Coddington Deborah: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4670] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. The ACT party was one of the parties that objected to the use of a Statutes Amendment Bill to include amendments to Radio New Zealand’s charter. We did not object lightly to this. I am aware that a Statutes Amendment Bill enables Parliament to function efficiently and smoothly but it should be used for issues that are non-controversial and this issue is definitely not non-controversial. Just because a Labour member said that the bill is only two pages long does not mean it is minor or non-controversial legislation. 
I wrote to the Minister of Broadcasting at the time and I repeat now that ACT does not support an undefined instruction that would become a licence to use money raised from taxpayers to promote religious and ethical beliefs which should be obliged to compete in the marketplace of ideas on their own merits using resources provided by their supporters. 
This legislation is a dangerous attack on the important principle that the State should be secular. Several people have already described this legislation and the commentary on the bill states that the select committee proposed only “a few minor legislative enhancements”. This bill is definitely not minor. One of the major themes of State radio is that it should not just be independent and unbiased but that it should actually bend over backwards to be so. I will come to that issue later in terms of the charter. But more important than that is that the State should be secular. There is a clear separation of powers. This is constitutionally extremely important and a vital element of a liberal democracy. This amendment along with the one we passed recently for the Television New Zealand charter starts us on the slippery slope of fudging the separation of those powers. 
If we look at the charter we will see that there are only a few pedantic changes but those words are loaded. We should look at what is being changed. We will be changing from having programmes that contribute to intellectual scientific and cultural development to those that contribute to intellectual scientific cultural spiritual and ethical development. I have already spoken strongly on this. State radio has no business promoting spiritual development. Why should some taxpayers be forced to fund the promotion of the spiritual development of someone else whom they might personally find abhorrent? Taxpayers should not be forced to fund State broadcasting at all in these times. 
The State does not own newspapers; neither should it. The State should not own broadcasting either. But while we do have State radio we should all be opposing this insertion of the promotion of spiritual development. Whose spiritual development are we promoting here? Are we going to promote the spiritual development of Christians more than Buddhists? We already have private radio stations that more than successfully provide spiritual programmes. Why should they have to compete in the market against a State-funded broadcaster? 
We are also going to insert into this charter the provision of programmes that contribute to ethical development. This is a real worry too because this signals a continuation of the relativism regarding ethical values that is already permeating our education curricula. This relativism is where we say that no ethical values can be regarded as being more relevant or more important than other ethical values. Ethical values can mean all sorts of different things to different people. Do they include someone whose ethical or spiritual values embrace and support stoning women to death in public for the sin of adultery? There are ethical values that say that young girls should be circumcised. People believe in those ethical values. I suspect that most rational New Zealanders would argue that this is not ethical development at all but barbaric and uncivilised and that these beliefs have no place with a State broadcaster. But under this charter this is what taxpayers could be forced to fund. 
Radio New Zealand recently fronted up to the Commerce Committee and asked for more money from taxpayers—nearly $3 million—because it had blown its budget. At the same time that it turned up at the select committee to ask for this money it also announced that its listenership had plummeted in the last 12 months. Radio New Zealand National Radio listeners had gone from 535000 to 502000. That is a loss of over 30000 listeners in just 12 months. So what does Radio New Zealand do? It fronts up and asks for more taxpayers’ money because its listeners are turning off the radio. Another 15000 switched off from Concert FM. 
I am not surprised that people are turning off from State radio. What does public radio mean? It means broadcasting to the public. It does not mean as it used to when all the news service had to come out of the Prime Minister’s office that it is promoting the policies of the current Government whatever Government that might be. At the moment all we get on public radio is Labour Party policy being promoted. We get no voice from the market liberals. Just one promoter of freedom would be good but no Radio New Zealand is totally incapable of mentioning the f-word. 
When did anybody last hear “free markets” “individual liberty” or “classical liberalism” mentioned on State radio? Instead on Saturday mornings we get endless interviews with women called Kate and on Sunday mornings we get middle-aged hippies masquerading as youth culture. If members listen to the current coverage of the war in Iraq they will confirm that National Radio has totally sold out to the Government’s position on that. I am not surprised that people are turning off from Concert FM either if one listens to the noise that masquerades as music. It is a return to Manuel and the Music of the Mountains and some of us are old enough to remember those days. 
Let us take a look at the briefing to the incoming Government. The briefing is very interesting because it states that on current performance Radio New Zealand has a secure income stream and that it will continue to remain so with income exceeding expenses. That did not last long either. It is always very interesting to look at the outlooks of State-owned enterprises and Crown-owned companies in their briefings to incoming Governments because those outlooks signify what their plans are for the next 12 months. In this one the outlook states “Information withheld under the Official Information Act.” So where will that go? 
I support the fact that under this charter the Radio New Zealand board will be required to inform the shareholding Ministers of the results of surveys it will carry out. Previously these have been preciously kept secret. However what is the point of that? Why should the board waste money doing that? The charter states that after the board has provided the results of those surveys as part of the annual report it must report on “the measures if any it has taken in response to those results.” So why waste money doing those surveys when the Government lets Radio New Zealand totally off doing anything about the results anyway? 
Finally I have to agree with one of the National Party members—I cannot remember who it was—who said that Radio New Zealand is already in breach of its charter. If members read the charter they will see that Radio New Zealand is required to provide comprehensive independent impartial and balanced national news services and current affairs. I have no problem with the news services. Yes they are independent balanced and impartial. Current affairs? I do not think so. As I said the commentary on the bill states that the bill will ensure that the charter “reflects more accurately the needs of New Zealand society.” I would say that the need of New Zealand society is to have more money in its pockets. Radio New Zealand should look at selling some land in Auckland for which it was recently offered $8 million. It would not then have to go the Government cap in hand.