Rich Katherine: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Rich Katherine: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10264] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Broadcasting said this legislation should be a step closer to what New Zealanders are looking for but I wonder whether it is a step further away. If we look at the insertions the bill makes we see three little words but they are words that I think some New Zealanders will take issue with. It is a sad day really when we look to State radio to guide us when it comes to our spiritual development. It is a sad day when we look to public broadcasting to guide us when it comes to ethical development. When did National Radio ever become a teacher of ethics a teacher of spiritual development or even a teacher of culture? 
People listen to National Radio because they get something out of it. They like the quality of the news and they like the programmes. Many of us grew up with National Radio blaring while we had our breakfast in the mornings. We grew up listening to Mr Humphrey . It seems he has been on air for most of my entire life. But I wonder whether there are greater priorities when it comes to focusing on things that can be done with National Radio. For example would it not have been better to take the cost of putting this bill through—this 2-page bill—and put it into better-quality studios better-quality programming or an FM strategy so that those in the South Island who like me when growing up listen to a very crackly Mr Humphrey could get clearer reception of National Radio? 
It is sad that we think any broadcaster can teach us about spirituality or ethics. I do not know what ethical programming might deliver. Perhaps it might teach people not to sign paintings they have not painted—who knows? United Future may have been disappointed to hear from the Minister that spiritual programming does not mean religious programming because a lot of submitters thought that was what that word would deliver. There was a lot of debate about what the correct word was. Some people wanted the word “religious” to be in there but a compromise was struck and the word “spiritual” was put there instead. 
I think it is good that there has been one change which was basically as a result of Opposition debate. That change is the inclusion of requirements for the surveying of the current audience of Radio New Zealand. Unfortunately Radio New Zealand pulled out of the commercial survey programme ostensibly because it said the programme cost too much but then it went on and spent exactly the same amount doing its own in-house survey which it paid for itself. Initially the survey just looked at the current audience and one of the arguments I put forward was that there was no point in Radio New Zealand continually surveying just its current audience because considering that audience numbers were declining over time it was continuing to survey a reducing group. So I was quite pleased to see an amendment that Radio New Zealand was to look not just at its current audience but at those who were not listening to Radio New Zealand in order to try to identify ways of attracting that audience. 
It seems to me that surveys are pretty important because a broadcaster needs to know what people think about the programmes it is airing and needs to be open to criticism about programmes when people say they do not like what it happens to be airing. Some listeners particularly last year started to turn off their radios as a result of some of the changes that had been made. 
I would have to say that when we are looking at spiritual and ethical development that should also apply to Radio New Zealand itself. I think there are some staff members within Radio New Zealand who perhaps feel they have not been dealt with ethically—and certainly not spiritually—over the last year. If I look at some of the concerns that I am sure Sean Plunket has had about his treatment or that staff member Lynne Snowdon has had about her treatment I wonder whether this desire to behave ethically or to have in the charter the promotion of ethical development was applied to the treatment of those particular staff members or in fact to other staff members who have had a difficult time in the last couple of years. But there has been quite a lot of progress. With a new person in charge there we hope to see some changes made to Radio New Zealand. I would like to see a concentration on some of the things that would actually make a difference to programming—things like studios and equipment and FM band usage and not just bits of paper and the insertion of words that will not change a helluva lot. 
As I said it is pretty sad when we think that one broadcaster can take part in the teaching of ethics within a country or even in the spiritual development of a country. That is not really the role of State radio. The role of State radio is to provide a service that all New Zealanders can tune into and that at least lets them hear some programming that reflects them. We should not be in a position where we have to reconfirm that public radio is there for all New Zealanders of all age groups. That has always been the case. If we look at the schedule for Radio New Zealand we see that there has always been the intention to have a wide range of programming for different sorts of New Zealanders. 
But there is no point in having State radio if people do not listen to it. One of the things that concerned me when we were going through the estimates and financial review process this year and the year before was to see the declining numbers of people tuning in to National Radio. That really did concern me because if New Zealanders are not pricking up their ears to listen to a wide range of programming on National Radio then it is just broadcasting into the ether and there really is not that much point to it. So despite National Radio being a public broadcaster there is still an obligation on its part to try to attract people to listen to it and to make sure that when people turn it on they hear a wide range of programmes that they actually enjoy. 
So National disagrees with this bill. We think the money spent on bringing it through the House should have been applied to other things that would actually make a difference to the quality of programming. Anybody who has been interviewed in the press gallery Radio New Zealand studios lately would realise that the staff there should be supported in their desire to have a higher-quality studio than they currently have. But once again the main reason we cannot support the bill is that we just do not see that the role of State radio is to teach New Zealanders about their spirituality or the ethics that they should follow. When we start to have a Government teach us about ethics—particularly one that is unethical—we are going to run into real difficulty. With the Government teaching ethics we will be looking at what the Government’s definition of ethics is. As I said before who knows we might see some programmes coming up about the ethics of not signing paintings one has not painted or about the things that can go wrong if one says things one should not. We will see. 
In terms of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill I hope the work that has been done is continued. I do think the money should be spent on improvements in programming and equipment because if people do not tune into the Radio New Zealand network in large numbers then there really is very little point in continued public funding of it as New Zealanders will not feel they have a stake in it.