Robertson Grant: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robertson Grant: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4642] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 For anybody who is still awake after that last member’s speech I tell them that that was Katrina Shanks from the National Party showing the true degree of enthusiasm that National has for the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. Commitment and passion for public radio dripped from every word we just heard from Katrina Shanks! 
The Labour Party supports this bill because it confirms the important role of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster. Labour believes in public broadcasting and has invested in it over a long period of time. We believe that it is important that New Zealanders hear their own voices and their own stories. In a time when we have a plethora of choices in the media market we still have a public broadcaster that we know will reflect who we are. The charter is a very important part of that and this bill is an important part of that too. 
I will reflect briefly on some of the history around Radio New Zealand; we have already heard a bit of it in the debate tonight. I particularly want to talk about the period after 1988 when Radio New Zealand was a State-owned enterprise and eventually became a Crown-owned company in the 1990s. It was a very difficult time for Radio New Zealand. Year upon year in the 1990s we saw budget cuts for Radio New Zealand’s budget: $10 million a year was taken out of Radio New Zealand in the 1990s. That was a perilous state for our public broadcaster to be in. I see that Tony Ryall is with us tonight and is making some interjections. In 1993 at the time that money was being taken out of Radio New Zealand this is what Tony Ryall had to say about the broadcaster: “I believe that we should be putting up for tender the provision of a concert programme network and the provision of a national radio network. At present it costs taxpayers some $20 million to provide those networks but those services could be provided to an equivalent if not better standard by an alternative provider.” A translation of that is: “Flick it off sell it and privatise it.” I am quite sure that Tony Ryall has not changed his view about Radio New Zealand one iota. In fact it would be interesting to hear from Mr Ryall to see whether he has. I do not believe that National is truly committed to Radio New Zealand. It is a good thing that this bill has come forward. It is a Labour bill and it ensures that the charter will now be able to be implemented in a proper way. But I do not believe that National’s commitment to public broadcasting is anything more than skin deep. 
My colleague Sue Kedgley has already spoken tonight about National’s attitude towards Television New Zealand and the other charter we had in place to govern public broadcasting. That has gone and we have not really heard from Jonathan Coleman how Television New Zealand will continue to fulfil its important role as a public broadcaster over the next few years. We know that in the past the National Party has not been very keen on the notion of social responsibility in public broadcasting but tonight all of a sudden social responsibility is back on the agenda. Ms Kedgley is a more charitable person than I am and she has been congratulating National on that. I am not convinced and one of the reasons I am not convinced is that as we have already heard tonight the funding for Radio New Zealand has been frozen at $34 million a year. Over the next 4 years no new money will be coming in for Radio New Zealand so how will it be able to fulfil its obligations under the charter to be a public broadcaster that all New Zealanders can be proud of? It is not just the Labour Party that is raising these concerns. An editorial in the 
 Otago Daily Times 
 recently said: “Frozen funding means no pay rises no money to meet inevitable rising costs no money for infrastructural development and no money to meet new trends and developments in the medium. That does not augur well for such an admired and critical part of our broadcasting services.” That is what the editorial in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 said. The paper could see through National’s rhetoric on this bill. 
In 1995 when the charter was brought in Sharon Crosbie said that the charter was a document to be “waved at the Treasury NZ On Air Rotary groups staff and the board. The Ministry might reinterpret the charter each year but it is now nailed to the door … to … protect public radio”. That is what a charter can do for public broadcasting. No matter what is slung at the charter and no matter what ridiculous political accusations such as those we heard from Sir Roger Douglas tonight are flung at it it is a charter in law that protects and provides for New Zealanders a public radio service that can reflect them and their values. That is an essential thing. Sharon Crosbie was alluding to the fact that there were people in Treasury and other places in our system who would like to see Radio New Zealand flicked off. There still are. As I said before I think that Tony Ryall is one of those people and I am sure that others in the National caucus also believe that. 
Public broadcasting in the digital age is more important than ever. We hear a lot from National about the importance of choice. In the media world we have so much choice. We can have programmes and content delivered through the Internet television and radio—a huge variety of sources. Some may ask why we need public broadcasting in that environment. It is all out there; we can all go and get it. We need it because it is important to our identity. It is important to our sense of who we are. 
I was reflecting on this the other day when I was watching the programme on Sunday morning that follows  
Q+A  
on Television One. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Mr Garrett would know about that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes Mr Garrett has been on the  
Q+A 
 programme.  
Attitude 
 is the programme that follows  
Q+A 
 and it is about New Zealand’s disability sector. It is one of the most amazing incredible and insightful programmes. Radio New Zealand also has a programme on the disability sector called  
One in Five 
. Again this is incredibly important programming that in the fully commercial environment would not see the light of day. We need public broadcasting to bring forward the stories of New Zealanders that we simply would not hear in a commercial environment. 
We need to be able to do this in different ways. Radio New Zealand’s website is something that it can justifiably be very proud of. The website allows an incredible amount of access to sound archives and is listened to around the world by expatriate New Zealanders. Radio New Zealand staff are developing their craft in terms of the new media of delivery of broadcasting. That is something that needs to be supported and invested in but is not being supported and invested in because funds have been frozen by this Government. 
I will speak about something that has not been talked about in the debate tonight that comes under new section 8(5)(l) of the charter inserted by clause 5. It states that Radio New Zealand should: “include an international service to the South Pacific in both English and Pacific languages:”. We generally know that service as Radio New Zealand International. The Radio New Zealand International service is highly regarded and appreciated across the Pacific. It keeps people in far-flung islands in the Pacific in touch with world events through a range of programming relevant to them. It is an incredibly important part of New Zealand’s relationship with the Pacific. I do not think that it has always been appreciated as well as it could be by Governments of all sides in terms of the role it plays in New Zealand’s being a positive influence in the Pacific. I have a grave concern that over a number of years it has not received the funding it needs to ensure that New Zealand continues to be an important part of the lives of people in the Pacific. So although it is good to see the service reflected in the charter the fact that funding has been frozen supports the notion that Radio New Zealand International will not be developed by Radio New Zealand. The service has the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and NZAID which are also under attack from this Government. I am concerned that Radio New Zealand International will not be able to fulfil the charter requirements we see today. 
The bill does some very important and significant things. It puts in place principles of operation to allow the charter to work. It is worth reading these out because they actually show the value of having a 5-yearly review process such as we have for this charter. The review showed that Radio New Zealand needs something to back up its principles of operation. Now we have a public radio company that must: “in fulfilling its Charter exhibit a sense of social responsibility by—(a) having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates; and (b) endeavouring to accommodate or encourage those interests when able to do so.” It sets up Radio New Zealand as an institution that will be socially responsible and promote New Zealand’s identity. 
This is a good bill; it is a Labour bill. I am very pleased that the National Government has picked it up but we need a greater commitment from the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman to public broadcasting that all New Zealanders can be proud of.