have supported it because of its principal thrust. It is a really good example of a Government that is uncaring and that is not really prepared to go the extra distance that would produce strong and good work. Instead it is a Government that is exhausted and is simply not prepared to look for perfection where perfect outcomes are possible. So the bill completes its final reading—this the third stage. What lies beyond? It is the Royal assent only. I express the fervent hope that the Governor-General of New Zealand as commander-in-chief will sign this bill into law. He assuredly should do so in terms of the constitutional conventions but it could have been a lot better than it is.