Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) : I move, That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. Its purpose is to update Radio New Zealand’s charter following the second 5-yearly parliamentary review required by section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. The enactment of this legislation will conclude that review, which was not completed during the term of the previous Government.

Radio New Zealand’s charter is a statement of its statutory functions. The charter outlines the purposes for which the Government owns and funds Radio New Zealand. The second parliamentary review of Radio New Zealand’s charter was completed in 2006. In preparation for the review, Radio New Zealand conducted its own preliminary review of the charter in 2005. This was followed by an extensive public consultation process, which led to the drafting of a revised charter. The charter’s second review gave Radio New Zealand the opportunity to consult its listeners and stakeholders. The revised version of the charter was amended after Radio New Zealand considered the feedback contained in 165 submissions.

The Commerce Committee was then invited to undertake the second review of the charter on behalf of the House of Representatives. In December 2005 Radio New Zealand’s proposed new draft of its charter, as amended following public consultation, was forwarded to the committee for its information and consideration. The select committee tabled its report on 22 March 2006. In the report the committee stated that it was satisfied with the drafting of Radio New Zealand’s proposed revision. The new charter was unanimously supported by the committee.

As a result of this comprehensive review, the revised charter makes a stronger statement than its predecessor about Radio New Zealand’s role as a public broadcaster. The revised text also streamlines and clarifies the charter but will not materially alter Radio New Zealand’s functions or its operations.

Clause 5 inserts new section 8, which contains the charter. The charter is divided into two parts: purpose and delivery. The first part, the purpose, makes a strong statement concerning Radio New Zealand’s purpose as being to serve the public interest, and it describes how this will be achieved through Public Service broadcasting principles of independence, freedom of thought and expression, reliability, and accessibility.

The second part, delivery, expands on how the charter’s purposes must be delivered, and requires Radio New Zealand to endeavour to provide services of the highest quality according to key delivery measures. Amongst other things, those measures require Radio New Zealand to provide services that are predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand; that inform, entertain, and enlighten the people of New Zealand; that are challenging, innovative, and engaging; and that foster critical thought, and informed and wide-ranging debate. The language in the charter has been simplified and the intent is more clearly expressed. This should allow the public to better understand the charter’s objectives.

The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill also sets out the principles of operation for Radio New Zealand. These are designed to support the introduction of the new charter and reflect Radio New Zealand’s non-commercial public service nature. New section 8A, in clause 5, includes a stronger definition of “commercial-free” and recasts financial viability requirements so that they now remove any potential for requiring that Radio New Zealand provide a dividend. This is consistent both with this Government’s expectations of Radio New Zealand and with longstanding practice.

The bill also updates the requirement for a 5-yearly charter review. Under the current legislation the implementation of a revised charter is delayed, as in the current case, and the life of the new charter before the next review is required can be significantly shorter than the intended 5 years. New section 8B, also in clause 5, removes this potential and provides that the clock does not start ticking on any future review until the charter then in force has been in place for 5 years.

It has now been almost 3 years since the completion of Radio New Zealand’s second charter review. This bill languished under the last administration, whereas this Government is committed to fulfilling its legislative responsibilities. This should have been done, but the previous Government just never got around to doing it. This is an unfair situation for Radio New Zealand, and it shows that the previous Minister of Broadcasting had other priorities. It is highly desirable that the related legislative process be concluded as soon as possible to ensure that Radio New Zealand can operate to an up-to-date and clear public service mandate.

The adoption into legislation of the revised charter supports this Government’s manifesto commitment to provide certainty in relation to the operations of public service broadcasters. There is a remarkably high level of public support for the concept of public service radio broadcasting in New Zealand. This is illustrated by the results of recent research. As well as using the Nielsen company to carry out an ongoing listener survey, Radio New Zealand contracts the company to carry out Radio New Zealand value indices research. The results of Radio New Zealand’s latest annual survey of its listeners are the best that Radio New Zealand has achieved since the broadcaster commenced specific charter research in 2000.

One of this Government’s broadcasting commitments was to have more transparency around public funding for broadcasting. We want to make ratings and research data such as this research by Radio New Zealand available in one place so that it is easy for people to find and use. We want to aggregate all this information on a central Ministry of Culture and Heritage website, and we intend to have this up and running by the first quarter of the new financial year. The research shows that Radio New Zealand is doing a really good job, but we want to make sure that people know where to go to find out this kind of information about all our public broadcasters.

Radio New Zealand and its staff won an outstanding 13 awards for excellence at the 2009 New Zealand Radio Awards. These awards recognise the very best work from commercial and public service radio broadcasters throughout the country. The awards won by Radio New Zealand included metropolitan station of the year, best radio website, individual journalist of the year, best documentary or feature programme for its tribute to Sir Edmund Hillary, two awards for best daily or weekly series, best dramatic production, and best music feature.

Radio New Zealand has adapted well to new technologies in the changing media environment. Radio New Zealand National and Radio New Zealand Concert are both available on the FreeView platform. Online broadcasting activities have been a major focus for Radio New Zealand in recent years. Radio New Zealand has a growing web presence as far as online listening is concerned. Its website offers live streaming, a high-quality text-based news service, podcasting, audio on demand, and an extensive programme archive.

In January of this year Radio New Zealand advised that more than 6 million programmes or programme segments were replayed via its website in the 12 months to the end of December 2008. The volume of online listening, which included audio on demand and podcasting, was more than double the level recorded in 2007. Many of the people who are now downloading programme content through the Radio New Zealand website are new to its audience. These people include younger listeners, and a growing number of New Zealanders who are living overseas. Radio New Zealand’s online broadcasts have increased every month since the service was first launched in 2005, and that growth is expected to continue.

Radio New Zealand is leading the world’s media with its coverage of events in Fiji, with many major international news organisations quoting Radio New Zealand in their own reports. With heavy censorship of local Fijian media, Radio New Zealand International’s website and direct shortwave broadcasts have been among the few reliable sources of news and information for those living in Fiji. With the continuing political and social instability across the Pacific, Radio New Zealand International is now clearly regarded as the authoritative voice of the Pacific.

Radio New Zealand Concert plays a vital role in the health and well-being of many of New Zealand’s premier cultural institutions, including the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, Chamber Music New Zealand, the New Zealand String Quartet, the Royal New Zealand Ballet, the National Opera of New Zealand, and performing orchestras in Christchurch and Dunedin.

Radio New Zealand’s services and programmes are non-commercial, pure examples of public service broadcasting. They reflect and respond to the needs and interests of particular sections of the national audience without consideration for the interests of advertisers. The enactment of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill will deliver certainty and clarity to Radio New Zealand as a public service broadcaster. It reflects changes proposed and accepted as part of the second statutory review of the Radio New Zealand charter, and it concludes that review. I move, that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be considered—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member may move that motion at the end of the first reading. At this stage he must indicate which select committee the bill will be referred to.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is going to the Commerce Committee.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to speak in support of the introduction tonight of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, and to speak fulsomely about Radio New Zealand as an organisation.

I acknowledge that there is a lot of flu going around. Maybe the Minister of Broadcasting has a touch of that flu, because he did not seem to speak too passionately about Radio New Zealand. In fact, he was about as flat as the Mt Albert headquarters for National on the night of the by-election. In my view Radio New Zealand is a national taonga. It is a treasure, and I am very pleased to see this renewed charter for Radio New Zealand. I shudder to think what life would be like without it. What would we have done last month? How would we have known that National was conceding the Mt Albert by-election, without the interview on Radio New Zealand to tell us that a month before the election?

Radio New Zealand has survived against the odds. National members have not always been great fans of Radio New Zealand. At times they have looked at cutting the guts out of Radio New Zealand, so I acknowledge that the Minister of Broadcasting has brought this bill forward. It has been long in gestation. In fact, I acknowledge that there were coalition partners within the last Government that dragged their heels somewhat on this bill as they were perhaps not quite so enthusiastic about Radio New Zealand. But the bill is here in the House tonight and that is a very welcome development.

As the Minister has mentioned, Radio New Zealand is constantly acknowledged for its contribution to New Zealand life. Internationally it wins many awards, and last month it won the New Zealand Radio Awards radio station of the year award and 13 other awards, including all of the journalism radio awards. It won an award for being the metropolitan station of the year, which is an acknowledgment from the commercial radio industry that it is a leading radio station on an international basis.

I would like to talk for a moment about some of the background to the bill. It began under Labour; we will support it. I also acknowledge at this point the contribution made by the former Minister of Broadcasting, Steve Maharey. It was Steve Maharey who in a member’s bill in 1993 first suggested the idea of a Radio New Zealand charter, which came through embodied in legislation passed in 1995 by the then National Government.

One of the things I would like to touch on is that the Minister has spoken in support of Radio New Zealand, yet the fact is that Radio New Zealand’s funding has been frozen for the next 4 years. It got a lift of about $2 million under the previous Government but it has now been frozen for the next 4 years. It is easy to praise Radio New Zealand as an organisation; it deserves that sort of praise. The Minister in a speech last month talked about its playing an important role in public life both in New Zealand and in the wider Pacific region. It is a very important tool in foreign policy because Radio New Zealand International is the voice of New Zealand in our South Pacific region. But if Radio New Zealand is to continue to contribute, grow, and develop, then it certainly needs more financial support than it will get over the next 4 years.

Be that as it may, we have the bill here tonight and it is about the Radio New Zealand charter. I acknowledge that the charter is extraordinarily positive. It reinforces Radio New Zealand’s capacity to do its job. It will reinforce the ability of Radio New Zealand to continue to operate and to provide its leading voice in terms of New Zealand’s cultural identity and its contribution to public life. Many MPs have been interviewed by Radio New Zealand. The programme Morning Report is part of the lifeblood of the nation, as is Checkpoint and other programmes. I think it is fundamental to New Zealand life for many, many New Zealanders. So we are very pleased to see this bill back before the House.

I would like to look back through the history of Radio New Zealand. In the 1970s and 1980s, Radio New Zealand and the other State broadcaster, Television New Zealand, faced a tough time. The National Government of the time froze the license fee, which caused great difficulties. It is almost a miracle that Radio New Zealand has survived. That funding gap also caused Television New Zealand to become much more commercially focused, and, in some respects, to move away from the public service objectives that were expected of it. Through the charter, Radio New Zealand upholds those public service broadcasting objectives. They are a fundamental requirement for Radio New Zealand and it is to be applauded that they uphold them. Amongst the requirements that this charter embodies, its purpose is to foster “a sense of national identity by contributing to tolerance and understanding, reflecting and promoting ethnic, cultural, and artistic diversity”. The charter requires Radio New Zealand “to inform, entertain, and enlighten the people of New Zealand:”. It will provide programmes that “are challenging, innovative, and engaging:”. It will “foster critical thought, and informed and wide-ranging debate:”. It will “stimulate, support, and reflect the diversity of cultural expression,”. It will “provide comprehensive, independent, accurate, impartial, and balanced regional, national, and international news and current affairs:”. If members think of the range of hosts from Morning Report through the Nine to Noon programme—hosts such as Kim Hill on Saturday mornings and Chris Laidlaw on Sunday mornings—and the host of other programmes across Radio New Zealand National and its sister programme Radio New Zealand Concert, they will see that it absolutely delivers on the objectives reflected in this charter.

I comment on the history of Radio New Zealand, going back to the period before this charter was first suggested by Steve Maharey in 1993. There has not always been unanimity of support for Radio New Zealand. When Steve Maharey introduced his bill back in 1993, Tony Ryall—who was at that point, I think, a Minister with responsibilities in that area—said that it was costing taxpayers $20 million a year to provide the two networks, National Radio and Concert FM. His view was that those services could be provided to an equivalent, if not better, standard by an alternative provider. I have spoken to commercial broadcasters since I took on the Opposition portfolio for broadcasting, and I have not yet met a person who does not uphold the fact that Radio New Zealand is an important component of the broadcasting scene. Even commercial broadcasters say that they uphold the idea of contributing taxes towards Radio New Zealand because of the job it performs, and the functions it carries out to a very, very high level, as those awards obviously recognise. As I have mentioned, that has not always been the case. There have been times through the period of the 1980s and the 1990s when it was not just Tony Ryall who was questioning the value of Radio New Zealand. Maurice Williamson, who was the Minister of Broadcasting at one point, did not believe that the Government needed to provide some of the services that Radio New Zealand was providing. He was in two minds at one point in the mid-1990s about issuing the directive that the funding for Radio New Zealand be continued.

I hope that members opposite have moved on. I think that we require a bipartisan commitment to Radio New Zealand and the contribution it makes to New Zealand life, identity, and culture. It is recognised time and time again as an important and integral component of New Zealand life, and this bill really embodies that recognition. We have seen not only the industry but also media commentators recognise Radio New Zealand. I again note the issue of funding for Radio New Zealand. John Drinnan in the New Zealand Herald quite recently talked about a somewhat miserly approach to Radio New Zealand. This is a newspaper media commentator acknowledging the contribution that Radio New Zealand makes, and saying to the Minister of Broadcasting that we really need to look at the funding models for Radio New Zealand.

One of the things reflected in the charter is how Radio New Zealand has been a leader in embracing technology. There were 6 million downloads from Radio New Zealand in the calendar year of 2008. Life gets busy and not everybody is simply able to listen to Radio New Zealand on the spot. Radio New Zealand has leading-edge technology, which is a wonderful resource, but the technology costs money. I implore the Minister to consider the future of Radio New Zealand in a cash-straitened environment. There is also a report that looks at Radio New Zealand’s funding, which I understand the Minister has declined to release. I say to him to put it into the public domain. Let us have the debate; let us see what the organisation that reviewed Radio New Zealand’s funding had to say. Let us hear the argument, and let us see if there is a strong case for Radio New Zealand to have improved funding.

I am supportive of this measure. The charter is integral to Radio New Zealand. Radio New Zealand is an absolutely vital component to New Zealand public life. I am very pleased to see this bill come through into the House. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill through to select committee.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) : I rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995, and it contains a new Radio New Zealand charter, as the two previous speakers have alluded to.

I will start by acknowledging the Minister of Broadcasting, the Hon Jonathan Coleman, for his courage to take action—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Leadership!

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA:—and leadership; that is quite correct—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Competence!

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA:—and more than competence. He has leadership written all over him. I commend Mr Coleman. Once again, this bill is an example of the Labour Party resting on its laurels and not getting legislation through this House. It is a brave move to take on this legislation and move it quickly through the House.

As we all know, Radio New Zealand is a Crown entity, established under the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. As both the previous speakers have already alluded to, it provides listeners with exciting and independent radio coverage that one will not find from other private broadcasters. It broadcasts over three nationwide networks, namely Radio New Zealand National, Radio New Zealand Concert, and the AM network, which relays our proceedings, even tonight.

Public radio broadcasting did not start with Mr Maharey. It had its beginning in 1925, when under a 5-year contract the Government granted the Radio Broadcasting Co. substantial income from the radio dealer’s licence and 25 shillings from each receiving licence on the condition that the company expanded four existing stations in the main centres in order to establish a national, non-commercial broadcasting system. Company income was insufficient to meet those demands for expansion, so in 1931 legislation was passed to establish the Government-appointed New Zealand Broadcasting Board, which was also dependent on that licensing fee income. After the war, this system became the New Zealand Broadcasting Service. In 1962 Government department status ended with the establishment of the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation. Then we came to the 1995 Act, where Radio New Zealand was established as a stand-alone, Crown-owned entity with the major responsibilities that I have already spoken of.

Under the Act, 5-yearly parliamentary reviews of Radio New Zealand’s charter are required. In 2005 Radio New Zealand undertook its own review, and in consultation with interested parties—listeners and stakeholders—it developed a revised version of that charter. As we have already heard, the parliamentary review of that charter was undertaken by the Commerce Committee, which will later review this bill and oversee its progression through Parliament.

The previous Government did not really get to the point of introducing this bill. As I have already said, it has been a bit lax, a little bit—well, it was occupied with things that do not matter. We know that; we have heard that. We now have a Government in place that will take action on matters such as this one. As we have already stated, the bill is really about the charter. The charter is a particularly important document that sets out operating principles. It defines what Radio New Zealand does, from the staff to listeners and stakeholders, and it is easily understandable, with objectives that are quite precise.

Let us go through the bill. As the honourable Minister has already stated, new section 8(1), inserted by clause 5 of the bill, looks at the purpose: “As an independent and commercial-free public service broadcaster, the public radio company’s purpose is to serve the public interest.” In that respect, it is particularly important to recognise that we have a wide public interest. It is not necessarily about niche programming; it is about what the public will demand. What I like personally about Radio New Zealand and what it delivers is that it does not deliver what we get on other private broadcasting networks. We do not get a deluge of sport or talkback; we get coverage of art, culture, and politics that is unsurpassed in other broadcasting packages.

The bill also, in new section 8(5), addresses service delivery: “In achieving its purpose, the public radio company must endeavour to provide services of the highest quality”—of the highest quality. It is not about just throwing money at programmes, which the last Government was good at; it is about throwing money at high-quality programmes and high-quality outputs that are—and here is the crux—predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand content. That is really important. I have heard nothing from across the Chamber about what Radio New Zealand represents, which is New Zealand culture. I move down to new section 8(5)(g), which says the services must “reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, including Māori language and culture:”. Again, that is particularly important. I allude to my Māori Party friends as well as to all the Māori out there who understand the need for this type of programming.

New section 8(5)(l) refers to including “an international service to the South Pacific in both English and Pacific languages:”. As someone who has spent a bit of time in the South Pacific, and who has heard the programming in the South Pacific, I know that this is a particularly critical part of showing New Zealand and its culture and language to our Pacific Island brothers and sisters. Again, it is very critical to this legislation to describe the importance of our culture, our language, our customs, and the values that make us New Zealanders.

I also refer to new section 8A(1), also inserted by clause 5. It says “The public radio company must, in fulfilling its Charter, exhibit a sense of social responsibility”. That is right: social responsibility. It is really critical to balance that requirement for social responsibility with the provisions of new section 8A(3)(b)(i) and (ii), which talk about financial responsibility. The issue is about finding the balance between social responsibility and financial responsibility, which is something my colleagues from across the Chamber have no idea about. They are tax-and-spend liberals who would just raise taxes and spend them on programmes that are not effective.

We are talking about highly effective, quality programmes that represent our culture and our customs.

Katrina Shanks: Heritage.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: And our heritage—I thank the member. This bill really is about supporting an institution in this country called Radio New Zealand. It is an institution that, as the honourable Minister has already said, cleaned up at the New Zealand Radio Awards this year. Its website, as my honourable colleague from across the Chamber has said, has over 6 million hits a year, and the quality and make-up of that website—its look and feel—are of particularly high quality. So I commend this bill to the House for its certainty, its clarity, and its support of New Zealand culture. Thank you very much.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I am pleased to take a call on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, because it is a Labour bill. When we brought in this bill the then Opposition members on these benches were railing against publicly funded broadcasting, and they were railing against the charter, saying that nanny State was invading our lives. Yet here National members are tonight congratulating the Minister of Broadcasting, who had nothing to do with this bill; he was on the Opposition benches and its spokesperson on broadcasting when we worked on this bill. I acknowledge Sue Kedgley, who I am sure will later take a call on this bill, because the Greens and Labour fought to maintain the integrity of, and funding for, Radio New Zealand.

Let us go back a little in history and look at what Tony Ryall from the Bay of Plenty said about Radio New Zealand. He said: “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.” That is really what they all wanted to do right through the 9 years we were in Government. What about Maurice Williamson? He said: “I have said regularly and publicly that for a company that is both the public radio company and that runs the commercial operation of radio, it is a little like a temperance league running a brewery. They have conflicting interests, conflicting reasons for being, and conflicting funding streams with the potential to subsidise from one to the other.”

When National was in Opposition, it hated the Radio New Zealand Bill. This amendment bill was started after a review of the charter by this House in 2006. Good on Minister Coleman for getting this bill into the House, because it is ours. Of course we will support it. The Minister of Broadcasting talks about wanting quality, publicly funded broadcasting. That is rubbish. If he had his way, he would love to get his hooks in here and flick off Radio New Zealand, too. He talked to Auckland University of Technology students about it, and went very quiet. His introductory speech was also incredibly quiet and incredibly non-committal. He just said that we should get this bill through the House. He does not like it; he never has. He went to Auckland University of Technology and talked about his top priorities for broadcasting. He was more focused on what we will do with Television New Zealand than what we will do with Radio New Zealand.

Although he says how wonderful Radio New Zealand is, and how it is a great watchdog for democracy—and he compares us with countries like Fiji in that respect—what has he done with the funding? Let us look at the funding for Radio New Zealand over the next 4 years. We cannot have publicly funded public broadcasting with frozen funds, and the funding has been frozen at $34.1 million—only $34.1 million, and no more—over the next 4 years. But he wants a robust, quality, publicly funded broadcaster. Well, we cannot have quality for that amount. How do we keep up with technology? How do we keep up with inflation? How do we employ talented staff, who are essential in keeping publicly funded broadcast robust, which is what the previous Government supported? Words are very cheap, I say to Minister Coleman. He praises a broadcaster, on one hand, then starves it, on the other hand. We are used to that. Robert Muldoon starved radio and Television of the public broadcasting fee. We are used to hearing that from National Governments, which say they are absolutely fantastic with business.

This Government forgets that a well-funded public broadcasting system funds the scriptwriters and the musicians who put the content into the charter. That is what Steve Maharey set out to do with the charter. Over Labour’s 9 years we had a brand. We were proud of New Zealand, and talked about telling our stories; it was called the New Zealand identity. Artisans, musicians, poets, and storytellers were excited about having their stories told on national radio. It was absolutely fantastic for us.

I will go back a little bit in history to say that it was in 1999 when the Labour Government—again—started to reclaim public broadcasting values from what was a deregulated, free-market wilderness. It was a shambles. It was all predicated on a commercial rate of return and the broadcasting fee in order to subsidise public broadcasting. We restructured Television New Zealand. We encouraged the development of voluntary codes for local content on radio and on television. It was great stuff. We established Māori Television, and I acknowledge Pita Sharples, who went to Māori Television’s. first birthday. I thank Minister Sharples for acknowledging the Labour Government and the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, for their commitment, with the support of Steve Maharey and Helen Clark, to getting Māori Television under way. These are great histories of what Labour Governments have done for broadcasting in New Zealand.

I say to Minister Coleman that not only did we say that broadcasting was fantastic but also we put money into funding New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho that has been the real generator of getting New Zealand content and te reo on Māori radio on the airwaves. It is a fantastic story. I know that in Rotorua—I am sure that Todd McClay goes along and does regular broadcasts on Māori radio; they would be difficult to understand—the listenership is simply phenomenal. My husband used to have a regular weekly broadcast session. You know, old people in Rotorua came into the radio station to listen to live broadcast, because they loved to hear those stories being told. That was very vulnerable, and I congratulate Minister Coleman on not changing the charter too much. It would have been quite sinister to see a new Minister of Broadcasting in a new Government strip the charter of all the values that we care about.

I want to talk about another aspect of the charter, the way the charter will be delivered. Section 8(5)(e), to be inserted in the Radio New Zealand Act by clause 5 of the bill, states that the charter will “stimulate, support, and reflect the diversity of cultural expression, including drama, comedy, literature, and the performing arts:”. I heard a fantastic programme on The Arts on Sunday on Radio New Zealand National last week. I ask members to guess what it was focused on. It was focused on the cuts to Artists in Schools in this Budget. The discussion was not shut down, which was great. It was there for us all to hear. People talked about the value of these programmes to develop scriptwriters and artisans in our community. What has happened? Funding to Artists in Schools has been completely cut by the National Government. Those programmes, with a mere $8,000 investment, had multiplier benefits to communities of up to $500,000. This Government has cut the Artists in Schools programme.

It is pretty rich when we have a charter and we have a Minister of Broadcasting who supports the charter, which has some great aspects in it, but other Ministers around him are cutting budgets that would have provided us with the ability for artisans and broadcasters to teach kids in school about the value of broadcasting, so that those children can come into the industry. They would have learnt how to write the stories that will be used on Radio New Zealand. The initiative has been cut. I think that is appalling. It was not mentioned in the Budget, but like the cuts to everything else, like community education, we are starting to see now how deep these cuts are. The Government thought the cuts would go unnoticed. It thought that cutting the arts did not matter, that they were a bit of fluff on the side. But we cannot have a good public broadcaster and we cannot have a charter that can be maintained, that tells the stories of New Zealand, and that tells all the aspects of delivery that are in this charter, if we do not support the artisans, the scriptwriters, and children learning how to do broadcasting. I think that is very sad. It is very short-sighted.

But I must congratulate the Minister on one thing. Section 8A(3), to be inserted by clause 5, states: “The public radio company must, in fulfilling its Charter, ensure that it operates in a financially responsible manner …”. Thank God! The Minister of Broadcasting does not expect any return on funds.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : The Green Party is delighted to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. We are immensely relieved to know that there is still one broadcaster left in New Zealand that still has a public service charter that commits its organisation to serving the public interest—not commercial interests, but the public interest—and to providing independent, impartial, balanced news and current affairs. Radio New Zealand is the only independent, commercial-free, public service broadcaster left in New Zealand whose sole purpose is to serve the public interest. Is it not fantastic to listen to the radio when it is not interrupted every few minutes by commercials? We are relieved, too, that the Government has not yet seen fit to scrap Radio New Zealand’s charter, as it has scrapped Television New Zealand’s charter. Of course, we applaud the charter. Who would not applaud a charter with the lofty goals of committing Radio New Zealand to providing independent, commercial-free broadcasting, and so on?

The Green Party strongly supports Radio New Zealand because we believe it is critical to the health of our democracy that we have broadcasters whose sole purpose is to serve the public interest; not to maximise the profits of shareholders, or to chase ratings and to schedule programmes according to how much advertising they will attract, but simply to serve the public interest. It is extraordinary that we have such a broadcaster, because we in New Zealand have the most unregulated broadcasting environment in the Western World.

It is a time where an increasing concentration of media ownership is going into fewer and fewer hands and virtually all of our media are in foreign ownership. We are seeing an ever-greater convergence of newspapers, television, and radio operations, less and less diversity of opinion, and fewer and fewer independent sources of news and information. But Radio New Zealand stands out as a veritable beacon, as the only truly independent, commercial-free, public service broadcaster in New Zealand. Thank heavens for that! Although Radio New Zealand has a charter with these lofty and admirable goals, the Green Party is concerned that successive Governments have not provided Radio New Zealand with the funding that it desperately needs to implement the charter. This is the critical issue that we need to debate. What is the purpose of giving Radio New Zealand this lofty charter if the organisation is so cash-strapped that it cannot deliver on the charter goals?

In the 2007 or 2008 financial year, the then Minister of Broadcasting commissioned an independent review to determine the level of funding required for Radio New Zealand to maintain its services at its current levels—that is, just to keep the organisation going. This review was carried out by independent consultants. It was agreed that the results of the review would form the basis for all future discussions with shareholding Ministers about the level of funding that was needed to maintain Radio New Zealand and its core services. So this is a critically important document that will allow the public to know whether, and by how much, Radio New Zealand is underfunded. The Green Party has been trying to get hold of this critically important document, but the Government—the Minister—is refusing to release it under the Official Information Act claiming that it is commercially sensitive. What utter nonsense!

Radio New Zealand is a public service broadcaster so how can an assessment of its funding possibly be commercially sensitive? We have gone to the Ombudsman asking for this document to be released as we think it is scandalous that this independent funding review is being kept secret. We suspect that the real reason for keeping it secret—indeed, we know—is that this Government and the previous Government do not want the public to know that the independent review concluded that Radio New Zealand was underfunded by $7 million a year, which we are informed of by reliable sources.

The latest Radio New Zealand statement of corporate intent acknowledges that the independent review found that Radio New Zealand was underfunded in its ability to sustain its current services. It found that this was contributing to its relative financial instability and that it would limit future investment in necessary, key, strategic, infrastructure investments. These are obviously diplomatic words, but they are code for saying that Radio New Zealand is financially squeezed and substantially underfunded. Last year, acknowledging this underfunding, the Labour Government finally increased Radio New Zealand’s budget by $2.6 million—which is way less than what the chairman of Radio New Zealand said was needed to maintain Radio New Zealand services at current levels. In fact, the chairman said that he was disappointed that the amount allocated by the Labour Government was well below the recommendations of the recent funding review. It was $4.5 million below the recommendations.

Radio New Zealand was hoping for a further increase to meet this $4.5 million a year shortfall in the funding that was recommended by that independent secret review. Unfortunately, as previous speakers have pointed out, Radio New Zealand’s funding has been frozen by the National Government for the next 4 years. So that means that—never mind inflation—staff wages are frozen. That means that Radio New Zealand will continue to be substantially underfunded, even for carrying out its core activities and to retain its current services. This underfunding will inevitably undermine its ability to meet its charter obligations, to deliver its core services, and maintain, let alone improve, its present services. We are told that already the staff have been told that their wages will be frozen this year; the only thing they will be offered is job security, and Radio New Zealand is projecting a deficit of $1.1 million this year.

I ask members to think about the implications of this underfunding. If Radio New Zealand is constantly cash-strapped, if it cannot invest in new, fresh, innovative programmes, and if wages are frozen so that it becomes increasingly difficult to attract and retain staff to keep the organisation going, then inevitably the quality of Radio New Zealand will deteriorate, and so too will its ratings. This will become a vicious circle. If the quality of programming deteriorates through lack of funding, if ratings then deteriorate, we are fearful that we will start to hear calls not just from ACT—and I am sure Roger Douglas will make these calls soon—but also from the National Government to sell this gem, which is the last, and the only, independent public service broadcaster left in New Zealand.

Increased funding is at the heart of this debate; it is absolutely critical. The supporters of Radio New Zealand, the huge numbers of people who listen loyally to Radio New Zealand, who are as delighted as I am to be able to listen to an informed, interesting, impartial radio organisation that is not constantly interrupted by commercials, need to campaign for an increase in funding. Otherwise we will find that even though Radio New Zealand has a charter it will not be able to deliver it and its programmes will deteriorate. We will be in a vicious circle. Before we know it, the National Government will be talking of selling off, not just Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) but also Radio New Zealand. We know it will try to sell off TVNZ if it gets the next term of Government. We know that because it has already removed its charter and its funding base. We are worried, even though the Government has agreed to this charter, that it really has the same game plan for Radio New Zealand. Therefore, every New Zealander who is concerned about Radio New Zealand needs to be fighting for increased funding for it. Thank you.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : It has been over 35 years since I was Minister of Broadcasting and I was very pleased to give it a bit of a shake up at that time. I only regret that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill does not do the same. I suspect I take a slightly, or maybe a substantially, different stance on this bill from anyone else in the House.

The Radio New Zealand charter tells us that the public radio company’s purpose is to serve the public interest. The fact is that every radio station in New Zealand serves the public interest; if they do not, they simply do not survive. The flaw in Radio New Zealand National is not the inadequacy or otherwise of the charter; it is its structure, as Radio New Zealand National is a monopoly. It is not a monopoly in that consumers do not have choices over the radio station they want to listen to; rather, it has a monopoly of Government funding for radio. Despite the fact that Radio New Zealand National is able to transmit without ads, it still does not rank alongside other market participants. This suggests one of two things about the money it receives. First, there is a large element of waste; it is very hard to charge for services that the Government is giving away free, yet others run commercial operations successfully. This suggests that a lot of money the Government ploughs into Radio New Zealand National is wasted; perhaps it is the thinly veiled leftism that turns so many New Zealanders off. Second, there is a lack of consumer sovereignty. Consumer sovereignty results in resources being moved to the highest-value users. If consumers buy more TVs than cars, then capital will move from car production to TV production. But when a Government pours money into Radio New Zealand National at the exclusion of all others, consumer sovereignty fails to align the capital resources and other resources correctly.

Although ACT will vote for this legislation, the bill fails to do one thing that will deal with these problems; that is, make the funds contestable, and I believe that should happen. If other radio stations or, for example, community groups were able to bid for the right to Government funding by demonstrating the kinds of programmes they sought to offer, and the nature of the public interest they would serve, then the money could achieve a lot more than it does at the moment. But if we continue to funnel it into one organisation, then we will see the waste continue and increase. Only competition enables consumers to choose and provide a disincentive for waste. Until the Government begins to move in this direction, the monopolies, whether they be health, education, welfare, or radio, will continue to fail.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill has emerged as a result of a parliamentary review. In coming to this review I have been thinking about some of the history before us that has helped to shape the modern-day Radio New Zealand. I think of the legendary Wīremu Parker of Ngāti Porou, who was the first appointed Māori reader and who maintained a strict vow to himself that he would never use a Pākehā word in his bulletins. I think of Ngāti Kahungunu man Ted Nēpia, who during the 1950s broadcast a weekly 20-minute Māori current affairs programme, Te Reo o te Māori, from a Napier radio station. Then there was Bill Kerekere and Leo Fowler, who took the large mobile broadcasting studio around New Zealand. Māori broadcasters who joined the section included Selwyn Muru, Haare Williams, Whai Ngata, Hāmuera Mitchell, John Rōpata, Derek Fox, Pūrewa Biddle, Te Pere Curtis, John Tūrei, and Hēnare Te Ua. Radio New Zealand is all the better for the expertise of people such as Ana Tapiata and Eru Rerekura, to name just a few.

If a picture painted a thousand words, the art gallery of Māori broadcast talent that has shaped Radio New Zealand would be full to overflowing. Taken together, this history is a proud one that has carved out the broadcasting highway that we travel on. But the reality is that although the history of Māori broadcasting as a collective force can be recounted at any one time, it was generally one or two individuals, at best, doing what they could to ensure that Māori programming was included as a key feature of a distinctive New Zealand radio voice.

Even today, in terms of current content, Radio New Zealand has only about 5 or 6 percent of on-air time dedicated to Māori programming. We are proud of iwi radio stations and all the incredible achievements that the 22 Māori radio stations have demonstrated throughout Aotearoa. But Radio New Zealand has an independent and commercial-free public service broadcast for New Zealand, and must firstly serve public interests. The Māori Party supports the view that Radio New Zealand should remain in public ownership but show a greater responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of all peoples of Aotearoa. Public interest includes the interests of our Treaty partners, the 15 percent of the population who are iwi Māori.

The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to provide for a new charter, which resulted from a 5-yearly parliamentary review as required under section 7(4) of the Act. Neither the existing nor the proposed charter makes any mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, although both contain provisions to reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, “including Māori language and culture”. It is the Māori Party’s view that signalling the Treaty of Waitangi in the charter might help Radio New Zealand to understand its statutory obligation better. It is the Crown’s duty as a Treaty partner to assist and support iwi and hapū to fulfil their responsibilities as guardians of their respective reo.

Having consideration for the impact of Te Tiriti is not just about te reo but about Māori stories, Māori shows, Māori current affairs, and Māori events. The Māori Party will therefore be putting forward a Treaty of Waitangi clause to be inserted in the charter to ensure that overarching decisions on Māori language and culture lie with Māori, and that broadcast content upholds and promotes the Treaty relationship. The Treaty clause will ensure that overarching decisions on Māori language and culture lie with the Māori partner, that future charter reviews require consultation with the Māori partner, and that broadcasting services uphold and promote the Treaty relationship. However, it is not just about introducing a Treaty clause; it is also about the participation and involvement of Māori in helping to ensure that the highway to the future for Radio New Zealand truly does reflect tangata whenua interests as the indigenous peoples of this great country.

We were initially concerned that any statutory review of the Radio New Zealand charter could be conducted without being required to undertake any formal consultation with Māori. In getting to this stage, Radio New Zealand conducted a preliminary review of the charter, followed by public consultation on the reviewed charter. The new draft was considered by the select committee and is reflected in the bill.

We believe that future reviews of the charter need to include consultation with Māori, including Te Whakaruruhau. We appreciate that section 50 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 assesses the extent to which as an entity Radio New Zealand fulfils the charter expectations of its performance on an annual basis. We therefore recommend that annual assessments of performance against the charter should take Māori views into account. Future assessments should take into account the views of Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori, the national federation of Maori radio stations; Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, the Māori Language Commission; and Te Māngai Pāho.

Finally, although much of the new charter is a tidy-up of wording and grouping of the provisions, there seems to be only one notable deletion, which is the programming of interests for minority audiences. We believe that we should reinstate a provision to provide programming of interest to minority audiences.

We support the bill at its first reading, but we want to make it quite clear that we require consultation to be undertaken with Māori separate to the select committee process. The Crown’s duty to protect and promote te tino rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū in respect of their taonga is also to be carried out by State-run cultural institutions such as Radio New Zealand. To ensure that that does take place, we recommend in the strongest way that before the bill proceeds further, specific and genuine consultation is undertaken with Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori, Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, and Te Māngai Pāho. We will then look forward to seeing the considered views of Māori about the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill when it comes before the select committee. Thank you.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill tonight. The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act of 1995 and contains a new Radio New Zealand charter that has resulted from a parliamentary review required by the Act. This charter is reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals to ensure that the charter stays current in the changing environment that we live in. Radio New Zealand’s proposed new draft is considered as part of the Commerce Committee’s review and is reflected in this bill. No other review was performed, apart from the select committee review, when it was taken into consideration. Formulating a charter is considered to be best practice for public broadcasters.

Radio New Zealand began its charter review process by examining the charters of various comparable public broadcasters, including those of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The review sought to ensure that the revised draft was expressed as a set of aspirations, in simple and accessible language. It was also to be technology neutral, and to differentiate Radio New Zealand clearly from commercial broadcasters. It is very important that we maintain that difference and that gap so it is unique in its own right. The draft of the revised charter was approved for public discussion by Radio New Zealand’s board of governors and the Minister of Broadcasting. Radio New Zealand then initiated an extensive consultation process. On-air promotions broadcast 37 times on Radio New Zealand National and 17 times on Radio New Zealand Concert, between 18 October and 2 November 2005. The deadline for public responses was pretty rapid, on 4 November, and Radio New Zealand estimated that the on-air promotions reached 16 percent of all New Zealanders aged 15 and over. And 16 percent is not a bad hit for the people it wanted to touch, in order for them to put in a submission or a view on how the charter would affect them in their lives.

It is important that we ensure that we protect this charter and the integrity of the programmes that are made under it. More important, Radio New Zealand estimates that 460,000 of its listeners heard the charter review information at least once. That number of 460,000 is a big touch. Not many people can provide that number when we ask for submissions on a normal inquiry. It is an approach that we should maybe have for all submissions, if we can get a touch like that at 460,000. Some 118 individuals and organisations that had made submissions on the previous charter review in 2000 were invited directly to make submissions, as were those who had commented on issues relating to Radio New Zealand in the intervening 5 years. In addition, there were approximately 3,000 hits on the charter review section of the Radio New Zealand website during the public consultation process. So the public had a wonderful chance to be informed, to understand exactly how the charter would impact on them, and to have an input into that process.

The Commerce Committee chose a great democratic process. A total of 165 submissions were received and analysed for the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. As a result, eight minor amendments were made to the draft charter. A copy of this charter was provided to the Ministers, and it was appended and presented to the House. The public consultation process was considered to be of a satisfactory standard, so it was unnecessary to conduct a public submission to go through the matter and to get people’s opinions. It was interesting, though, that the select committee went on to say that it wanted to ensure and strongly recommend the retention of the word “spiritual” in the charter. That desire came through very clearly in submissions, and it was good to see that this stayed in and appears in the context of the requirement that Radio New Zealand endeavour to “contribute towards intellectual and spiritual development:”. So that element, which had come very strongly from submitters, was maintained. The interaction between religion and international politics has become one of the most significant issues in many parts of the world; therefore, it was good to see that that will be well-covered in Radio New Zealand’s programming.

The charter states that the purpose of Radio New Zealand is to be a public broadcaster, which is followed by provisions stating how it achieves that purpose through delivery of its services. The adoption of the revised charter supports the Government’s manifesto commitment that provides certainty to the operations of public broadcasters. And that is very important. If we want to keep our high standard of public broadcasters, we have to ensure a certainty of the operations—that they will be going from year to year, and even for much longer. This charter is for a 5-year period, so it is important we have a vision in place and some aspirations, and a framework in which our top-class public broadcasters will stay with Radio New Zealand. The revised wording streamlines and clarifies the charter, especially by defining “commercial-free”, but does not materially alter the role and expectations of Radio New Zealand.

The amendment charter is divided into two key parts: purpose and delivery. The first makes an explicit statement on Radio New Zealand’s purpose, as being “to serve the public interest.”, and how this can be achieved through public broadcasting principles. The part about serving the public interest is interesting in itself, because many people have a different definition of what a public interest actually is. It is good that this charter has kept that wide, so that we can have a broad range of programmes running through Radio New Zealand and a broad range of ideas coming forward as to what programmes there should be in the future, as our society changes and the needs of listeners change, as well—as do the demographics to a certain extent. The second part expands on delivery: the way that Radio New Zealand can deliver the charter. The bill is consistent with the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the bill clarifies that the clock will not start ticking on the next 5-yearly review until the bill comes into law. That takes into account the fact that there may be a significant time lag between the start of a review and a new charter coming into force. So it will not necessarily be 5 years exactly, but it will be around the 5-year period.

The previous Government had proposed to disestablish Radio New Zealand as a Crown entity company, and to establish it as an autonomous Crown entity. This will not go ahead, because there is no compelling reason for that change. An appropriate balance of independence, operational flexibility, and well-understood transparency and accountability measures are best served by maintaining Radio New Zealand as a Crown entity company. The corporate form provides a flexible operational framework backed up by a well-established and transparent set of Government responsibilities. It can accommodate both commercial and non-commercial entities. Examples of not-for-profit companies include primary health organisations and Catholic school health boards. Crown research institutes are an example of Crown entity companies that, like Radio New Zealand, have a significant public service character and are constituted as companies. It is my pleasure to support this bill here tonight.

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.

MELISSA LEE (National) : I rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It seems like a lifetime ago when I last spoke in this House. It is a pleasure to be standing here tonight to speak in this Whare. Kia ora tātou. Before I talk about the bill I will go through some things Mr Robertson mentioned. The Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter has disappeared, according to him. It has not disappeared. I tell Mr Robertson that it has not gone anywhere. Perhaps he should study it a little bit more. The TVNZ charter did not disappear; it is being managed by New Zealand On Air so that it can provide transparency. TVNZ did nothing with the charter money—absolutely nothing.

Hon Tony Ryall: Willy Nilly got funded.

MELISSA LEE: Willy Nilly got funded, apparently. Mr Robertson also talked about the wonderful programme called Attitude. I agree with him that it is absolutely fantastic.

Brendon Burns: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the claim that the TVNZ charter did nothing. It funded a programme the MP was involved in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That was not a point of order. Order is about order. That was a debatable point, and the member was being discourteous by interrupting the member’s speech.

MELISSA LEE: I will correct Mr Burns. The charter money did not fund Asia Down Under—I will get to that subject. Mr Robertson talked about the Attitude programme, and he was right—Robyn Scott-Vincent and the production team do a wonderful job. But that funding does not come directly from the charter fund. Asia Down Under is not funded from charter money, either. It is so typical of members opposite to mislead people—so very typical. Jacinda Ardern mentioned that I parked, apparently, in a disabled car park. I remind people that I took a cab and left my car at home—so what was that about being misleading?

The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 and contains a new Radio New Zealand charter that has come about as a result of a parliamentary review that was completed in 2006, as required by the Act. Although it is a small bill, it speaks volumes beyond its few pages. Do members know why? The Radio New Zealand Act 1995 requires that the charter be reviewed at 5-yearly intervals. After the last review of Radio New Zealand was completed in 2006—after a preliminary review that was followed by a public consultation process on the revised charter—the previous Labour Government should have done what this Government is proposing to do tonight. The select committee of the day recommended the charter. The previous Labour Government never finished the job. That is how committed the Labour Party is to public broadcasting! Well, are we not lucky that the John Key - led National Government cares about public broadcasting, and that the Minister of Broadcasting, Jonathan Coleman, is making sure we get on with the programme? That is unlike the previous Government, which never finished the job—it never did it right.

The amended charter is divided into two parts: purpose and delivery. Before I get on to the purpose and delivery of the charter as reflected in the bill, I will take a moment to talk a little about the vibrancy of radio and the important role it plays in our daily lives. The sheer speed at which it happens is absolutely incredible. I have never worked in radio, but as someone who once worked in television I found that, compared with television, radio has speed, simplicity, and connectivity with the public. I used to get rather jealous of my colleagues who worked in radio.

I am an avid listener to the radio. Instead of the latest single that my son would rather I listen to while I am driving, I like to listen to talkback radio when I get the time. Often talkback is one way of gauging what people around New Zealand are concerned, incensed, or even passionate about. Perhaps some of those members opposite should ring up talkback radio stations and get their anger out and sorted. Radio—in particular, Radio New Zealand—provides a raft of programming that commercial radio does not cater for, such as children’s drama, the Radio New Zealand Concert programme, and poetry reading, to name just a few things that do not happen on commercially driven radio stations. Radio New Zealand’s radio drama is incredibly engaging, and even without pictures and special effects, by using just sound, it can inspire and trigger great imagination, which I believe is incredibly powerful.

The purpose of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster is to “serve the public interest”. That purpose supports the National Government’s commitment to providing certainty to the operations of public broadcasters, and that is a good thing. The revised wording suggested by the bill streamlines and clarifies the Radio New Zealand charter. For example, clause 4 amends section 2 of the Radio New Zealand Act by defining “commercial-free” to mean “without advertising or sponsorship; but (b) to avoid doubt, does not include announcements by Radio New Zealand of its own services”.

Grant Robertson: Say “I don’t know.”

MELISSA LEE: What this means, I say to Mr Robertson, is that although Radio New Zealand is commercial-free it can run its own station advertising, as is common in television and radio, to promote its own brand or programmes. Perhaps the Labour Party should try that.

Proposed new section 8(5) deals with the delivery of service—which the previous Labour Government was very lax in doing, never even completing the process during its term—in Radio New Zealand’s endeavour to serve the public interest. That is the bit I really care and am pleased about. In my maiden speech I spoke about my concern for New Zealand’s youth as they become exposed to more and more overseas content than our very own New Zealand content. The revised charter puts in plain language what is expected of Radio New Zealand in that regard, stating that in its endeavour to provide the highest quality it must provide content that is “predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand”. To me, that is absolutely wonderful, because I have a 10-year-old child who can now listen to the radio and hear about New Zealand.

The delivery provisions further state that Radio New Zealand’s services must “inform, entertain, and enlighten the people of New Zealand”, and that the content must be “challenging, innovative, and engaging”, unlike some members opposite. It also demands that services must reflect the diversity that exists in culture, drama, comedy, literature, and the performing arts. They must also reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, including Māori language, te reo, and Māori culture. This one I really like: services must “provide comprehensive, independent, accurate, impartial, and balanced regional, national, and international news and current affairs:”, which, I have to say, are lacking in our media sometimes.

Stuart Nash: Is this another speech Jonathan wrote for you?

Chris Hipkins: “The Maestro” wrote it.

MELISSA LEE: Ha, ha! Oh dear! It is so good to be back in the House. The amazing thing about radio is that it has the function of reliving some of the most historic moments in our history. I remember Sir Edmund Hillary climbing Mount Everest.

Stuart Nash: You remember that?

MELISSA LEE: I do not remember it, because I had not been born then, but the thing is that when I heard the story on the radio I could picture it. Radio has an amazing function.

This amendment bill clarifies the uncertainty Radio New Zealand had previously over its status. The previous Government proposed to disestablish Radio New Zealand as a Crown entity company and establish it as an autonomous entity. But in Minister Coleman’s wisdom—and I am sure Radio New Zealand will breathe a sigh of relief—that will not go ahead. Radio New Zealand can go about its business of producing good local New Zealand content.

It is lovely to be back in this New Zealand Parliament as a member of Parliament. Regardless of what Labour members might say, this bill is a National Government bill, and the Minister is finishing what the previous Government should have done but which it never did for years and years. I commend this bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : I rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995, and contains a new Radio New Zealand charter. That new charter results from a parliamentary review, which was required by the Act. This bill began under the previous Labour Government, so we support it. Over the past decade New Zealand has undergone a quantum shift in terms of how we view ourselves. Our public broadcasters have had an important role to play in that process, and Labour was a leader in making that happen. This bill has been delayed for 2 or 3 years. We acknowledge that, and there were reasons for that delay. But let us not forget that it was Labour that initiated the review of the Radio New Zealand charter.

Under section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act 1995, Radio New Zealand’s charter is required to be reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals. The second parliamentary review was completed in 2006. In preparation for that review, Radio New Zealand conducted a preliminary review, followed by public consultation on a revised charter. Radio New Zealand’s proposed new draft was considered as part of the Commerce Committee’s review and is reflected in this bill. The charter in new section 8, inserted by clause 5 of the bill, states that the purpose of Radio New Zealand is to be a public broadcaster, followed by provisions stating how it achieves that purpose through the delivery of its services. Radio New Zealand began its charter review process by examining the charters of various comparable public broadcasters, including those of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The review sought to ensure that the revised draft charter was expressed as a set of aspirations in simple and accessible language. It was also meant to be technology neutral, and to differentiate Radio New Zealand clearly from commercial broadcasters.

The changes in the charter are positive. It is updated, it is given a clearer focus on the technological changes that are taking place, and it acknowledges the increasing use of podcasts and web technology. It upholds that Radio New Zealand is a State-owned entity that should not be influenced by commercial interests, which is not the case with other public broadcasters, particularly Australia’s multicultural Special Broadcasting Service, or “SBS”, which has recently started to run advertisements. So I tell members not to presume that because we have an excellent Radio New Zealand National that will always be the case, and that it will not be subject to pressure to partially fund itself with advertising. The charter does away with any requirement for a return on funds, and we understand that Radio New Zealand is pleased with this bill. It is pleased the bill has passed through all the hoops and is now back before Parliament for a final conclusion. So we are very pleased that this bill is before the House, and that the National Government is supporting it.

It is all very well, though, for the Government to bring in this legislation and say it is committed to Radio New Zealand being a “great watchdog for democracy”, as the Minister of Broadcasting, Jonathon Coleman, has done, while at the same time freezing the funding for that great watchdog, and having very little policy in place to build on it. It is one thing to praise an organisation; that is easy. But it is quite another thing to starve that organisation of funding. The previous Labour Government was committed to providing strong baseline funding for Radio New Zealand. We were committed to a strong broadcasting system, and we do not believe that the National Government is. Frozen funding means no pay rises, no money to meet the inevitable rising costs, no money for infrastructural development, and no money to meet new trends and developments in the medium. As the Otago Daily Times assistant editor Simon Cunliffe wrote in an opinion piece in that newspaper this morning, “that does not augur well for such an admired and critical part of our broadcasting services.”

I am a former journalist—a print journalist, not in radio—but I have a passion and a commitment to the craft of journalism, the ethics that underpin it, and the importance of the fourth estate in contributing to a strong and vibrant democracy. I am also the Opposition spokesperson on communications and information technology, and I understand the importance of what is called “convergence”, which is the inevitable converging of information and communications technology and broadcasting. That is happening right now, and it is resulting in new ways of delivering and receiving traditional media and information. So I will talk about the differences between Labour’s and National’s policies in this area.

Despite the National Government’s support for this legislation, the Government has virtually no policy on broadcasting, and no policy on the convergence of the media and information and communication technology. Instead, National has frozen the funding for Radio New Zealand National and Concert FM for the next 4 years. National’s broadcasting policy is a joke. With regard to radio, in essence the policy states that there will be continued funding for Radio New Zealand National, the National Pacific Radio Trust Board, and Access Radio, but it does not state anything about freezing that funding. That is all the stated policy about radio.

In comparison, Labour’s policy was far more comprehensive and visionary. It states: “The radio broadcasting sector in New Zealand is one of the most successful and competitive in the world. The mix of commercial and non-commercial radio broadcasting provides a wide range of choices for New Zealanders. But changing technology is providing both challenges and opportunities for the radio industry. Labour is committed to ensuring that diversity in our radio broadcasting continues to provide New Zealanders with programming across interest groups and technologies. … Labour will ensure the availability of diverse programming on radio through both national and local radio broadcasters.”

Labour’s policy goes on to state: “Ten years ago … New Zealand music airplay was at 7.5 percent. Radio New Zealand was under-funded and largely available only on the AM frequency. Today … New Zealand music airplay is between 19 percent and 20 percent. Radio New Zealand is available on AM and FM as well as streaming online and by podcast.” Radio New Zealand’s website, which is a pretty incredible website really, has something like 6 million hits a year. That website was developed under the Labour Government, and there was more to come in that area. I would be very interested to know what National’s policy is in this area. Labour’s policy also points out: “Access Radio has more funding available as well as funding for specific projects. National Pacific Radio Trust is broadcasting programmes by and for Pacific peoples throughout New Zealand.” We would like to know a bit more about National’s policy in that area, too.

Labour’s policy vision is: “Ten years from now … New Zealand radio should be available in digital form to New Zealanders around the world on any technology that they choose. This will include radio by and for the diverse range of ethnicities and interest groups that make up New Zealand society.” The pro-competitive policies that Labour introduced during the telecommunications stocktake are driving the convergence of many technologies. We are seeing that convergence in every aspect of our lives. Digital media and content now impact on the lives of all New Zealanders in some way. Labour believes that all New Zealanders benefit from the convergence of information and communications technology and the broadcasting industries. I have not heard a word out of National members about any of these matters.

In the last decade the Internet and other forms of communication, such as cellphones, have increasingly become vehicles for broadcasting, and traditional broadcasting receivers, such as television, have become more interactive. This will continue to be the case in the future. It is important, therefore, that we ensure that the regulatory environment keeps pace with technological changes, to ensure that New Zealanders receive safe, competitive, and high-quality services, regardless of the medium through which they are accessing those services. Labour wants New Zealanders to have the best possible access to digital content, especially content that is produced locally. We would have encouraged more innovative ventures, such as the New Zealand On Screen and New Zealand On Air projects, which are making much of our rich cultural heritage available online and free of charge. We will keep working to develop policies that ensure that New Zealanders have better access to important local content. Labour recognises the importance to New Zealand of digital content. Labour’s digital content strategy sought to recognise and leverage content to our advantage. That content strategy shares the same vision as the National Digital Strategy for New Zealand to be a world leader in using information and technology in order to realise its economic, social, environmental, and cultural goals, for the benefit of all its people.

We believe that public broadcasting plays a vital role in nation building. We have a conviction that public broadcasting should not be left to the market. The Government needs to be looking comprehensively at whether the needs of all New Zealanders are being met. Public broadcasting needs to be properly funded. I commend the bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I thank the member from the other side, Clare Curran, for her speech. She said there would have been “more to come” from the previous Labour Government. I am sure New Zealanders would be interested to know how that would have been paid for, and what sort of increase in expenditure would have been necessary to deliver the “more to come” the member mentioned.

In New Zealand a thousand voices are all talking their talk, saying different things, creating a very interesting soundscape of New Zealand life. What is unique about the Radio New Zealand charter is that Radio New Zealand seeks to be an impartial voice. It seeks to operate in the public interest, and, though it needs to be commercially viable, it does not cede to commercial pressure.

The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. It presents a revised charter that states the purpose of Radio New Zealand as a public broadcaster, followed by provisions stating how it is to achieve that purpose through delivery of its services. This bill, which presents the updated charter, though not necessarily controversial, or dramatic, or something that will attract heated debate across the House, quietly contains some very pertinent reflections on a nation of people who are diverse, blended, and engaged together in the expression of democracy.

The Radio New Zealand annual report states that “Every day, Radio New Zealand captures and reflects the thoughts, opinions and information we want to share as a nation, in programmes that contribute towards our broader collective understanding, help us follow what is going on in our own country and stay in touch with developments in the world around us.”

As a kid I could never ever understand why my parents used to enjoy watching the news. I was much more interested in cartoons. Perhaps some of the older members of the House may remember some of the programmes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Gerry likes cartoons, too.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Well, I must admit that certain warm feelings come to me if I ever see Captain Pugwash, Clutch Cargo, Gigantor, or Huckleberry Hound. I can tell that some members in the House tonight felt warm, fuzzy feelings as I mentioned those names. What I discovered was that the older I became, the more interesting Radio New Zealand became. My son would say that the older I became, the more boring I became. I would say that one of the interesting things about Radio New Zealand is that it captures and reflects the thoughts, opinions, and information we want to share as a nation. It captures our culture and reflects it back to us. It causes New Zealanders to think. There are many programmes on Radio New Zealand that I enjoy every week, and I learn many things. It is reality radio. The charter is not just legislation; it is a living guide.

The amended charter is divided into two parts: firstly, its purpose and, secondly, its delivery. The first part explicitly states that Radio New Zealand’s purpose is to serve the public interest, and that this is to be achieved through public broadcasting principles. The second part expands on delivery. As an independent and commercial-free public service broadcaster, Radio New Zealand National seeks to serve the public interest. An independent broadcaster is free from political influence or preference. Being commercial free, it is free from commercial influence or preference. It is owned by the public to act in the public’s best interests.

Independence is a critical key in ensuring that our public broadcaster has the confidence of New Zealanders, that its content is unbiased and factually correct—that it is true—and that, without bias, it serves the best interests of the public without fear or favour, without political persuasion, but based on merit. Of course, this charter not only speaks to the necessity of those with political or commercial interests not exerting their influence in inappropriate ways, but also, just as important, places on broadcasters the serious responsibility to maintain their editorial independence and integrity in the execution of their responsibilities and duties. It is a reflection of the true professionalism of the media, which New Zealanders greatly appreciate.

When we stand strong on those principles, we serve democracy well in ensuring that Radio New Zealand does not make the news, but reports it; does not create opinions, but accurately reflects the views and opinions of New Zealanders in a legitimate and appropriate way. In this regard the public broadcasting service of Radio New Zealand is a contributor to how democracy is reported, protected, and promoted in New Zealand life. It offers a mouthpiece to the voices of this nation. Once again protecting this voice rests very strongly on the board of Radio New Zealand and the principle ensconced in the charter of serving the public interest of New Zealanders.

When we use the term “broadcasting” it lends itself to two definitions. Firstly, it speaks of transmission over a broad area, and, secondly, it speaks of the content appealing to a broad range of people—having a wide appeal to a wide audience, and acting in such a way as to serve the public interest. So there is a responsibility in the charter for our public service broadcaster to bridge different communities, providing that which is of value not only to single sectors of our society but also to the community at large. It supports the people of New Zealand. Every culture has its values, a mixture of traditions of the past and aspirations for the future. Section 8A(1) in clause 5 states that Radio New Zealand “must, in fulfilling its Charter, exhibit a sense of”—and we have heard this term—“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.” Although we are many and diverse, we are all New Zealanders.

Radio New Zealand is charged with the responsibility of reflecting expression that is distinctly and predominantly New Zealand, but how that is defined is an abstract and organic process, because our culture is constantly changing shape. In seeking to fulfil such an obligation, the charter states—section 8(5) in clause 5—that Radio New Zealand is to “ (d) foster critical thought, and informed and wide-ranging debate: (e) stimulate, support, and reflect the diversity of cultural expression, including drama, comedy, literature, and the performing arts: (f) stimulate, support, and reflect a wide range of music, including New Zealand composition and performance: (g) reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, including Māori language and culture: (h) provide awareness of the world and of New Zealand’s place in it: (i) provide comprehensive, independent, accurate, impartial, and balanced regional, national, and international news and current affairs: (j) provide programmes which balance special interest with those of wide appeal, recognising the interests of all age groups: (k) contribute towards intellectual and spiritual development: (l) include an international service to the South Pacific in both English and Pacific languages:”. I believe that if we have a radio service such as this, we have something that we can all be justly proud of in New Zealand.

It is my pleasure to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.