Coddington Deborah: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10322] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. We refused to support the changes to the charter through the Statutes Amendment Act because that Act is meant to be used for issues that are non-controversial. Even though the bill is only a very short piece of legislation its size does not mean that it is not non-controversial. In fact there are a lot of changes in the bill—changes to the charter—that are loaded words and a lot of members in the House have already gone over those. I say again that we are not supporting a situation where an undefined instruction can become a licence to use money raised from taxpayers to promote religious and ethical beliefs. Those beliefs should be obliged to compete in the marketplace of ideas on their own merits using the resources provided by their supporters. 
Private radio in New Zealand already caters well for spiritual and ethical beliefs in terms of radio stations like Radio Rhema and others. If we want to save public broadcasting in this country we have to ensure that public broadcasting is exactly that—that is broadcasting for the public not broadcasting for the Government of the day whatever that Government might be. The level of bias against Radio New Zealand has been made a number of times in terms of State radio—Government-owned radio—being pro-interventionist. We very rarely hear voices of market liberals and voices of non-interventionists on Government radio in this country. 
When the current Minister of Broadcasting took up his position in September 2002 he said that he wanted Radio New Zealand to be “an exciting and compulsive listening piece of our media.” Since then a survey of Radio New Zealand listeners—people who listen for 8 minutes or more in one week—has shown that the proportion of listeners has gone down 6 percent and the proportion of listeners to Concert FM has decreased by 10 percent. 
This Minister has allowed Radio New Zealand to settle for mediocrity. He has allowed Radio New Zealand to set its target at 90 percent of the previous year’s target. 
That has been authorised by the Minister. If Radio New Zealand were a private organisation its shareholders would be crying for blood but what can the shareholders in New Zealand do about it? They can do nothing. 
The State should be secular. We are going down a dangerous path in this country where we are using taxpayers’ money to promote religious and ethical beliefs. They are not minor amendments. For instance the Government wants to extend the audience to a full range of age groups. Obviously the Minister wants to compete also with youth radio in the general market in the private sector—which is already well catered for by the private sector. I ask the Minister how he will cater to the youth market. There is no need to use taxpayers’ money to promote the youth market. We have only to look at George FM in Auckland—[ 
Interruption 
] Well those members over there can laugh but that is the regard with which they hold taxpayers in this country. 
George FM was started in a garage in Ponsonby by people with very few resources and now it captures a lot of the market share in Auckland. No taxpayers’ money was needed at all. As the proportion of listeners to Radio New Zealand plummets the board goes to the Government for more money. 
 They asked for $3 million last time from the select committee. There is not enough accountability. As I said if we want to save public broadcasting in this country we need to have a hard look at the situation. This legislation is just a further nail in the coffin for public broadcasting. It is politically correct legislation. It introduces relativism in terms of promoting ethical development. What is “ethical development”? “Ethical development” means different things to all sorts of people. If we look in one dictionary— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just tell the members on my right that running commentaries are out of order as per Speakers’ rulings 51/5. If they want to make a speech they can do so next time. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: If we look at the dictionary meaning of “ethical development” one of the meanings is “professional standards of conduct”. 
At the Minister’s talkfest last week the chief executive of Government radio referred to Rupert Murdoch in her speech as “the great Satan” of the media. Are those professional standards from an organisation that should be neutral and unbiased? When one says: “commercial radio—four legs bad”; State radio—two legs good” that is not a good use of taxpayers’ money. 
What else were we told at this Government-sponsored talkfest? The chief executive officer—when she was talking about Murdoch “the great Satan”—said: “Do you want to be left with half the facts?” I would argue that private radio stations in this country adhere more to the charter that is set out for Radio New Zealand than Government radio does. If you go to the press gallery and you talk to people from Global News— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please not bring the Chair into the debate. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I beg your pardon. If one goes to the press gallery and does a quick survey of interviews done by Global News and Sport it does more in terms of giving the voices of dissent than do the other State radio things. 
It is not just me who says this. Listen to what Dr Geoff Lealand said. He is the Associate Professor of Screen and Media Studies at Waikato University. He said that he is a National Radio listener but that it does not surprise him any more. National Radio does not challenge him. It does not supply him with a range of dissenting opinions. He said: “Concert FM is dull and doesn’t speak to New Zealanders at all. On National Radio there’s a divide between the mornings when you do sometimes get people asking interesting questions and the afternoons”. That is from someone who knows what he is talking about. 
I finish by saying that ACT opposes this legislation. There are past board members of Radio New Zealand who oppose this legislation. Dr Denis Dutton and Dr John Isles said that Radio New Zealand had lost its professional standards and lost its neutrality and when the Minister of Broadcasting used a Radio New Zealand staff function in May this year to sympathise with staff that they had “every reason to feel nervous bullied and uncertain under the previous administration” one really has to question the neutrality and whether there is ministerial interference in the State broadcaster. ACT opposes this bill.