Rich Katherine: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12261] 
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.