National moves to trash RNZ

Written By: - Date published: 11:00 am, February 18th, 2010 - 111 comments
Categories: Media - Tags: ,

So the Nats are attacking National Radio. It had to happen. Last time the wee blighters were in power they tore down RNZ’s building, locked them into an absurdly expensive lease in an inappropriate building, tried to make them a commercial radio station and pushed to close down the newsroom and make RNZ source its news in from commercial suppliers.

Of course National’s interest in beating RNZ down is two-fold. Firstly RNZ is about the only outlet in the country that offers independent in-depth information on a nationwide level and as such represents a serious threat to National’s fact-free governance (think of how many National ministers have been caught out telling porkies on Checkpoint or Morning Report while other stations just regurgitated their media releases). The other is that RNZ has a market share that could be up to 50% of listeners. There’s a lot to be plundered by National’s private sector mates there (and let’s not forget how Steven Joyce made his dosh).

Let’s be clear about this. Cutting news funding undermines quality. We’ve seen it again and again in commercial media. The problem is we rely on quality news to make sense of what’s going on and to cut through the spin so we can make informed choices about big issues like who we want to govern our country.

By cutting and threatening RNZ, National is undermining one of the most important players in New Zealand’s fourth estate and threatening the democratic accountability it forces.

I recall back in 2007 Jonathan Coleman claiming public broadcasting was akin to North Korean totalitarian propaganda. It seems that the minister isn’t above a little political interference with the independent media himself.

111 comments on “National moves to trash RNZ ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    18 February 2010 at 11:06 am

    The dumbing down process continues.

    I was particulary incensed by Coleman having a go at the Board. They get inadequate funding to do the job properly and then it is implied that they are incompetent because they say so and have research backing them up.

  2. ak 2
    18 February 2010 at 11:14 am

    I think this’ll be a far more concerted effort that “a little political interference” if the track record of the rest of the press (including the Listener) since about 2004 is anything to go by. Looks horribly like the final surge of an ongoing, sophisticated and expensive sub-radar “hearts and minds” campaign by the Marketing Party and its backers.

    Worth defending with intensity – and along with National Parks and A-town Democracy, a convenient, clear-cut rallying point for Labour coming into the crucial Local govt elections.

  3. Macro 3
    18 February 2010 at 11:15 am

    Nact and Coleman’s stance is an absolute OUTRAGE.
    It must be resisted at all costs if we are to have any hope of a democratic society.
    The consequences of Coleman’s proposals will be a complete lack of widespread sensible political debate in this country – which of course is exactly what he wants, because they (NAct and co) know that they are have no answers to the problems facing this country.
    An absolute offence against the people of NZ – they should NOT be interfering with PUBLIC broadcasting in this way.

  4. the sprout 4
    18 February 2010 at 11:20 am

    This is one fight that will end up costing National a LOT more votes than the 250,000 regular listeners to RNZ.

    I’d love to know how much this attack is sponsored by former czar of commercial radio Stephen Joyce and his mates, who despise RNZ because of the amount of high-income audience they pull away from the bullshit commercial outlets. Definitely a story in there somewhere.

    • Tigger 4.1
      18 February 2010 at 11:33 am

      Good point sprout. Also, who benefits from a sale of Concert FM? Not just the competitors but the new buyer…who will likely be a NACT supporter no doubt…

  5. Jake Quinn 5
    18 February 2010 at 11:25 am

    You are right Sprout. Radio NZ is the highest rating radio station in rural NZ. National may pay a price in the regions for this.

    Join this group: “Save Radio New Zealand” http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Radio-New-Zealand/312651831782

  6. Scribe 6
    18 February 2010 at 11:28 am

    Readingthis story it appears Coleman is asking Radio NZ to look for areas where costs can be saved.

    I would have thought that was a reasonable question, especially if staff numbers have risen by 25% in 10 years when radio listening is on the decline.

    • Macro 6.1
      18 February 2010 at 11:57 am

      The facts are that there has already been an independent audit of RNZ and it is doing as best it can on the pittance the govt is giving it. Coleman’s insistence on reducing funding further is simply tantamount to pulling the plug on a public service.
      result chaos.
      Anti-spam “chaos”

      • Tigger 6.1.1
        18 February 2010 at 12:04 pm

        Scribe – RNZ offer all their programming online and they’re electronically making their archives available online. That definitely has increased their costs in the past few years and, possibly, added to staff numbers. They don’t get extra credit for this even though it is an extra service.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2
        18 February 2010 at 12:13 pm

        Don’t suppose you’ve got a link to that research?

    • Fisiani 6.2
      18 February 2010 at 1:07 pm

      Especially since there is absolutely no talk of CUTS. Simply living within means for the next 5 years.

      • Macro 6.2.1
        18 February 2010 at 1:17 pm

        What planet are you on Fisiani?

        • Fisiani 6.2.1.1
          18 February 2010 at 6:06 pm

          On Planet Earth there is no talk of funding cuts at RNZ. May I politely ask you to Please point out any such proposal.

          • mickysavage 6.2.1.1.1
            18 February 2010 at 6:39 pm

            If you conveniently ignore a few things I guess you could say this.

            The reality is:

            1. RNZ is already significantly underfunded
            2. With no allowances for increases in wages or expenses this will only get worse.
            3. A 5 year freeze is effectively a cut.

            • Fisiani 6.2.1.1.1.1
              18 February 2010 at 6:53 pm

              So three points but still no actual cuts. Must try harder. Get used to it. Why don’t left wingers ever learn economics . We have to live within our means. We cannot borrow 240m 340m nor 500m

              • The Voice of Reason …
                18 February 2010 at 7:19 pm

                Did you read point 3, Fisi? A failure to keep pace with inflation is an effective cut. 5 years of that underfunding is a going to end RNZ as a popular public broadcaster. And being popular is the problem. The Nats hate that something from the public service could be better than its private alternatives.

              • Fisiani …
                18 February 2010 at 11:13 pm

                Constant funding for RNZ in a time of austerity is a luxury. It is effectively a BOOST in funding from the reality cuts that our economic state actually requires.
                Spending more that we do not have means borrowing more. How many more millions each week would we have to borrow and REPAY to provide a gold medal radio service in a country that is already borrowing $240,000,000 every 7 days. That is over 34,000,000 a day. More than a MILLION DOLLARS extra in debt every hour.
                Thank God we have a Government that actually understands this fundamental issue even if the Chicken Littles ” The sky is falling in” do not.
                It is waste of time to call for more spending which simply means more borrowing.

                • lprent …
                  19 February 2010 at 12:02 am

                  Bill English is the master of stupid figures that sound good but are incorrect. Sounds like you’re stupid enough to swallow his bullshit without checking.

                  In this case, a high proportion of the ‘debt’ is in fact the normal rollover of government debt. Bill English had to admit this after Cunliffe called him for bullshitting. Cunliffe reckoned the actual increase in debt was about $120 million per week. English reckoned it to be about $180 million per week.

                  I’d give you a link, but it’d give you some good linking exercise to find one. Hell I may even regard that as showing improvement..

              • Armchair Critic …
                18 February 2010 at 11:35 pm

                “Constant funding for RNZ in a time of austerity is a luxury”
                A DPS escort to get a haircut is a luxury
                Extra funding for private schools is a luxury
                A “party-central” for the RWC is a luxury
                Roads with B/C’s below 1 out of Wellington and Auckland are a luxury.
                Fucking up local government in Auckland is a luxury
                More measuring at the expense of teaching is a luxury.
                A broadcaster with editorial independence, that is not held in thrall by advertisers and sponsors in not a luxury. At least not on this planet. Which leads back to a previous question – what planet are you on, fisiani?

  7. Evidence-Based Practice 7
    18 February 2010 at 11:28 am

    I had assumed that Jim Mora’s panel was stacked with right-wingers like Michelle Boag in order to keep the Nats on side with NATIONAL public radio.

    • Gosman 7.1
      18 February 2010 at 11:50 am

      So people like Gordon Campbell, Gordon McLaughlan, and Martyn Bradbury are now classified as right-wingers in your world?

      • Cnr Joe 7.1.1
        18 February 2010 at 12:35 pm

        don’t be so wilfully stupid Gosman

        • Sonny Blount 7.1.1.1
          18 February 2010 at 1:13 pm

          “Jim Mora’s panel was stacked with right-wingers”

          And this isn’t willfully stupid?

          • Macro 7.1.1.1.1
            18 February 2010 at 1:36 pm

            Yes. Mora has his token few from the left. Not that I bother with listening to any of it anymore. Started to – couldn’t stand it anymore. Absolute rubbish most of it. Twittering on about something they have no understanding of at all! Waste of time.
            The rest of the programme throughout the day is excellent.

  8. gitmo 8
    18 February 2010 at 11:30 am

    I haven’t caught up with this story …. how are the government “moving to trash RNZ” ?

    • lprent 8.1
      18 February 2010 at 11:42 am

      They are cutting the budget that was already too small. From memory, an audit by one of the accounting firms had already identified that the $30 million required to run national radio was $5 million too short.

      Basically if the budget isn’t increased then national radio will fall over. Coleman (with the private radio operator Joyce lurking behind) want to cut the budget in the select committee today.

      • Lew 8.1.1
        18 February 2010 at 11:45 am

        This is being disguised as “adopting a more modern business model” or somesuch. Because that’ll work.

        L

        • Lew 8.1.1.1
          18 February 2010 at 11:49 am

          For reference, the following back-of-the-envelope calculation:

          $38,000,000 / 4,000,000 / 365 = $0.026. Let’s round that up to $0.03.

          That’s how many cents per day it costs you. Three.

          L

          • Gosman 8.1.1.1.1
            18 February 2010 at 11:57 am

            LOL!!!!

            I just love you calculation methods – back of the envelope indeed!

            Let’s apply that calculation to other stuff shall we?

            $9,300 / 4 million = 0.2325 cents per year is how much it costs you to employ Curia at the DIA

            LOL!!!.

            • Lew 8.1.1.1.1.1
              18 February 2010 at 12:00 pm

              And do you see me begrudging that? I think it’s a non-story. DPF can have my two cents.

              L

            • Bright Red 8.1.1.1.1.2
              18 February 2010 at 12:04 pm

              The problem with Farrar’s polling isn’t the expense, it’s the conflict of interests and ‘jobs for the boys’

              • gitmo …
                18 February 2010 at 12:08 pm

                Um have you looked at the appointments to boards amde by governments over the last say fifty years ?

                Troughing and parliamentarians and their mates go together like tomato sauce and chips, nothing will change until both sides of the political cheer leading spectrum fuck over their own side as mercilessly as they do their opponents.

          • gitmo 8.1.1.1.2
            18 February 2010 at 12:00 pm

            If they want to tighten up the spend in public broadcasting I’d pull some of the money out of TV and put it into RNZ, far better bang for buck I would have thought.

          • Bright Red 8.1.1.1.3
            18 February 2010 at 12:05 pm

            Lew, I was going to use that 3 cents a day to buy pop rocks. I’m sick of you socialists taking away my pop rocks.

  9. Bomber 9
    18 February 2010 at 11:33 am

    It is utterly unacceptable to economically strangle the last publicly funded media bastion of critical thought in this country! National are attacking public institutions on a vast front and the last thing they want is the last standing critical media examination their ill-thought out ideological blitzkrieg.

    http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2010/02/national-to-economically-strangle-radio.html

  10. Lew 10
    18 February 2010 at 11:35 am

    Agreed. National Radio is New Zealand’s news of record — the go-to source which is most strongly trusted and feared by everyone from government and corporations to PRs and other media agencies. It has gotten this was by general adherence to firm, traditional news values and standards: hiring and holding on to good staff, giving them a reasonable degree of autonomy and authority, fearlessly criticising the hand that feeds it as well as all the others who rely on it to set and carry the news agenda, and even being critical of itself when the need arises. It does this on a microscopic budget, without having to tune its content to the whims and schedules and ideological needs of advertisers, and it does so 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and 366 on leap years. It is a model public service newscaster, the like of which only a few countries in the world are fortunate enough to have. It keeps the other media honest and requires them to bring their A game (such as it is) if they are to have any credibility — and imagine what a state we would have in our media establishment if that pressure did not exist. It is a national treasure.

    And that’s just the news department — the other sections are of similar importance, and they do all that and a bag of chips on even less money and fewer staff resources than the news section. There’s not a person working at National Radio who does so for the money — most of the staff, and I would say all of the senior presentation, editorial and production staff, could move on to similar roles on better pay, doing less and easier work and generally getting more recognition. That they don’t is predominantly due to their commitment to a healthy media culture in NZ.

    This service is critical to New Zealand’s democracy and its society, and it should be strengthened, not undermined. I’m not sure if National quite knows what a fight they’ve picked with this one. I grew up listening to National Radio, and I’ve mentioned before that my daughter is does the little Morning Report dance whenever she hears the intro music. It’s part of the fabric of NZ life. New Zealanders love their radio station; just like Australians love their ABC network, and just like the British love the BBC. The government which dismantled either of those would find itself in eternal electoral purgatory. May it be thus here.

    L

    • Cnr Joe 10.2
      18 February 2010 at 12:42 pm

      we will make it be thus.
      bloody groundhog day with this lot

    • Lew 10.3
      19 February 2010 at 9:24 am

      And this interview on Morning Report today is the case in point of why we need NatRad: Geoff Robinson tackles the issue head-on as an important matter of the public interest, plays devil’s advocate and at one point when John Boscawen asks him to say whether he thinks there is a lack of funding, tells him “it’s not my job to defend Radio New Zealand, it’s my job to ask questions of both of you”. Goddamned right.

      I just wish they’d got someone more competent than the hapless Sue Kedgley on, just repeating the same assertion over and again. Boscawen had her for breakfast, and he’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the box.

      L

      • Pascal's bookie 10.3.1
        19 February 2010 at 9:34 am

        Of all the Green Party MP’s to have moved on, Kedgley would have been my favorite.

        The phrase “filling a much needed gap” comes to mind.

        • felix 10.3.1.1
          19 February 2010 at 10:29 am

          Fitzsimons gone, Bradford gone, yet Kedgley still walks the earth.

          It’s the Beatles all over again.

    • Phil O'Brien 10.4
      19 February 2010 at 1:13 pm

      Brilliant. Thank you.

  11. Bomber 11
    18 February 2010 at 11:37 am

    It is utterly unacceptable to economically strangle the last publicly funded media bastion of critical thought in this country! National are attacking public institutions on a vast front and the last thing they want is any critical examination of their ill-thought out ideological blitzkrieg.

    http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2010/02/national-to-economically-strangle-radio.html

  12. Daveo 12
    18 February 2010 at 11:37 am

    Scribe, what happened to staff numbers and resourcing at RNZ in the 9 years previous to that under National? Might want to have a look at that before mindlessly repeating National’s lines.

    The PwC report tells us they’re still 20% underfunded for what they’re supposed to be doing, and that there’s no fat to cut.

  13. richard 13
    18 February 2010 at 11:45 am

    Is Jonathan Coleman trying to blow smoke in the face of Radio NZ?

  14. MikeG 14
    18 February 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Bring back the NZBC! – combine TVNZ and RNZ so that they can share the news gathering services etc., only maintain one website, one HR dept, one Finance dept….

  15. Roflcopter 15
    18 February 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I quite like listening to Radio New Zealand. What I’ve really liked is it’s consistent messages and services year after year.

    Why is it then, that they’ve needed to accumulate approximately 70 extra staff in the space of two or three years, to deliver exactly has they have been doing for decades? That 70(ish) staff increase accounts for approximately 25% of their total staffing. And I would guess that almost none of them are earning less than $70K per year.

    • the sprout 15.1
      18 February 2010 at 12:46 pm

      “I would guess that almost none of them are earning less than $70K per year”

      Which would suggest, Rolfcopter, that when it comes to RNZ at least,
      you wouldn’t know shit from chocolate bro.

      • Lew 15.1.1
        18 February 2010 at 12:51 pm

        I was going to lead off with something like this and then thought, you know, s/he might be genuine. But yeah. The figure rather undermines that thesis.

        L

      • Roflcopter 15.1.2
        18 February 2010 at 1:05 pm

        Which is probably why I mistook you for a Picnic Bar.

    • Lew 15.2
      18 February 2010 at 12:49 pm

      The people you hear are the tip of the iceberg. Behind them is an army of researchers, writers, producers, technicians, fact-checkers, editors, sanity-checkers, field staff, administrators and bean-counters. Most important, though, a news medium is a filtering service to tell you what you need to know. As the amount of news grows, the number of people required to figure out what the public needs to know grows with it. You should be happy that the latter doesn’t grow in line with the former, because if it did we’d need half of Wellington working in the media.

      L

  16. tsmithfield 16
    18 February 2010 at 12:47 pm

    If it was such a shit-hot broadcasting service then it wouldn’t need public funding.

    • Lew 16.1
      18 February 2010 at 12:50 pm

      No, TS, it’s such a shit-hot broadcasting service partly because it isn’t dependent on the goodwill of advertisers for its funding.

      L

    • Bright Red 16.2
      18 February 2010 at 12:53 pm

      TS thinks that good broadcasting services get money from pixies at the bottom of the garden.

      • Lew 16.2.1
        18 February 2010 at 12:57 pm

        If it’s that simple, why doesn’t he get his pop-rocks from the pixies instead of asking Radio NZ to pay for them?

        L

    • lprent 16.3
      18 February 2010 at 1:09 pm

      TS – there are no other broadcasting services worth a damn in NZ in my opinion.

      • Commercial radio is as vacuous as a wingnut troll attempting to discuss science.
      • All TV channels have so much advertising that it is really hard to see the program, and the programs are crap – including the news and current affairs which are too variable to be bothered recording.
      • These days we pretty much rely on DVDs both rented locally and purchased via Amazon for video.
      • The less said about some of the idiotic reporting in the newspapers the better

      Through all of this you can generally rely on the National program to give some real information. Which is of course is why NACT would like it gone. I’d cheerfully scrap all of my tax money sunk into the TV channels and for that matter Maori media and dump it all into the National program.

  17. Daveo 17
    18 February 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Roflcopter. I’d be interested to know where you got your figures from. Are these full time equivalents? And is it two-three years like you say or ten years as your Tory mates have been saying? Do you know what they are doing or is this just your right-wing political prejudices showing through?

    I strongly suspect it’s the latter, as anyone who knows anyone who works at Radio NZ (or as a journalist in general actually) knows there would be few staff on more than $70,000 a year. Generally journalists are paid less than factory workers, it’s only the well known presenters and the managers that get the big salaries.

    Are you aware of the PWC report that said they were 20% underfunded for what they’re doing?

    • Roflcopter 17.1
      18 February 2010 at 2:04 pm

      Go talk to a RNZ Journo, they’ll tell you exactly where the money is being sucked up. And it isn’t being spent on improving the lot of the front-line people responsible for delivering meaningful content, or on researchers etc. It’s all getting top-heavy. And can you say “$2M rebrand is cheap” without keeping a straight face?

      • lprent 17.1.1
        18 February 2010 at 2:25 pm

        And can you say “$2M rebrand is cheap’ without keeping a straight face?

        Paula Bennett can – I listened to her on RNZ yesterday getting done by Annette King about a rebranding exercise of existing social programs yesterday. It was costing a damn sight…. I saw a post about it on Red Alert this morning.

    • gitmo 17.2
      18 February 2010 at 2:21 pm

      Their financial statements are on line.

      267 FTE staff paid collectively 21.4 million per annum (ave just over 80k) with 20 staff on over 100k and only the CEO on over 190k.

  18. mickysavage 18
    18 February 2010 at 1:00 pm

    That funny concept that this current mob are incapable of understanding, the law, is interesting.

    Radio NZ is a creature of statute. It’s charter makes for interesting reading. It states:

    Charter
    (1) The functions of the public radio company shall be to provide innovative, comprehensive, and independent broadcasting services of a high standard and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide—
    (a) Programmes which contribute towards intellectual, scientific, and cultural, spiritual, and ethical development, promote informed debate, and stimulate critical thought; and
    (b) A range of New Zealand programmes, including information, special interest, and entertainment programmes, and programmes which reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity, including Maori language and culture; and
    (c) Programmes which provide for varied interests and a full range of age groups within the community, including information, educational, special interest, and entertainment programmes; and
    (d) Programmes which encourage and promote the musical, dramatic, and other performing arts, including programmes featuring New Zealand and international composers, performers, and artists; and
    (e) A nationwide service providing programming of the highest quality to as many New Zealanders as possible, thereby engendering a sense of citizenship and national identity; and
    (f) Comprehensive, independent, impartial, and balanced national news services and current affairs, including items with a regional perspective; and
    (g) Comprehensive, independent, impartial and balanced international news services and current affairs;     and
    (ga) an international radio service to the South Pacific (Radio New Zealand International), which may include a range of programmes in English and Pacific languages; and
    (h) Archiving of programmes which are likely to be of historical interest in New Zealand.

  19. chris 19
    18 February 2010 at 1:06 pm

    i’ve started a facebook group here http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=310373544131&ref=ts

    would be good to start swelling the numbers a bit and spreading the word

    happy to make anyone keen an admin

  20. Classical Liberal 20
    18 February 2010 at 2:40 pm

    When the taxpayer pays around $35 million for anything it’s reasonable for their elected representatives to ask hard questions about how well that money is being spent.

    Regardless of what the KPMG review said it appears from the latest annual report that RNZ’s board and management are not doing the job particularly well. In the 2008 year RNZ spent $19,058,000 on personnel costs. For the 2009 year they budgeted $20,010,000 which is a 5% increase but they actually spent $21,417,000 – a 12.4% increase. This is not good enough.

    I agree that RNZ is worth protecting but it is not entitled to spend well above inflation and well above budget without consequences.

    • Bright Red 20.1
      18 February 2010 at 2:53 pm

      They’re not asking ‘hard questions’. They’re just slashing the budget and saying ‘lump it’

      • ak 20.1.1
        18 February 2010 at 3:02 pm

        ….and nine times out of ten the “hard questions” have a perfectly legitimate answer as someone alluded to for this case up-thread.

        Weirdest thing is that this will upset many of their own staunchest stalwarts – as will the attacks on the environment, community boards etc. Many cockies are big Natrad fans, and many rural areas can get nothing else.

        PS phrase du jour for the current slashing seems to be “living within our means”. Like one big happy family “all in this together”; prepare to cringe at this a trillion times in the coming year.

    • Armchair Critic 20.2
      18 February 2010 at 3:11 pm

      So what’s Whanau Ora about, then, CL? Happy with the government’s explanations so far? It’s only an order of magnitude more money than RNZ’s funding.
      I’m quite happy with what RNZ are doing, how it is described, and how well they are doing it. The only thing I want to see changed is an increase to their funding.

      • Classical Liberal 20.2.1
        18 February 2010 at 8:31 pm

        I’m sorry Armchair but the standard playbook won’t work with me. I was responding to a blog on RNZ – not Whanau Ora, not the current administration. And RNZ are not managing their costs well.
        Your predictable response will be either to ignore my post [please] or engage in an ad hominem attack

        • IrishBill 20.2.1.1
          18 February 2010 at 8:40 pm

          RNZ are managing their costs very well. In fact if you compare them to media works they are doing extremely well. In short you are wrong. Factually and quantitatively incorrect. However as a “classical liberal” (a ridiculous term if ever there was one) you are probably applying a system of measurables that fails to account for any benefit outside of narrow profit-orientated parameters. If this is the case I’d suggest you should be commenting over at the visible hand, anti-dismal or one of those other fantasy role-play blogs.

          • Classical Liberal 20.2.1.1.1
            18 February 2010 at 9:04 pm

            Why Irish – the response from the frustrated left is much more fun.
            Although your failure to engage with the facts is just sad. RNZ do not controls their costs when compared to the budget they set themselves – the numbers speak regardless of what spin you put on it.
            And as an ad hominem this is pathetic – Felix would have gone for the jugular [mind you he would have missed]

            IrishBill: you mean “control” not “controls”. Smug and as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle, a classical liberal indeed.

            • Classical Liberal 20.2.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2010 at 7:48 am

              BINGO – IrishBill cannot address the facts and reaches for the tired old ad-hominem attack. Truly pathetic.

              [lprent: We’ve just seen your tired old arguments over and over again. What we have yet to see is any proof that what you’re saying is more than an article of faith held by a flake. Oh and please don’t drop into the kiddie “I won/owned/pwned” speak. It just pisses me off and I start banning. ]

              • wtl …
                19 February 2010 at 8:01 am

                As far as I can see, your original comment was already discredited by Armchair Critic @ 9.56 pm yesterday – they may have overspent one part of the budget but had an overall surplus, making the overspend irrelevant. I see you haven’t addressed that and just keep whinging about ad hominem attacks.

        • Armchair Critic 20.2.1.2
          18 February 2010 at 9:04 pm

          And your predictable response, CL, was to ignore facts and avoid questions about your comment.
          Apart from “Johnathon Coleman says so” you have no evidence that RNZ are not managing their costs well.
          You invited the question about Whanau Ora with your opening statement about questioning significant government spending. The irony of you concern about $35m and apparent lack of concern about a $1b program is therefore fair game. And your “it’s not the subject of the post” line is kind of weak. Go on, stretch your mind, be a rebel, see if the moderators will let you.
          I will save my full contempt for your position until I’ve read your reply.

          • Classical Liberal 20.2.1.2.1
            18 February 2010 at 9:21 pm

            As I said in my earlier post in this thread:
            “Regardless of what the KPMG review said it appears from the latest annual report that RNZ’s board and management are not doing the job particularly well. In the 2008 year RNZ spent $19,058,000 on personnel costs. For the 2009 year they budgeted $20,010,000 which is a 5% increase but they actually spent $21,417,000 a 12.4% increase. This is not good enough.”
            SOURCE Radio NZ annual report NOT Jonathan Coleman – download from this page http://www.radionz.co.nz/about/

            Whanau Ora will be a successful programme ……. for Holden NZ, Air NZ, Holiday Inn etc. etc. Devolving this spend to untried providers will see money wasted on Commodores, Koru Club memberships, business class travel but not Whanau or their Ora. The same types of proposals came up in the Regional Health Authority era and were a complete rort then. Nothing has changed.

            • Armchair Critic 20.2.1.2.1.1
              18 February 2010 at 9:56 pm

              The 2009 AR also states RNZ had an overall surplus. Yes, a very small surplus, but a surplus none the less. Which seems to indicate that they compensated for the increased personnel costs by trimming costs elsewhere. Hardly the sign of a bad board, or poor management.
              The same report also states that with one exception, RNZ achieved all their objectives. The exception was they only partially achieved recruitment and retention of talented staff.
              So, even though RNZ spent over their budget on personnel, they can not meet their recruitment and staff retention objectives. Bit of a contradiction there.

              • mickysavage …
                18 February 2010 at 9:58 pm

                A surplus because they managed to get by with 80% of the money they needed to do the job properly. In other words they could have done the job much better.

    • Macro 20.3
      18 February 2010 at 7:56 pm

      Wow only $35 m to fund RNZ now THAT is doing it on the cheap buddy! – What about the $46 m EXTRA funding to PRIVATE schools – are they going to be asking the hard questions there? Yeah right!

      • big bruv 20.3.1
        18 February 2010 at 8:54 pm

        You mean the tax’s paid by people who send their kids to private schools?

        What is wrong with the parents of kids at private school seeing some of their tax dollars going into the school their child attends?

        If you don’t like that idea then why not let us have tax breaks and we can fund our own kids to the school of our choice?

        Those who are happy with public schools can continue to pay tax at a higher level.

        Seems fair to me.

        • Macro 20.3.1.1
          19 February 2010 at 9:42 am

          Again teenie troll you display a complete lack of understanding of the things you are talking about. Private schools were already heavily subsidised by tax payers the last budget sent more funding in their direction at the expense of schools and education that provided for the public as a whole. People are free to send their children to schools other than public schools if they wish, and as a parent I have. But that is their choice.They should not be expecting the public to fund them.

  21. tc 21
    18 February 2010 at 4:38 pm

    How utterly predictable from the NACT with that logic …
    IF ‘Disagree with govt’ THEN ‘Discredit/Ignore/Dismantle’……JK wants to bridge the gap with Oz eh……quality public broadcasting exists across the ditch and no Aust gov’t would ever be so stupid as to dick with it….last one that tried found that out very quickly.

    just goes to show you how desperate they are to stifle any debate in the hope of repeating the con they pulled off in 2008……the really depressing issue is the MSM will lie down on this hoping their biggest competitor gets wiped out.

    A relentless focus on removing any contrary opinions to ours.

    • Lew 21.1
      18 February 2010 at 4:46 pm

      A relentless focus on closing the gap with Australia by running as fast as possible in the opposite direction, as I’ve often heard it argued around these parts. There’s got to be another post in that, for someone who can be arsed with wonkish policy detail more than I can. Incoherent narratives are vulnerable.

      L

  22. Clarke 22
    18 February 2010 at 4:43 pm

    What appalls me about Coleman’s behaviour is that he’s part of a government that has no hesitation in pissing away public money on utter white elephants – $100 million on the Queens Wharf “party venue”, anyone? For that kind of money we could have both a better-funded RNZ and the return of adult education courses.

  23. Red Rosa 23
    18 February 2010 at 5:41 pm

    $35m seems like a bargain. If they dished out $35m to private schools, $35m to run a broadcaster should be peanuts.

    Maybe we could raise the top tax bracket to match Australia’s. Now that WOULD be a step in the right direction….. might even close the gap a bit….

  24. Zaphod Beeblebrox 24
    18 February 2010 at 8:56 pm

    $35 mill?? You could almost fund that with the travel allowance for MPs for one year. Maybe Key could avoid visiting Europe and Washington for a couple of years? Then rural people can get to keep their radio services.

  25. Jim Nald 25
    19 February 2010 at 1:55 am

    The Govt is getting more bl**dy awful by the day

  26. randal 26
    19 February 2010 at 11:54 am

    how soon do we get ads for erectile dysfunction on the concert programme?

    • felix 26.1
      19 February 2010 at 12:29 pm

      S: “Tell me Geoff, how do function so well in the mornings?”

      G: “Well Sean, it’s all down to Nature Bee. Katherine, on the other hand, sleeps on magnetic deer velvet. And what’s more, her sense of journalistic ethics is back!”

      K: “Yes, well I need it with him around!”

      • Lew 26.1.1
        19 February 2010 at 12:32 pm

        Felix, it rings so true that I pity you, the number of hours you’ve spent listening to those channels.

        L

        • felix 26.1.1.1
          19 February 2010 at 12:55 pm

          I used to listen quite a bit, but now I just pour Wet & Forget all over the radio and let nature do the work.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.