Wong Pansy: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12249] 
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?