WHEN Paul Henry took un-PC to another level with his “Kiwi” comments on Breakfast, the Prime Minister said he wasn’t happy (although he wasn’t upset enough at the time to do anything about it), the entire nation of India (and that’s a lot of people) wasn’t happy, and New Zealand was divided.
TVNZ was humming and haa-ing, and saying different things to different people and the fate of the polarising broadcaster was in the air.
The day I read Progressive supermarkets had issued a statement it could pull Breakfast programme advertising if Henry made similar racially-charged comments again, I knew it was all over for the former National Party member.
So who really holds the power in this country? Are the supermarkets more influential than the Prime Minister?
In agriculture, it is definitely one of the most powerful forces at work. Supermarkets hold the key to customer demand, welfare trends and food fashion.
At the recent Federated Farmers Meat and Fibre Council meeting, the Minister of Agriculture termed supermarkets the industry “regulators”.
In the case of the New Zealand agricultural sector, the most important supermarkets are British. When the majority of your produce is sold overseas, it must be those regulatory bodies that hold the purchasing power, and set the rules.
Does that mean our Agriculture Minister is really the chief executive of Marks & Spencer?
The case of Henry was the first instance I had noticed the supermarkets moving out of food sector bullying (where they constantly ask for cheaper prices and less carbon emissions) and in to a political role.
I do hope these massive bodies that control the access to food and decide the range of products Westerners choose to consume are getting it right.
I also hope, as our Government looks to pull State funding from the media (TVNZ and RadioNZ), leaving it even more reliant on advertising revenue from big companies such as supermarkets that they will make the right decisions on who reads the news and what those news readers are allowed to say.