Coddington Deborah: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12244] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not interesting that we heard from Sue Kedgley of the Greens about all these foreign-owned media outlets in New Zealand and the foreign owners who do not care at all about New Zealand? That must be why when picking up the  
Dominion Post 
 and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 every day we see nothing of New Zealand news! It must be why when we pick up  
North and South 
 and  
Metro  
every month we read nothing about New Zealand because Kerry Packer does not care! If that is the case why was Sue Kedgley on the cover of  
North and South 
? I think we need an explanation. Obviously she is the favourite of Kerry Packer or maybe it is because she is foreign-owned too. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Some of the covers are shocking. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I agree with my colleague over there—some of the covers are shocking. 
I would like to say why the ACT party did not agree with the word “spiritual”—not so much the word “ethical”—being included in the charter. It goes back to Marian Hobbs. In May 2002—believe it or not—Marian Hobbs wrote asking for permission to use it in the statutory amendments legislation. We all know that Parliament is meant to function and that it is not good to hold it up unnecessarily but that legislation is meant to be used for uncontroversial matters. It is definitely controversial whether or not we agree with it to insert the word “spiritual” into a charter that is required to be adhered to by a State-owned broadcaster. The ACT party firmly adheres to the convention in this country that the State is secular and is not required to promote spiritual values. We already have radio stations and broadcasters that promote spiritual values. It is not the role of the State broadcaster to do that. 
I would like the Minister to take another call to tell us why it is necessary to put these two words into the charter. Why is it necessary to have the words “ethical and spiritual”? We all know more or less what “spiritual” means but what are we meant to take from the word “ethical”. In these days of relative morality ethical can mean anything. It can mean anything goes. It can mean that anti-westernisation—taking out the Twin Towers—is just as relative and ethical as our condemnation of that sort of terrorism and behaviour. We start to get into trouble when we bring into a charter words that are nebulous and not clearly defined. 
I always argue that if we want to save public broadcasting in this country and if we believe in public broadcasting then we have a duty as Parliament to scrutinise that public broadcaster and make sure it is delivering the conditions of its charter. Radio New Zealand’s charter has an obligation to objectivity and impartiality in its news and current affairs. A report was finished in December last year that two former directors of Radio New Zealand put their names to—John Iles and Dr Denis Dutton. It was a very thorough report and it systematically showed that current affairs—the so-called features programmes of Radio New Zealand—were not adhering to the charter at all. They were overwhelmingly pro-interventionist as opposed to non-interventionist. 
If one just takes a specific area like education—and it happens in all areas—a new policy would come out from say the Post Primary Teachers Association and Radio New Zealand would run the statement without any dissenting opinion. A statement from National ACT the Education Forum the Early Childhood Council or the Business Roundtable would either be ignored or run with a dissenting voice. 
That is fine. I am not saying that the centre-right view should be run unopposed but the broadcaster should be consistent and have more voices of dissent across all ranges because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about a publicly owned broadcasting company that has a duty to all of the public—not just the public who agree with the Government of the day. 
The incumbent Minister of Broadcasting has been praised but he did a very very foolish thing in May 2003 when he actually used the premises of Radio New Zealand to make political announcements.