te Heuheu Georgina: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12253] 
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.