Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12239] 
Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave that the Committee stage of this bill be taken as one wide-ranging debate and that clauses 1 2 and 3 be put as separate votes at the end of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make some introductory comments about the reason for this bill and the nonsense of its introduction into the House which the Minister of Broadcasting did some time ago now. It has been on the Order Paper for some time and clearly has not been urgent. 
The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill largely deals with additions to the charter and places further responsibilities on Radio New Zealand when in fact the charter itself has not been around for very long and the public broadcaster has had trouble delivering on it in any event. The title is fair enough but the National Party opposes the bill. We see no good reason for the Minister to have introduced it particularly at a time when the broadcaster was in a state of dysfunction of declining audiences and of budget blowouts. At one stage the organisation was being described as so dysfunctional that internecine warfare was going on. Yet the Minister had the temerity I would say to bring in this bill to create an impression that all was well—when in fact all was not well—and that this broadcaster could take on more responsibilities. We will come to that as this Committee stage proceeds. 
The bill is only a two-page bill. On the face of it one might think that as it is only two pages maybe it is not very important or controversial yet in its own way it is very controversial. That is another reason why in my view the Minister ought not to have brought this bill to Parliament. Late last year there was a conference that brought together public broadcasters including visiting broadcasters from overseas to look at the place of public broadcasting. The place and role of public broadcasting are under scrutiny worldwide. Surely it would have been better and more appropriate and would have made more sense for the Minister to take the findings of those discussions and to put more effort and time into clarifying the role of a public broadcaster particularly in a multilayered multicultural society such as ours and in an environment where New Zealand listeners are spoilt for choice through commercial radio. The bulk of the population now is in the 18 to 35-40 demographic so how do we get a public broadcaster to cater for the listening aspirations of that age group? How indeed do we get a public broadcaster to cater for a wide range of listenership? This bill adds more obligations to Radio New Zealand’s current responsibilities. How does it manage to do that when the role and place of the public broadcaster internationally are now being scrutinised? 
We are here in urgency to debate and no doubt see the passage into law of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill—not with National’s approval however. The Hon Steve Maharey in his thinking I guess decided it was necessary to add in more obligations. The legislation is controversial in that the charter is now amended by the insertion of the words “spiritual and ethical” which add to the obligations already on the broadcaster to deliver a very wide range of dimensions in a multilayered multicultural environment. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I would like to state that New Zealand First is against the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is a nonsense; it is unnecessary. It adds some unnecessary pieces to the charter and I really cannot understand why the Government has even bothered to bring this bill here under urgency in order to push it through Parliament. It is ludicrous legislation. We have a situation here where as Georgina te Heuheu has suggested the bill adds further responsibilities to Radio New Zealand via its charter. Well Radio New Zealand has a big enough charter and it is having enough difficulty in meeting its current charter obligations without adding additional pieces like the spiritual and ethical piece. If we consider the wide range of multicultural ethical and spiritual facets of New Zealand society today we can see that the charter would require effort virtually 24/7 just to cover that portion of it. This legislation adds an unnecessary burden to the charter which is now so overloaded with the spiritual and ethical side of things that unfortunately there will be no room for anything else. It is nonsense legislation and along with the other New Zealand First members I believe that it is totally unnecessary. 
There is one good point I will note. Clause 3(2) which is to amend section 7(1)(c) of the principal Act contains the words “and a full range of age groups”. That means I am now probably catered for in this bill whereas before perhaps I was not. It is also interesting to note that in clause 3(5) which amends section 7 of the principal Act the broadcaster is required to do a survey annually not only of its own listening audience but also of the members of the audiences of other stations—people who are not currently listening to the broadcaster. I observed at the time that that was an interesting option because there are some merits in finding out what everybody else is listening to and trying to incorporate that into the programming of the public radio station. 
But let us face it: there will not be a chance to add any other parts or interests into Radio New Zealand’s programming because it is so overloaded and so overburdened by the spiritual and ethical side of things. This is just a nonsense bill. This Government is scraping the bottom of the barrel to even bring this bill to this House let alone to bring it in under urgency. It is a waste of our time to have to debate it. I ask the Minister to pull this bill and do away with it now to stop this waste of our time. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill the first question I have for the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope is this: why are we here under urgency to debate this bill? Why are we here to debate a bill that is only two pages long and that actually achieves very little except to insert a few words into Radio New Zealand’s charter? I may add that they are two little words that mean very much: “spiritual” and “ethical”. I would like to hear the Minister explain to the Committee how a radio station can deliver to New Zealanders their spiritual needs or reflect their ethical needs. I do not think that is the role of a State broadcaster and I am not even sure that a broadcaster is capable of doing that. It is very difficult to know from the bill what the Government means by “ethical needs”. Is it further social engineering and giving an indication to New Zealanders of what they should be listening to thinking and eating? The sort of bill that we see here really goes along the lines of telling New Zealanders what they should do with their lives. I think the charter itself set out some very basic principles for Radio New Zealand but now with the further development of the charter and addition of these new words Radio New Zealand is getting into areas that I do not think the New Zealand public wants the State broadcaster to get involved in. 
As I said we are here to debate this bill under urgency. One would imagine that the reason for doing that was that there was a dire need for this bill to be put in place. In fact I think most of us in this Chamber know that there has been no groundswell of protest calling for this particular bill. Radio New Zealand itself has made no mention of this bill nor has it required that it be driven through Parliament. I think Radio New Zealand is struggling to reflect the responsibilities of the charter already without broadening some of those requirements. In fact when I look for the reason for pushing this bill through under urgency I do not find one reason why we are here to debate this two-page bill. 
I think we always need to be mindful that when we put legislation through the House an immense cost is borne by the New Zealand public. Time and time again we see this Government putting through legislation that does not actually make a difference to New Zealand life and legislation that does not make a difference to the business or organisation for which it is intended. We are seeing a greater amount of what I would term “feel-good legislation”—that is legislation like this which the Government can point to and say it is a nice idea that we can now reflect New Zealanders’ spiritual needs within the Radio New Zealand charter when there is really no core reason why the legislation needs to be put in place. Once again I mention the huge cost to Radio New Zealand and to the New Zealand public in putting this legislation through Parliament. 
This bill is of course now well out of date and that is why we are looking at making a change to the commencement date. This Government is way behind in its legislative programme so quite often as we have seen with the reprinted bill here the date when an Act comes into force is being changed. This bill is not about restructuring Radio New Zealand giving it a bigger budget or changing its role. In this two-page bill we see just a lot of mealy-mouthed words and tinkering that really have very little to do with the provision of State broadcasting services to the New Zealand public. I do not think people will notice any change to the quality of what they hear. I do not think this Government has in mind what the ethical needs of the New Zealand public are. It certainly does not have in mind what the spiritual needs of the public are. In fact there was quite a debate about the word “spiritual” because United Future I think wanted to put in the words “religious beliefs” so that those beliefs would be reflected within the Radio New Zealand charter. But that amendment was ruled out. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I was waiting to hear from the previous speaker the enthusiasm that should naturally follow from this particular bill in terms of the wonderful service Radio New Zealand provides to our country. With due respect to my good friends in New Zealand First I was a little disappointed with their contribution. I think if they check with their own party president Mr Doug Woolerton they will find that he is a very avid listener to National Radio and that he knows all the programmes. They should double-check with their party president regarding National Radio. 
This bill is necessary and I will give as an example of that the recent launch of the National Radio FM service in the Waikato which I attended. It was an absolute privilege to be part of that because it accentuated the wonderful vitality that is Radio New Zealand today. It accentuated for me that Radio New Zealand is very very serious about catering to a range of varied interests and age groups in our country. It is really good to see that Radio New Zealand and particularly National Radio is not just catering for people of my chronological age. It is very serious about reaching out to a wider audience embracing younger New Zealanders and looking for and fostering young talent—particularly some of the bands that can now be heard on National Radio and that National Radio is providing an audience for and focusing on. That frankly is very exciting. 
Lest we forget this I remind members the shareholders of Radio New Zealand are all of us and that is why we have a charter. The shareholders do not live in Toronto London or Washington. The stakeholders in Radio New Zealand are every man woman and child in this country. Radio New Zealand is about maintaining and preserving our culture our nation and our society. I think that by and large—albeit still with relatively limited resources although under this Government the resources have been increased—in terms of what Radio New Zealand has it does an excellent job. I am particularly enthusiastic that we acknowledge the different spiritual dimensions of our society and that National Radio acknowledges that. It is very enthusiastic about catering for a full range of age groups so that there is not a crusty old National Radio that caters just for people like me with my very conservative tastes—and that is where Doug Woolerton and I would have a bit in common—but one that reaches out to a younger audience and builds a younger audience over a lifetime. 
I also think it is excellent that we focus on—I think this is very very important and I notice the Acting Minister is here in the Chamber with us and I know that he will agree with me—the international radio service to the South Pacific Radio New Zealand International which may include a range of programmes in English and Pacific languages. That is a benchmarking and an underscoring of the very important role that New Zealand and our national radio service have in terms of our immediate neighbourhood. Radio New Zealand is actually doing that albeit it came about through Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade funding etc. in a different funding stream from the usual broadcasting funding. Radio New Zealand has historically had a very proud and constructive record in the South Pacific and of course because it has a very significant listenership it is one of the important links between the South Pacific nations and New Zealand. 
Unlike the speakers from the Opposition I am enthusiastic about this bill. I know that it is a short bill but I think it puts some very important good positive things into the Radio New Zealand charter. To those who do not listen to National Radio and Concert FM—and I am sure the Opposition members should listen to them—I say they should tune in some time because they are exciting and diverse. I think National Radio and Concert FM are doing a very good job. I think it is important that the charter helps them. It is really wonderful to have radio that deals with the issues looks at all sides of the issues and does not just repeat some people’s prejudices. 
Finally I say I am enthusiastic about this bill. I will also place on record that I think the Minister of Broadcasting Steve Maharey has done a fantastic job in this portfolio. He has vision and he has a passion for our national broadcaster. I wish Radio New Zealand well. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First of all I say to those who were sneering at why we are considering this bill that it is my understanding the Government sought to put the provisions of this bill in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Members refused to do so and required the debate we are now having. So we should not hear too much nonsense about why we are wasting our time here. It is because of the members of this House that we are debating this bill tonight. Also there is a requirement in the Act that every 5 years Parliament consider the Radio New Zealand charter—and what an excellent provision that is. 
So we considered the charter. Submitters to the Commerce Committee—ordinary New Zealanders—requested that we added the words “spiritual and ethical” to the objectives. I find it absolutely fascinating that those words seem to create such anxiety and concern in this Chamber. What is wrong with considering ethical issues? Would that we did it more often given there are so many issues to consider today. We have been looking at human-assisted reproductive technology genetic engineering and cloning. What are those issues? They are ethical issues that require ethical debate. Thank God that we are going to call on Radio New Zealand to provide us with some ethical debate. Thank God also that Radio New Zealand already does an excellent job of having discussions on religion and so forth. I think that is absolutely excellent. It may have escaped some of the members’ attention in this Chamber that religion is a major issue of controversy and dissent in our world and it would be great for all of us I am certain if we had some understanding of other religions. And if we had some debate about spiritual and ethical issues I am sure that New Zealand would be all the better for it. 
Like the previous speaker the Green Party is extremely enthusiastic about supporting this bill. I think we have to remind ourselves that Radio New Zealand is absolutely unique in our media environment in being a genuinely publicly owned medium. It is the only medium in New Zealand that is completely owned by the public. Television New Zealand is a strange hybrid of commercial and public service but Radio New Zealand is genuinely a public service organisation. We should be very very grateful for that. Thanks to the Maurice Williamson amendment in 1990 New Zealand is the only country in the Western World that allows total foreign ownership of media companies. As a result of that amendment a handful of foreign companies own virtually all New Zealand’s media. We have Tony O’Reilly’s APN News and Media controlling most of the radio stations and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and CanWest owning radio stations and TV3 and C4. Rupert Murdoch owns Sky and we have Kerry Packer and so forth. Basically all of our media are in foreign ownership. If all of our media are in foreign ownership we have to ask why foreign owners would give a damn about New Zealand’s identity and culture. In the final analysis they do not. Their bottom line is returning profits for their foreign shareholders. 
So thank heavens that as an antidote to all the foreign-owned media in New Zealand and to counterbalance the foreign ownership of our media we have one strong publicly owned medium in the form of Radio New Zealand with a charter that spells out that it must provide independent impartial current affairs and news. We have in Radio New Zealand an organisation that is free from vested interests and that does not always put commercial objectives ahead of its public service objectives. I think that we are incredibly lucky to have Radio New Zealand. It provides the only radio stations in New Zealand that one can listen to without being constantly interrupted by commercials. I think that is something that many many listeners value enormously. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Acting Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call. I would like to begin by acknowledging this House’s debt to my colleague Steve Maharey for his tireless and quite visionary work in this area. In that regard I would like to thank one of the preceding speakers my colleague Martin Gallagher for the comments he made and also the previous speaker Sue Kedgley for her enlightened comments. 
I do not wish to take a great deal of the Committee’s time but I would like to make some observations about the comments we have heard this evening. In terms of New Zealand First’s objections to this bill in the form of Mr Catchpole I guess the New Zealand community can only marvel at any objection to the words “a full range of age groups” being added to a charter of this kind. Like members of the Committee I guess listeners will also ask themselves why anyone let alone a political party would have such an objection. 
But of greater interest were the extraordinary objections from the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting. Ms te Heuheu earlier objected to the inclusion of the words “spiritual and ethical” in the charter. As a demonstration of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of that party I guess that is not entirely surprising. But what the Committee may be interested to share is the fact that during the discussion and correspondence around this bill the National Party confirmed in writing that it had no objection at that time to the inclusion of the word “spiritual” in the charter. It did object to the word “ethical” and that brings me back to my earlier comments about Mr Catchpole. Why one would object to ethical considerations in a document of this kind or ethical considerations for a full range of age groups one would have to wonder. 
But I would like to thank the National Party for being so unaccommodating and not allowing this matter to proceed in the simple procedural way suggested by a Statutes Amendment Bill. In doing so the National Party has allowed us another insight into its policy. It is not often that we see National Party policy but in the same documents I am referring to I can inform the Committee that National lodged a further objection to recommendation 9 which relates to Radio New Zealand International indicating that it would not support such a recommendation at all. For the information of those who do not have these documents recommendation 9 recommends to the Government that the Act acknowledge Radio New Zealand International as an international radio service to the Pacific region. 
I would like to thank the National Party for being so clear about its continued privatisation agenda for this service. I think New Zealanders across the country not just listeners to Radio New Zealand will be very grateful for yet another insight into how vast the policy gulf is between the parties in this Chamber. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not interesting that we heard from Sue Kedgley of the Greens about all these foreign-owned media outlets in New Zealand and the foreign owners who do not care at all about New Zealand? That must be why when picking up the  
Dominion Post 
 and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 every day we see nothing of New Zealand news! It must be why when we pick up  
North and South 
 and  
Metro  
every month we read nothing about New Zealand because Kerry Packer does not care! If that is the case why was Sue Kedgley on the cover of  
North and South 
? I think we need an explanation. Obviously she is the favourite of Kerry Packer or maybe it is because she is foreign-owned too. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Some of the covers are shocking. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I agree with my colleague over there—some of the covers are shocking. 
I would like to say why the ACT party did not agree with the word “spiritual”—not so much the word “ethical”—being included in the charter. It goes back to Marian Hobbs. In May 2002—believe it or not—Marian Hobbs wrote asking for permission to use it in the statutory amendments legislation. We all know that Parliament is meant to function and that it is not good to hold it up unnecessarily but that legislation is meant to be used for uncontroversial matters. It is definitely controversial whether or not we agree with it to insert the word “spiritual” into a charter that is required to be adhered to by a State-owned broadcaster. The ACT party firmly adheres to the convention in this country that the State is secular and is not required to promote spiritual values. We already have radio stations and broadcasters that promote spiritual values. It is not the role of the State broadcaster to do that. 
I would like the Minister to take another call to tell us why it is necessary to put these two words into the charter. Why is it necessary to have the words “ethical and spiritual”? We all know more or less what “spiritual” means but what are we meant to take from the word “ethical”. In these days of relative morality ethical can mean anything. It can mean anything goes. It can mean that anti-westernisation—taking out the Twin Towers—is just as relative and ethical as our condemnation of that sort of terrorism and behaviour. We start to get into trouble when we bring into a charter words that are nebulous and not clearly defined. 
I always argue that if we want to save public broadcasting in this country and if we believe in public broadcasting then we have a duty as Parliament to scrutinise that public broadcaster and make sure it is delivering the conditions of its charter. Radio New Zealand’s charter has an obligation to objectivity and impartiality in its news and current affairs. A report was finished in December last year that two former directors of Radio New Zealand put their names to—John Iles and Dr Denis Dutton. It was a very thorough report and it systematically showed that current affairs—the so-called features programmes of Radio New Zealand—were not adhering to the charter at all. They were overwhelmingly pro-interventionist as opposed to non-interventionist. 
If one just takes a specific area like education—and it happens in all areas—a new policy would come out from say the Post Primary Teachers Association and Radio New Zealand would run the statement without any dissenting opinion. A statement from National ACT the Education Forum the Early Childhood Council or the Business Roundtable would either be ignored or run with a dissenting voice. 
That is fine. I am not saying that the centre-right view should be run unopposed but the broadcaster should be consistent and have more voices of dissent across all ranges because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about a publicly owned broadcasting company that has a duty to all of the public—not just the public who agree with the Government of the day. 
The incumbent Minister of Broadcasting has been praised but he did a very very foolish thing in May 2003 when he actually used the premises of Radio New Zealand to make political announcements. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill though not quite so effusively as some of the Government members. We support the charter in its present form because it appears to date to have served both Radio New Zealand and the public quite well. We do not believe it is the role of the charter to include a high level of prescription—largely because such provisions risk becoming obsolete rather quickly—and we do not think it actually does. 
Some members have brought up the issue of attaching the words “spiritual and ethical”. I really do not understand why people have a problem with that. The word “spiritual” for example is not quite the same thing as “religious”. It is not putting forth a particular denominational line; it is simply reflecting some of the attitudes people have over and above those of the material world. Spiritual values do not necessarily encompass religious values although the two may on occasion go together. The simple fact is that as a public broadcasting medium Radio New Zealand is there to reflect public attitudes. Some of those attitudes whether we like them or not happen to be spiritual and happen to be—funnily enough—ethical although that is something that the National Party and the ACT party for some reason have a degree of difficulty with. 
Now this is a point that also has not been considered: while the charter’s existing wording arguably encompasses spiritual and ethical development the additional words are consonant with this clause of the charter and Radio New Zealand’s current practice and can be supported. This proposed amendment also reflects a recent change to the statutory functions of the Broadcasting Commission New Zealand On Air in an amendment to section 36 of the Broadcasting Act and are consistent with the equivalent provision in the Television New Zealand legislation. It brings consistency to the two arms of broadcasting and that is important. It is something that members over there seem to have forgotten or have not included in their discussions. 
Another aspect is children’s programme recommendations. Who can disagree with that? As a public service Radio New Zealand ought to include some of our younger listeners. 
Brent Catchpole 
: They do it now. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: What is wrong with having it included in the bill? What is the problem if that is part of what Radio New Zealand is supposed to do? It is one of the functions it is supposed to perform. In response to a submission from the New Zealand Writers Guild the committee debated at some length the extent to which Radio New Zealand should be explicitly required to provide for children. In response to that it now does. 
One aspect I guess I am not quite so comfortable with is that there seems to be a problem with surveying just how well Radio New Zealand is doing in terms of delivering what it is supposed to deliver. It might sound like a small thing to the Government but I do not think that this issue has been quite as well addressed as it perhaps could be. Section 7(2)(D) of the Act prescribes that Radio New Zealand shall take account of surveys commissioned from time to time to establish whether the audiences for the services provided by the public radio company consider that the quality and quantity of those services is being maintained. 
Why does Radio New Zealand not go into the same surveys as every other radio station in this country? That is a regulatory aspect that I think this Government ought to take a look at. It ought to be part of the mix. If we expect the public of this country to put their hands in their pockets and pay for this service—and I have no problem with that—the least we should have is a transparent means of accountability to those very people. They do with every other radio station in this country and there is no reason why Radio New Zealand should be exempt. The Government should take a cold hard look at that because how on earth do we know how many people are listening and whether the people who are not listening are turning off because the quality of programme delivery is not as consistent as it should be? 
The accountability aspect of Radio New Zealand is very important and I want to spend a little bit of time on it. We believe we are entitled to greater information—not just about the quality and type of programming but also about the greatest indicator of how well Radio New Zealand is doing its job which is audience share. It is severely disappointing that the Government has remained too timid to deal with the real issue surrounding Radio New Zealand surveys—its refusal to participate in the neutral sector surveys that determine actual audience share for all radio stations. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. If anybody is listening tonight they will understand why the National Party is working so vigorously to get back on the Treasury benches. Listening to the contribution from the newly appointed Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope one would understand why a change of Government is necessary in this country. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: It is vital! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is vital for a change of Government in this country. 
There are a number of questions we need to put to Mr Benson-Pope tonight and I hope he will take a call and respond to them. What does he mean by “ethical”? Does he mean making a decision and then doing a U-turn on it? Does he mean signing paintings that they did not paint then destroying the evidence before the matter gets to court? What does it mean? 
When one looks at the legislation the Government is putting in here tonight with the words “spiritual and ethical” one has to ask where this Government is going. I went back to the second reading to see what the Minister Hon Steve Maharey had to say. He said: “I pause for a moment on the matter of the spiritual and ethical elements put into this bill which do not mean a religious denomination. It means that New Zealanders in terms of programming do have concerns about value issues which may well be religious issues and about issues of spirituality in the broad sense that represents the wide range of cultures that make up our society.” 
Now that has made it absolutely clear has it not? That has cleared it up for all of us. Now I understand what it means. Now we know—it is here in the  
Hansard 
. No wonder everybody is clear on this issue! Has anyone ever seen or heard so much gobbledegook about something? It is like talking about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is as vague as that. Nobody knows what it means. 
If one goes to the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which my good colleague did to try to find out what some of these terms mean one will find that they are very accurately described. They do mean religious and they do mean denomination. Well maybe in the agnostic spiritual manner that is being applied here by the Prime Minister there is a new meaning. I am sure the Minister will take a call and explain this to us but from my perspective it looks like social engineering. The socialists are at it again. In the only national-owned radio station as the member from the Green Party pointed out they are interfering in the most agnostic way. It is social engineering of the highest order. 
One size fits all does not always work. What we have in this legislation now is a clause that says that it will cover the full range of age groups. What does that mean? Does it mean that in the morning we will be hearing  
Mickey Mouse 
 in the evening we will be hearing opera and sometime in the middle we will have Heavy Metal? Is that what it means? I do not know. I know that my kids have a different taste in music to mine and I know when they were younger they had a different taste to what they have now. I know that my parents had a different taste in music to mine so does that mean that they will run the full spectrum of radio entertainment in terms of programmes? I do not know what it means. Maybe the Minister can take a call. 
It looks like typical socialism to me—one size fits all; Parliament knows best; the Labour Government will dictate in the charter what the radio programme will do. It will not allow those who are in charge to come up with something that is sensible or ethical. It will not have anything like that—certainly not ethical. Does it mean—and I think this is a question for the Minister as well—that Radio New Zealand will no longer run any of the Labour Party spin because clearly that is not ethical? Or does it mean that it will never ever report any comments from the Prime Minister of New Zealand because there is a very high possibility that they will not be ethical? They will certainly be agnostic—there is a question about that. 
There is one part of this legislation—I cannot go through my whole speech being totally negative it is against my better judgment to do so. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a shame that Shane Ardern did not get his opportunity to put his positive spin on this bit! But I must thank the Acting Minister for taking a call and showing us just what this Government really does think. It is extraordinary. In fact how ironic how inconsistent how bizarre and how “Steve Maharey” this bill is. This Government and this Prime Minister refused to acknowledge grace before a State dinner. This Government and this Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Who cares? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: There we go—we have a member of the Government calling out “Who cares?”. This Government has put a motion to this Parliament to have the prayer removed from Parliament. I really must ask members how ironic one can get when one has a Government that asks for the prayer to be removed from the proceedings of Parliament. There they are putting into this legislation the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. If Mr Benson-Pope thinks that that will overcome the irony of what this Government represents then I really wonder what he has in mind for those two words. In reality this is a Government that does not recognise grace before a State dinner it does not recognise the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church and it does not want the prayer said before this Parliament. Yet the Government puts two words into a clause in this bill that expects us all to have an input into the spiritual and ethical side of Radio New Zealand. 
It is unnecessary to put those words into the legislation. The Minister should seriously consider having those words taken out considering the irony of this Government’s approach to the way it runs Parliament the way it runs the State and the way it considers the spiritual and ethical state of this country. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 In coming late to this debate I am impressed frankly with the quality of the speeches coming from this side of the Chamber and I say that in all sincerity. Because as my colleague Deborah Coddington pointed out we are meant to be and I emphasis those words “meant to be” secular in this Parliament. Quite clearly we are not. We say a prayer at the start of proceedings when the House sits and some would start to perhaps question whether that is appropriate. We have many people in this Chamber of hugely differing values and spiritual beliefs. Is it offensive therefore for a Christian prayer to be said at the start of a sitting of this House? That is a question that I think we need to reflect on. 
But I would like to ask the Minister in the chair to define for me and the Committee what a “value” is as it is in this bill. We often hear the words “inherent values”—the inherent value of having a charter for Radio New Zealand. What is the inherent value there? I think that is a perfectly legitimate question because I can tell the Minister what the inherent value of a square or a triangle is. It is very very definable. A triangle for example has three sides. That is inherent and we know that—we understand that. But to describe a value and try to implant it into legislation is a nonsense. 
 The Resource Management Act requires—I do not know the particular section—that we pay homage to some spiritual value of Maori. What spiritual value? That spiritual value of Maori in the Resource Management Act was bought for $1.5 million. How can one buy a spiritual value—yet it happens constantly under that Act? With my colleagues I am demanding to know what that spiritual value is. 
I do know what a cultural value is in terms of radio. I am well aware of that. I would describe Hokonui Gold in Gore as having wonderful cultural values for those of us in the south and those who would tune in. Many of us are rural people and that is a hugely cultural radio station. Jamie McKay and the team down there do a wonderful job expounding the values of the culture of the people of Gore and that region. Why is that radio station not State-owned? Why does the Minister not rush down put a cheque on the table and say: “Because you have these cultural values at Hokonui Gold we have to buy you.”? It is arrant nonsense to even suggest that such things should happen. However it is quite clear in the charter of Radio New Zealand that this socialist Government wants its tentacles to reach right into the boardroom and have a large measure of control over State-funded radio. 
We all know that the Governmentis very left wing in its attitude. Those of us who happen to have a different point of view do not get anywhere near the same airtime as those who hold the same socialistic and indeed even communist values that members of this left-wing Labour Government have. It is quite wrong to introduce concepts of spiritual values. The animist beliefs of so many of this Labour Government who talk about the mauri within a mountain or a river are arrant nonsense. The spiritual value comes from within oneself. It does not come from a rock a mountain or a river. It is the ability of human beings to understand and appreciate the beauty of nature. That is the spiritual value that is deep within one’s being. It is not something that can be put into a charter and it is not for the Government to force the people of this country to adhere to such matters. It is quite wrong and a considerable amount of nonsense to try to do so. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I would like to remind the Minister at the beginning that this is a wide-ranging debate that this side of the House has been very enthusiastic in opposing the bill and that we have plenty more contributions. In fact I was just about to caution my parliamentary colleague ACT member Gerard Eckhoff that ACT may be allocated more airtime on Radio New Zealand in future. Tonight the Labour Government is trying to introduce the word “ethical” into the charter. That means that a lot of the Prime Minister Helen Clark’s U-turns spins etc. may not be allowed to be broadcast on Radio New Zealand. Maybe that is good news in disguise and ACT and National may be allocated more airtime. 
I come back to the meaning of the new word “spiritual” that has been introduced into the charter. I remind the public that in the second reading debate on the bill the Hon Steve Maharey paused for a moment on the matter of the spiritual and ethical element and went on to say that “spiritual” does not mean a religious denomination. I am just hoping that the Minister will take a call to tell us when the Labour Government has taken over the task of redefining the meaning of “spiritual” as set out in the Concise Oxford Dictionary which states that “spiritual” means “as acted on by God divine inspire” so it does not quite have the same meaning told to us by the Hon Steve Maharey. I would like the Minister to take a call to clarify whether the Labour Government will commission a new edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary. 
I really want the Minister to take a call to reassure the public. The Minister Steve Maharey was really proud in saying that Radio New Zealand was forced to conduct a survey about the views of non-listeners and listeners as to what they wanted to hear on Radio New Zealand. I want the Minister to tell the public who the pollsters were who did the bad polling for the Labour Party. That company cannot be employed to do a survey by Radio New Zealand because the pollster has been totally wrong in not telling the Labour Government that the issue that really concerns New Zealand is about separatism and race division in New Zealand. The Prime Minister Helen Clark was totally caught because the pollsters failed to detect that from the survey it did. So I would really like the Minister to take a call to name the pollsters for the Labour Government and to make sure that Radio New Zealand does not go down that track and engage those pollsters. We would never find out what non-listeners or listeners to Radio New Zealand might want to hear. 
The Minister also owes us an explanation as to why the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill has been included in the urgency motion. The bill was first introduced on 23 December 2002. I guess that is pretty spiritual; it was close to Christmas 2002. It had its first reading on 1 April 2003 and we are debating it almost on its 1-year anniversary—1 April 2004—but the commencement date is not until July 2004. 
What happened in the last year when Radio New Zealand did not include the words “spiritual” and “ethical” in its charter? I wonder what the listeners have missed out by Radio New Zealand not having those two words in its charter. The Minister had better take a call to explain to us firstly whether the Labour Government will commission a rewrite of the definition of “spiritual” that is contrary to the Concise Oxford Dictionary; and secondly can the Minister reassure the public that he will not use the pollsters that the Labour Government used to conduct that survey? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring to your attention that this House has agreed that the debate be taken as one question on three clauses. The debate started at 10 past 9 so it has not been going an hour yet. A number of speakers wish to contribute to this debate and I note that the Government has been moving closure motions. I ask that those speakers who have been seeking the call for the last hour be given that opportunity. I make the point very clearly. You were not in the Chair at the time but it was by agreement of the House that this debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 be taken as one question. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance on this one. I thank Mr Tisch. I was not in the Chair but I am up with the play. I have noticed a number of closure motions from my right here. I am not to know before I call them whether it is a closure motion. If those speakers want the call they will get the call and I give no assurances. I will judge how the debate is going. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I certainly appreciated the Minister getting to his feet and trying to give us an explanation of the reason for these additional dimensions in the charter. But I have to say that I am none the wiser as to why some time after the original charter was prescribed by this Government the Minister saw fit to make additions. But of course the additions that have caused the most reason for debate tonight have been the insertion of the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. So on top of an already overladen charter brought in by the Minister in the early days of his responsibility he has now seen fit to add a dimension that in the Opposition’s view is totally unnecessary and entirely inappropriate. 
There are three grounds on which I object to it. The first is that some obligations are being put into the charter on to a public broadcaster that over the last 2 years has had extreme difficulty delivering on the charter requirements and also with delivering within budget. It has had budget blowouts. It has had an emergency request for funding and into that scenario this Minister has put some added obligations. 
Secondly these are add-ons. If the requirement for the broadcaster to deliver programmes that cater to both the spiritual and ethical dimensions of our community are so important why was it not seen to be important at the time the original charter was developed? Why if they are so important are they now being treated as add-ons? The reality is they are not important. They are not appropriate. As I said earlier we live in a multicultural society. How is it that this broadcaster can meet the needs of the Paimarire movement? How will it do that? What about the people from Islamic countries? How is it to deliver to those people? They are living in our country. They are part of the listening audience. How is the public broadcaster meant to cater to their needs? So what it will amount to is no doubt a bland coverage of what someone’s view is of the spiritual beliefs of New Zealanders. No broadcaster can cater to the spiritual beliefs of the multicultural society we now have in New Zealand. That is why we say that it is totally inappropriate. 
Thirdly these are requirements that should not be in the public arena at all. If someone were to suggest to the compulsory school sector that it has an obligation to cater to the spiritual and ethical needs of our children—and why would one not say that; if one thinks a public broadcaster has that obligation why not a public educator—we know that that would be a nonsense in any event. That is why we say that it is a nonsense to have these dimensions in this legislation. They are not proper or appropriate. 
I have listened to colleagues reminding us about the fact that we no longer say grace at State banquets. When Queen Elizabeth II visited New Zealand 2 years ago and no grace was said at the State dinner in the Banquet Hall I and a small handful of Maori who were there found it very offensive. Why is it that this Government imposes on the public broadcaster an obligation to somehow reflect the ethical and spiritual beliefs of the New Zealand community when at a very important function those beliefs are seen to be of no value whatsoever? The Queen as head of the Anglican Church was at that State dinner and for some reason the Prime Minister saw fit to have the prayer removed and it has been removed since. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 Charter 
The question was put that clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Acting Minister of Broadcasting): 
 I move  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill represents the final step in the first 5-yearly review of Radio New Zealand’s charter. The Radio New Zealand Act which incorporates the Radio New Zealand charter is a major part of the public broadcasting landscape. This bill and the process of its development are part of the ongoing maintenance that is so essential as we keep our sights on the objectives of that charter. 
In December 2000 the Commerce Committee was asked to undertake the review of Radio New Zealand’s charter and it tabled its report on 21 December 2001. That report was supportive of the charter and suggested only a few minor legislative changes to assist Radio New Zealand to engage fully with the spirit of its charter. The Government considered the report and agreed with its recommendations. As not all parties supported the inclusion of the proposed amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) of 2003 the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill incorporates those amendments. The Commerce Committee called for submissions on the bill and all submissions received were generally supportive of the proposed changes. The select committee did not recommend any change to the bill except to amend the commencement date of the bill to January 2004. This date was changed again during the Committee stage we have just sat through to 1 July 2004. 
The bill proposes three areas of change. Firstly the bill proposes changes of wording to incorporate certain concerns raised by submitters during the initial review of the charter. Those changes were supported by the committee. It adds the words “spiritual and ethical” to existing requirements that Radio New Zealand provide programmes that contribute to intellectual scientific and cultural development. Those additional dimensions recognise the wider role of public broadcasting in contributing to the information needs of New Zealand’s increasingly diverse society and culture. There is also a new requirement to include programmes for a full range of age groups designed to ensure that the needs of children are included. 
Secondly the bill proposes requiring Radio New Zealand to provide an international radio service to the South Pacific—Radio New Zealand International. That gives recognition to the importance of this service which has been part of Radio New Zealand’s operation for 13 years. 
Thirdly the bill proposes requiring Radio New Zealand to survey the views of non-listeners of Radio New Zealand and to inform the shareholding Ministers of the result of those surveys as part of its annual report. That will assist in assessing Radio New Zealand’s performance against its charter obligations and inform future programming decisions that may increase the size of its audience. 
During the Committee stage many members of this Parliament and others would have been rather surprised to hear the objection of members of the Opposition to the inclusion of the words “spiritual and ethical” in that charter. Even more surprising is the announcement in the documents that background those select committee discussions that the National Party confirms its view that it would privatise or sell in some way Radio New Zealand in the future. 
Radio New Zealand’s charter embodies its public broadcasting remit to provide innovative comprehensive independent high-quality services for all New Zealanders—public services for all New Zealanders. That remit is of even greater importance to a diverse and democratic society in a fast-changing and globalised world. Reviewing the charter periodically is important to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of New Zealanders. Recognising that the charter has served the public well this bill incorporates minor amendments intended to enhance the charter by encompassing Radio New Zealand’s role more fully. The proposed amendments in the bill extend and embed the responsive and interactive relationship with audiences that is so essential to the role of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster. 
Finally I would like to acknowledge submitters on the bill the valued work of the members of the original Commerce Committee in their thorough and considered review and also the members of the current select committee and the Committee of the whole House for hearing and progressing this bill so efficiently. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 National opposes this bill and it does so on a number of bases and I want to refer to some of them. As I said earlier the addition of spiritual and ethical dimensions into the charter is in our view unnecessary and inappropriate. They are seen to be add-ons; if they were at all important the Minister of Broadcasting in his wisdom would have ensured that they were included right at the start. They were not there at the beginning when the charter was originally legislated for and that they have been added in now suggests this is a Government that is trying to be all things to all people. Obviously it is not succeeding—and it certainly is not succeeding now—and in imposing that obligation on the public broadcaster it loses sight of the make-up of our society in my view. 
Hon Member 
: We are a multicultural society. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes we are a multicultural society with many dimensions to it now and for this Government to expect the public broadcaster to cater to the needs both spiritual and ethical of our multidimensional multilayered multicultural society is beyond belief as far as I am concerned. How does a public broadcaster cater for spiritual beliefs that at one end of the spectrum include Ringatu or Paimarire and at the other end of the spectrum include the beliefs of people now living in New Zealand who are of the Buddhist faith or of the faith of Islam? How is the public broadcaster expected to cater for that wide range of beliefs and what examples is it to take in trying to do that particularly from a Government that at every opportunity seems to want to take out some of the spiritual things many of us think are very important in the protocols and officialdom of our society—particularly in this Parliament? I am referring to the removal of the saying of grace at State dinners and attempts by the Government to take out the daily prayer in this House. 
But at the end of the day I do not expect any public broadcaster to cater for my spiritual or ethical beliefs. Those are mine and mine alone. Every person in this House will have a view about ethics and those views do not necessarily coincide. If a public broadcaster is to cater for the so-called broad ethics of New Zealand society what are they? How is the public broadcaster meant to discern them from particularly the goings-on in this House? So those additions are a nonsense and inappropriate and should not be included in this bill. 
Secondly the bill as the Acting Minister of Broadcasting has said imposes an obligation on Radio New Zealand to extend its audience to include “varied interests” and to encompass “a full range of age groups”. In contrast to the first obligation that is being imposed I guess that is a laudable responsibility. But if we think about our society how is Radio New Zealand to cater to the Polynesian population in south Auckland or in John Tamihere’s area for instance? How is it meant to do that? How is it meant to compete with Mai FM in particular in reference to those audiences? It is a laudable responsibility to impose but realistically how is a public broadcaster meant to deliver on a charter that is so wide in its objectives is vague in some of them and at the end of the day seeks to impose one size on all? It will not work. We have to wonder whether it is more of the same from a Government that is intent on telling New Zealanders how to live their lives. The Government will use the public broadcaster to somehow impose its view of the world in all its varied and many facets on the population of New Zealand. 
On the other hand clause 3(4) is probably necessary. It is one area of the bill that I think may be of value—but only limited value. Clause 3(4) asks Radio New Zealand to commission annually surveys of its current audience and those who are not part of its audience as a way of getting feedback as to how it is doing in terms of both quality and quantity. As I said that in itself probably has some benefit but it loses impact when we have the situation whereby Radio New Zealand does not participate in industry-wide surveys. To get a real feel for how this broadcaster sits in the scheme of things we really need some comparative surveys. Radio New Zealand is happy enough to survey its own audience but seems reluctant to participate in industry-wide surveys that would give the public of New Zealand—especially the taxpaying public—an idea of just where Radio New Zealand sits alongside the many other radio broadcasters in this country. 
All in all I think it is an abuse of this Parliament that this bill has sat here for nearly 18 months. As I said it adds on things that if they were really important the Minister of Broadcasting—who has received a lot of praise from his colleagues this evening—ought to have made part of the original charter. He did not. Those additional obligations have been imposed at a time when Radio New Zealand has been struggling and losing audience. Although at the time of the end-of-year financial review some assurances were given that things were improving we have yet to see that. We have also yet to see how Radio New Zealand will balance the tension between appealing to a wide audience being interesting and innovative and all of those things while still delivering on a charter imposed by this Government which seems absolutely besotted with charters. Charters cost taxpayers’ money. That is our money. 
That is why the National Party will keep this organisation under close scrutiny. We must do that on behalf of the public of New Zealand. At the moment Radio New Zealand serves a very limited part of that listening audience and we will be watching to see whether it improves over the coming time. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I note that the previous speaker was at the opening of the Maori Television Service. I commend her for being there but the Maori Television Service will not be the only broadcasting entity under threat should there be a change of Government. I call on members opposite to deny categorically right now that they will do to Radio New Zealand what I think they want to do to the Maori Television Service. I want you also to deny that you will do to Television New Zealand what you intend— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I challenge the Opposition National Party to categorically deny that it will hock off Radio New Zealand just as it will hock off Kiwibank hock off Television New Zealand and hock off a number of other State-owned enterprises in this country. I admire Georgina te Heuheu for at least being at the opening of the Maori Television Service. I know she believes in that service and I know that in her heart of hearts she believes in Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand but the rest of her colleagues do not. Although we are hearing a lot of mealy-mouthed words about the Radio New Zealand charter it is all just pinpricking. I believe there is a real threat that right now National in its policy rooms and back rooms is hatching a plot to hock off Radio New Zealand. This Government will save Radio New Zealand and keep it being the cultural icon of this country. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a great honour to follow a contribution like that of Mr Gallagher. It is not often that we see a contribution like that to the debate from the Government. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and to tell Mr Gallagher that New Zealand First will not support this bill despite his rendition. We believe that this bill is a backward step for broadcasting and we can see no good reason for it at all. New Zealand First does not believe that the charter for Radio New Zealand needs to be modified in this way at all. We believe that the charter has been reviewed principally in order to ensure that it is a model of political correctness in every way. The bill is totally ludicrous. There is not even a definition of “spiritual and ethical” development. The bill is a mere 1½ pages in length and was not even changed by the Commerce Committee—including those words “spiritual and “ethical”. I wonder how many definitions of “spiritual and “ethical” development we will hear from Radio New Zealand. We all have our own definitions so there will have to be many definitions. Even if the broadcaster goes 24/7 it will not meet everybody’s needs in that way. 
New Zealand First believes that this bill is an absolute nonsense and a waste of parliamentary time particularly under urgency. We have spent far longer on debating this bill tonight than it took the select committee to consider the bill. I see that the select committee took only 14 minutes. That really makes one wonder how important this bill is particularly as it has languished on the Order Paper for months—since April 2003. It really does make one wonder. Will this bill change the lot of New Zealanders? No not at all. How many variations of spiritual and ethical belief will we hear from Radio New Zealand? We do not know that. There is an infinite number of such beliefs. How will this bill advance the lot of New Zealanders? It will not do so at all. This bill basically raises far more questions than it will ever answer. Also what are the delivery outcomes for ensuring that the charter is met? It will be difficult for Radio New Zealand to even work out whether it has met the requirements of this legislation. To be fair to the people of New Zealand all people’s views have to be met but the reality is that those views are all so diverse that that is an impossible challenge for Radio New Zealand to meet. It is interesting to note too that we see those dimensions creeping in to all parts of our legislation. 
This is a very sad day for Radio New Zealand. It is sad to set up an organisation to fail despite its very best attempts. This charter is so wide and vague that it will not work. It is a balancing act at the very best of times. It reminds me of this statement by Winston Churchill: “Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” That is what Radio New Zealand has been lumped with tonight. We know for a fact that the number of Radio New Zealand listeners is decreasing and we would be really interested to hear—and we have not heard this tonight—how the words “spiritual and ethical” in the charter will reverse Radio New Zealand’s disastrous ratings. The charter appears to be of no value in that regard. What have we seen since its introduction? We have seen a revolt. People do not want to be told what their spiritual and ethical values are. They do not want to follow through on the charter and they have voted with their fingers by getting up out of their chairs and changing from listening to that oh so totally politically correct radio station. It does not matter what is put in the charter. It will not help Radio New Zealand at all because it cannot meet the requirements of the charter. 
Clause 3(4) provides in new paragraph (d) to be inserted in section 7(2) of the principal Act that surveys will be commissioned annually of “persons who are members of its current audience to establish whether those members consider that the quality and quantity of its services are being maintained in accordance with subsection (1)” and new paragraph (e) goes on to add “surveys commissioned from time to time of persons who are not members of its current audiences.” Just from what I have heard tonight I believe it will be far easier to carry out surveys in terms of paragraph (e)—“... commissioned from time to time of persons who are not members of its current audiences.”—than it will be to survey people who are actually listening to Radio New Zealand. We agree with the implementation of surveys; that is one of the few parts of the bill that we agree with. But then we must ask why the surveys are not carried out like those carried out on other broadcasting stations. The State broadcaster definitely has a totally different set of rules for its operation from anybody else. 
This bill is appalling for Radio New Zealand. The bottom line is that Radio New Zealand cannot be all things to all people. We can see that from the number of listeners who are dropping off—who are not listening to Radio New Zealand. That is absolutely appalling. If it were a private radio station we would see many changes. Heads would roll. The indicators of such a loss of audience would inspire some sort of action on the part of the directors of a private station. But do we see any action being taken by Radio New Zealand? No. It appears to be accepted that Radio New Zealand is required by the charter to provide programmes that other radio stations do not provide and that many of those types of programmes will never generate a large number of listeners. 
Does anybody really care about the loss of the listeners? It does not appear so. When we read the performance targets of Radio New Zealand we find that they do not inspire the confidence of any New Zealander with a goal of losing no more than 10 percent of the previous year’s listeners. How long will it take before nobody listens to Radio New Zealand? If it sticks with that target its audience will be halved within 6 years for a start. The loss of listeners is a big indication that there is something very wrong with the public broadcaster and the charter will not correct that. There are impossible compliance challenges for Radio New Zealand in the charter. In fact any organisation would be extremely brave to take this type of charter on. 
The bill is not really about changing the role of Radio New Zealand. All we are seeing as the previous speakers have mentioned is a tinkering with the charter by adding the words “spiritual and ethical”. A large amount of money has been spent on implementing the charter. It would have been far better spent on modernising the equipment so that people could get a better level and quality of broadcast rather than tinkering around with “spiritual and ethical” considerations. 
New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We do not like to see organisations being set up to fail. 
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. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 There is only one radio programme worth listening to in the mornings and that is Newstalk ZB especially on Tuesday mornings at 8.15. It is the most informed political comment in the country. 
Katherine Rich 
: Who is the host? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: My colleague has asked who the people on it are. They are the Hon John Tamihere and myself. So I plead guilty. I might be the only person in this House who does not listen to State radio in the mornings. I listen to Newstalk ZB. 
Do members know why private radio stations do not need a charter? They do not need a charter because they actually adhere to the objective of this charter which Radio New Zealand does not adhere to. They are objective and they are independent and that is because they participate in industry surveys and they get the message very quickly very sharply and very painfully—because it affects them in the pocket—if they are not delivering what the customers want to hear. I would argue that the news services of Global News or Newstalk ZB were more objective and fairer and had more voices of dissent than State-owned radio. 
I did not get to have another call in the Committee stage but I wanted to continue talking about this report that two former directors of Radio New Zealand Dr Denis Dutton and John Isles put their names to. It was a survey of feature programmes on Radio New Zealand. It was a very fair survey. It did not seek to establish whether there was bias in Radio New Zealand; it just sought to establish whether there were enough diverse voices and whether as a public radio it was reflecting the voices of the public. As Sue Kedgley has so rightly pointed out it is owned by every taxpayer in New Zealand and through Parliament its adherence to the charter is scrutinised. This report roundly recommended and concluded that Radio New Zealand at the moment is not adhering to its charter. 
The Minister of Broadcasting has done a number of things that compromise Radio New Zealand severely so I do not blame the people at Radio New Zealand for this; I blame the Minister. In May 2003 the Minister held a function on the premises of Radio New Zealand and he said to the staff that they “had every reason to feel nervous bullied and uncertain under the previous administration”. State-owned broadcasting should be robust enough and independent enough to survive a change in Government—and there will be a change in Government to the centre-right. Radio New Zealand must be robust enough to sustain that. If people like Martin Gallagher who gave one of his rare but welcome vein-popping speeches— 
Simon Power 
: It was his maiden speech. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It was a wonderful speech. He was passionately declaring his loyalty to save public radio. If that is the case that broadcaster must be able to sustain a change of Government. The Minister has been compromising it. He said: “Under the National Government Radio New Zealand struggled against political reluctance to maintain its funding and through public pressure and its own lobbying managed to secure the continuing existence of two networks. Many of you here will have taken part in those battles because you know that public radio is worth fighting for.” I question the wisdom of the Minister of Broadcasting allowing Radio New Zealand to be used for the delivery of such an overt political message. It is questionable especially when concerns of political bias are levelled at that organisation. 
The Minister’s theme that public radio is under threat from its political opponents does appear to have currency with the broadcaster. The broadcaster has clearly been influenced by the Minister to take his views on board. The website asserts that this is “a time when the whole concept of public radio is under attack”. The Radio New Zealand statement of intent for 2003-04 declares under the heading of “Strategic Issues” that the institution of Radio New Zealand was “eroded” during the 1990s and needed “rebuilding”. There is not a lot of wisdom in the State broadcaster putting issues like that—a criticism of the previous Government—on its website when it is required to be independent fair and unbiased. It is expressing a clear political and philosophical view. That is why I believe that it is not adhering to the charter at the moment that is why I do not think we should be adding anything more to the charter and that is why the ACT party did not support this amendment to the charter going in the Statutes Amendment Bill. 
Ms Kedgley seems to miss the point there. She said that we are whinging on about the State being secular. Well those issues of spirituality should be required to compete in the marketplace of ideas with their own funding and support and not be supported by taxpayer funding. That is the point we make. Statutes Amendment bills are meant to be used for non-controversial issues and we have seen from the debate tonight that this issue is far from non-controversial. 
The survey that Dutton and Isles authored and commissioned showed that the voices of some sectors of the public are not aired on public radio. There are no voices of market liberals for instance. There are very few voices of the centre-right. There are a few voices of the conservative-right but certainly if one considers market liberals—the voices of freedom the voices that are pro-capitalist—one finds they are never heard on public radio. Public radio is not representing a large number of the community out there and probably that is the sector of the community contributing most to the taxes that fund public radio. 
I say that if this Government is serious about protecting public broadcasting and if the Greens are serious about protecting public broadcasting then they have to face up to the fact that it is not as glorious wonderful and perfect as they think it is and that it needs to be a robust and independent organisation that is already sticking to its charter rather than more things being put in the charter and it being put under even further pressure and set up to fail. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I will try to keep my voice down a little because I know that some of us are actually trying to do some work. 
Simon Power 
: Some of your colleagues are trying to sleep. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Not some of my colleagues; in fact some Labour members were trying to go to sleep and now they are off to bed I think. The bill covers three aspects of Radio New Zealand operations. Briefly the first is amendments to the charter to encourage Radio New Zealand to contribute towards New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical development. A lot of people have a bit of a problem with that and I do not understand why. Commercial radio stations have a charter and their charter is money. They go after it. They provide what they need to get the ratings they need so that they can get advertising dollars. That is their charter; that is their mandate. I think Radio New Zealand has a slightly different focus and that is fair enough. 
Secondly there are amendments that require Radio New Zealand to feature programmes that provide for varied interests including now a full range of age groups. Who can complain about that? This broadcaster is a public broadcaster. We should be looking for a public broadcaster to look at a variety of interests—ethical and spiritual different age groups and the like. That is something commercial radio stations frequently do not do because that is not where their dollars are. That is not what their charter if one can call it that—the financial incentive—covers. I am not knocking the financial incentive. I am absolutely in favour of advertising being the driving force of commercial interests but I am suggesting that there is a place for a State-sponsored radio station to provide those things that other outlets simply cannot do. 
The last amendment of substance requires Radio New Zealand annually to survey not just its existing audience but also attitudes amongst those who do not currently listen to Radio New Zealand. 
Some of the charter prescriptions do seem a little bit woolly but that is actually their strength in some ways. They should not be seen as prescriptive. They are really just an acknowledgment of aspects of our lives other than just the material. The broadcasting mandate of Radio New Zealand is the public and whether we like it or not the public do have spiritual and ethical values. Those against these provisions have the difficulty of providing a rationale against the use of the words “spiritual” and “ethical”. It is not driving a particular dogma down anybody’s throat; it is simply recognising that aspect of society which sometimes goes unacknowledged by the market-driven providers of radio. I am surprised that those who want to place for example Treaty of Waitangi obligations in legislation can possibly be against the lesser consideration of that which is spiritual or ethical. Is that not the basis of Maori Television—something we are actually against? But I do not think we can complain too much about the provision of both spiritual and ethical development; too much time has been spent debating that particular issue. 
The amendment to the Radio New Zealand charter brings some consistency in terms of the programming requirements for two publicly owned broadcasting media—Television New Zealand’s charter and now the charter of Radio New Zealand. It brings consistency to both. Clause 3(2) requires Radio New Zealand to provide programming that caters to “a full range of age groups” and it is particularly pleasing that that provision is included as it will ensure that Radio New Zealand provides programming that is specific to child listeners and not just to the elderly. 
One of the ongoing issues on which we have sought resolution is the issue of accountability by Radio New Zealand to its public. That is something that for private providers is accomplished through the market mechanism. This bill requires Radio New Zealand to survey not just its audience but also its non-audience so that it might delineate the wishes of the rest of the radio-listening public provide for their interests and attract new listeners accordingly. This amendment is a commendable attempt; however we are severely disappointed that the Commerce Committee has remained too timid to deal with the real issues surrounding Radio New Zealand’s surveys. It is however an operational matter; nevertheless it should compete on a level playing field. An ACNielsen survey recently found that one in five radio listeners listened to either National Radio or Concert FM. It would be very interesting indeed to see if a comparison with the monthly commercial radio surveys showed there is consistent listenership of Radio New Zealand yet we do not know that because Radio New Zealand has decided not to take part in the industry’s standard surveys. Why not? It should. The select committee has gone so far as specifying that Radio New Zealand must undertake annual surveys of its audience of a quantitative and qualitative nature; it would have been easier to specify that Radio New Zealand take part in regular industry-wide radio audience surveys. It is disappointing that the committee has not addressed that and accordingly I think Radio New Zealand will continue to kid itself about its true level of public support until it faces reality and subjects itself to the scrutiny of the regular industry-wide surveys. It is that point that I am surprised has not been picked up to a much greater extent by the Opposition. 
United Future will be supporting this bill. However that support is with some reservation. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak to the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill I must say that it was very interesting to hear the Acting Minister of Broadcasting’s speech. Never has a Minister read so much and said so little. Basically when we listen to what the Minister has said we are left with the impression that everything has gone along swimmingly at Radio New Zealand and that this Government has an unblemished record. Well I think that members on this side of the Chamber know that is not the case because despite a lot of rhetoric about Radio New Zealand this Government did at one stage cut its news budget and the company has had a long stream of employment disputes. We need mention only the names of Lynne Snowdon and Sean Plunket to remind listeners that Radio New Zealand has not been a happy place over the last 4 years or so. 
 We have been looking at the Radio New Zealand charter for the last 4 years and it is interesting that we are debating what is a two-page bill in urgency. I must say that there has not been a groundswell of support for this bill. There have not been protests in the streets and there have not even been calls or emails or letters from listeners demanding that we get this bill through the House. I imagine that most Radio New Zealand listeners would not even know that this bill existed but here we are in urgency putting it through. 
I think it is worthwhile looking at what this bill tries to achieve. Although the member from the Greens says it is good to have a radio station that will evaluate ethical or spiritual issues that is not what this bill is about at all. This bill is about putting into the charter a requirement to reflect the ethical and spiritual needs of New Zealanders. The Acting Minister was challenged during the Committee stage to tell the Committee what that meant—what did the Government think were the ethical and spiritual needs of New Zealanders? I think one thing that we have established is that New Zealanders are not all the same. Certainly not every New Zealander chooses to listen to Radio New Zealand. Some of the listenership measurements are actually quite small and in some major metropolitan areas Radio New Zealand is lucky to get 5 percent of listeners. So a lot of New Zealanders are not choosing to listen to Radio New Zealand. We need to have explained to us how this new addition to the charter would make any difference. One of the things that we understand is that although those two words will be inserted into the charter very little will change in terms of what programming is offered by Radio New Zealand. 
It is also worth looking at the new requirements to carry out surveys. It was not rocket science but during the select committee process we asked Sharon Crosbie and officials why Radio New Zealand had pulled out of the national survey by ACNielsen. We were told that it was too costly—it cost $100000—and that Radio New Zealand was not competing with other commercial broadcasters. We asked how in that case Radio New Zealand would know what listeners want to hear and how listeners were judging it. It told us that it would do its own survey. Interestingly and coincidently the survey cost $100000. Rather than talk to a wide range of people Radio New Zealand spoke to just those who listen to Radio New Zealand. We asked whether it was obligated also to interview and survey those people who do not listen to Radio New Zealand because one of the things we are seeing with the listenership figures is that the number of people tuning into Radio New Zealand is actually decreasing each and every year. A startling thing about Radio New Zealand is that one of its objectives is not to lose more than a certain number of listeners every year. In our view that is a bit like a turkey looking forward to Christmas. 
It is not the role of State broadcasting to tell us what to think or to reflect what our ethical values are. Mind you if we are going to discuss ethics it might be of use for Radio New Zealand to start giving a few messages to Labour members such as not lying and not signing paintings that they do not paint themselves. Those may be some of the ethical issues that are addressed by this new requirement to reflect ethical needs. What we are seeing here is social engineering. It is the sort of patronising approach to radio listeners that says somehow the Government knows best and that it can insert a requirement for the broadcaster to reflect what it thinks should be our ethics and our spiritual needs. 
In terms of Radio New Zealand I do not think there is any doubt that there is a huge amount of support for the station and for public broadcasting in this country. Government members would have us believe that they have a monopoly on interest in public broadcasting but that is not the case. When we look at the cost of bringing this legislation through the House I think we have to be very careful not just to bring through what is feel-good legislation. This bill is not about governance or structure and it is not about changing the nature of the service; it is about changing a couple of words in the charter. I think it is quite clear that this Government is totally obsessed with charters. If something moves the Government thinks it needs a charter. We have seen the way that it has constrained Television New Zealand and involved that broadcaster in what is a political debate. I think we are also seeing the same kind of thing with Radio New Zealand. It is the role of a State broadcaster to reflect a certain part of the community but it is a sad day when we look to radio to try to direct us about what we should believe and what our spiritual and ethical needs should be. It is the sort of “We know best.” approach that we are very used to seeing from this Government. 
Looking at the way that the Acting Minister Mr Benson-Pope has handled this particular bill through the House I think it is not a credit to the work that Minister Maharey has done to date. Mr Benson-Pope is not even in the Chamber listening to the debate. After reading his speech he decided that that was all he was required to do. I think he drew the short straw in the Labour Cabinet. He probably felt he had the credentials to be the Minister of Broadcasting. I imagine he piped up and said that he listened to the radio and that was probably all that was required. 
We all have expectations of State radio. I do not agree with the Green member that it is always independent but I think it is up to all members of this House to challenge what is broadcast when required and to hold all broadcasters to account to make sure that they do cover a wide range of views. But what we are seeing here with the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is just a lot of expense. A two-page bill is being dealt with under urgency when it does little more than add a couple of weasel words to an overly bureaucratic charter. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill because I support the changes to the charter. I listened very carefully to what the previous speaker had to say and I am sorry she missed what is the intent of the changes to the charter. I believe they are about informing people. We in the Government like people to be informed. We like to encourage people to think and debate the current issues that are topical today both nationally and internationally. We are lucky in New Zealand that we have a good choice of radio to listen to. Talkback does not appeal to me but I am an avid listener to Radio New Zealand and I support the programmes it is putting out to New Zealanders. 
I bridled a little bit at the member’s comment about social engineering and her accusation that that only ever happens when this Government is in power. I have to ask that member what she considered the policies of the former National Government were. If that was not social engineering I do not know what is. 
The international radio service that is provided to the South Pacific is incredibly important to a lot of people who are geographically isolated. That in itself is very valuable. I am pleased to support this bill and I look forward to it going through the House quickly. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Finally I get to make a contribution in the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I rise to speak in opposition to the bill and I do so for a number of reasons. I was interested to hear the contribution from the previous speaker and also the contributions from both the Greens and United Future. Those members talked about the importance of having an independent State-owned subsidised radio station. I am not sure whether I am philosophically in agreement with that but that is not what the debate is about. The reason why we are opposed to this bill tonight is the very reason that they put forward—that this radio station is valuable and we want it to survive. 
There is an old cliché that goes with socialist Governments: if it moves tax it; if it keeps moving tax it a bit more; and if it stops moving subsidise it so we can get it moving again. This is a subsidised radio station to start with. The Government cannot apply that cliche so what does it have here? The Government has a charter that is so convoluted and so difficult for anybody to ever achieve its objectives that it will strangle the radio station that way. The Government cannot tax it until it is dead so it will strangle it with its charter. 
Words fail me but members should look at some of the social engineering and rhetoric in this charter. It could be introduced only by a socialist Government such as the one on the other side of the House. The words “spiritual and ethical” are in the bill but the Minister said in the first reading that those words do not mean religious denomination. I was confused and not quite up to speed with what they mean so I went to the  
Concise 
Oxford Dictionary 
 to find out. They do mean religious denomination so obviously in the new Radio New Zealand charter the Labour Party will recreate a new  
Concise 
Oxford Dictionary 
 according to the principles of Helen Clark. That is what it will do. 
We have had a bit of discussion recently in public and in the media about the whole issue of religion according to the Prime Minister. She says she is agnostic. Maybe one of the members on the other side—the Minister over there—will take a call and clear some of this up for us. Maybe he will maybe he will not—there has been no evidence of it so far. Maybe “spiritual” means agnostic but that is not what the  
Concise 
Oxford Dictionary 
 says. That is the whole basis of our opposition. The fact is that this will create endless ambiguity around what Radio New Zealand is supposed to deliver. “Spiritual” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. 
So then we turn to Radio New Zealand. This legislation says that Radio New Zealand has to meet the needs of all age groups. So it is going to meet all spiritual needs and the needs of all age groups? I am really starting to despair. It is a bit too late at 11.30 p.m. for those at home in Taranaki - King Country to be listening to this debate on their valve radios but those listening to their cowshed radios in the morning will not understand for one moment what they mean by the Radio New Zealand charter. They will not have a clue what it means. 
United Future surprised me when its members said in very passionate speeches that they supported the passage of this bill and the introduction of the words “spiritual and ethical” into the charter. I always understood that for United Future the words meant religious denomination. Obviously the public of New Zealand are confused about what United Future stands for. I thought that is what the words meant. Clearly they do not so that is a revelation to those who might be listening out there. 
One part of this legislation might be useful and it is that the Government will conduct surveys to find out what both the listening public of Radio New Zealand and non-listeners think about the service. But the problem with that is that this Government has conducted many surveys in its term. It listens to the ones it wants to hear and ignores the ones that come up with a result that is not what it wants to hear. So will the Government take any notice of the responses from the survey? If the Government does take notice of surveys can it explain to me which survey was conducted and how that survey came up with the notion that it should introduce into the charter of Radio New Zealand the term “spiritual and ethical”? 
I do not know of any survey or any public opinion poll that suggests that that should be so. Certainly those who made submissions on the bill had concerns about it and raised those concerns in their submissions. Certainly members on this side of the House who have contributed to the debate have overwhelming raised that as an issue of concern. The Government was not even going to allow this issue to be properly aired. It was going to slip it through in an omnibus-type way so that it could not be debated tonight. The fact is that those kinds of bills are supposed to be non-controversial. We cannot introduce into the charter of Radio New Zealand terms like “spiritual and ethical” and not expect at some stage that it will be controversial. I hope that a Minister or somebody on the other side of the House who might have a view on this issue will take a call and explain to us what they mean by that. 
The charter as it stands at the moment—as it is prescribed in this legislation—will do nothing but strangle Radio New Zealand and that will be a great pity. There are a number of us who listen to it. There are a number of us who believe that at times it is fairly balanced. There are a number of us who participate in debates on Radio New Zealand. We do not understand so we wish the Government would explain to us how under this charter Radio New Zealand will be able to live up to all these objectives. 
Further on in the legislation we see that the Government will also include in new section 7(1)(ga) of the principal Act the term “Radio New Zealand International” which means that Radio New Zealand will have to cater for the Pacific Islands and other nations with different languages. So now we have Radio New Zealand catering to all age groups meeting all the spiritual and ethical needs of the nation and also having to cater for multiple languages. This station will have to work a miracle. The subsidy the Government will provide will have to increase tenfold or it will have to double triple or quadruple the amount of air time the station has. I do not know what it will have to do but it will certainly have to perform a miracle to achieve the objectives set out in the charter as prescribed here tonight. 
It is interesting to note that several Ministers are here tonight and not one of them has taken a call to explain to us in this third reading what this all means how it will be achieved and when they think they will be able to achieve this objective for the public of New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time.