Category: Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A former Broadcasting Standards Authority member says abolishing the regulator gets rid of one of the few ways people can challenge harmful media content.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith said the media landscape has changed since the BSA was set up in 1989 and regulation hasn’t kept up.

Former BSA member Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i told Checkpoint the change is a loss for communities.

Meanwhile, the government wants to explore options for self-regulation for broadcasters including through the New Zealand Media Council which has oversight of print media.

An associate professor in media and communication at Victoria University of Wellington said it was a “momentous” move to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Peter Thompson, who is also part of the Better Public Media organisation, said he was also surprised there hadn’t been any significant public consultation on the matter.

He called the move “politically expedient” and “democratically indefensible.”

“In essence, we’re abandoning enforceable content standards for the media in a digital ecology where many media are struggling to maintain professional standards.

“I expected a far more fulsome discussion of the options that were under consideration before any decision was taken.”

Thompson said removing content standards like accuracy, balance and fairness in an environment where the media were under so much pressure “really invites a significant political risk,” because it meant any media operator that chose to ignore those standards “effectively can now do so with impunity.”

He agreed media regulations needed modernising, but pointed out the BSA had been one of the key actors that’s been arguing to update them.

Thompson said the reason the decision to scrap the BSA was so momentous was the impact it could have on journalism and therefore democracy.

He said there was already a “commercial race to the bottom”, which makes it easier to proceed on the basis of “cutting corners, cutting costs, cutting journalists, in many cases”.

“Having a set of enforceable standards puts a clear line in the sand about what the public and society at large expects from our media sector.”

He didn’t think there’d be a wholesale abandonment of those standards, because that would be a problem for brand image.

But he was concerned about a “significant opportunity cost” being attached to upholding those standards, which could then lead to compromising on those standards.

“That could happen on a slow but steady trend, such that we’re led eventually in a race to the bottom, where all we have is commercial media companies fighting viciously over eyeballs and advertising share and ignoring the key tenets that uphold the Fourth Estate.”

He said those who had been arguing the BSA was “some sort of Stasi like bureaucracy out to stifle free speech” were deliberately misunderstanding its function.

“The Broadcasting Standards Authority, in many ways, is an anachronism.

“But key standards such as accuracy, balance and fairness are not an anachronism, and nor I have to say are they a threat to free speech.

“In fact, they are the very standards that underpin responsible free speech and dialogue in a democratic society.”

Media Council to engage with government

The New Zealand Media Council Chair Brook Cameron told RNZ it would engage with the government as it progressed their considerations on the future of the BSA.

“The purpose of the New Zealand Media Council is to support trust in media and freedom of expression by upholding high standards of journalism.

“The Media Council has a robust process for receiving and determining complaints to ensure the public has confidence in a fair and independent NZ media sector.”

The Platform celebrates decision

The Platform was celebrating the decision, with host Sean Plunket posting on social media that it was a “wonderful 4th Birthday present” for the outlet, which marks that anniversary on Saturday.

He told RNZ he had been “a little surprised” that the government had stepped in on the matter but the result was good news for freedom of speech and for New Zealanders.

“People are saying this is a victory for The Platform or a victory for me, not really. I didn’t choose this fight. I was sitting there doing what this outfit’s been doing for the last four years, and I find it amazing that the BSA decided to pick a fight which ended up in its own demise,” he said.

“It means that an outdated government bureaucracy that was seeking to write its own rules and entertaining complaints that didn’t have any real basis has been told that it needs to go away and that its time is over.”

He had no intention of joining the Media Council, he said.

“I don’t want to sit around the table with big newspapers and media players who are owned by overseas investors quite often, and are mostly interested in selling advertising for real estate agents.”

If misinformation was being spread online, people could complain to those spreading it, he said.

“I mean, Radio New Zealand spreads misinformation, right? And no one’s stopping you guys from doing it… you guys are just going to have to be more careful about fact checking and whether or not you’re displaying inherent bias, as we all are.

“At the end of the day, I’ll tell you what regulates The Platform is our audience. They’ll tell us when we get it wrong, and our numbers will go down and people won’t listen to us.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Analysis – National’s local government reforms face one of the same problems Labour encountered with Three Waters, with councils at risk of being left out in the cold.

The coalition’s approach offers an illusion of choice which may yet help it avoid the breakdown in relations Labour eventually had to resolve.

RMA Minister Chris Bishop and Local Government Minister Simon Watts on Tuesday delivered their ultimatum to councils: “lead your own reform, or we will do it for you”.

Councils have until early August to do so.

Bishop and Watts have been pushing towards amalgamation as part of Bishop’s RMA reforms, announcing in November a plan to have mayors form boards with some level of government oversight – but consultation suggested mayors would be too busy for that.

Some had already come up with plans to amalgamate – and the ministers presented their plan as a way to enable that, giving councils choice.

The problem is: the solutions one group of councils comes up with could leave others in the lurch.

It is a problem Labour knows only too well from its Three Waters reforms, which also aimed at amalgamating council services and which also struggled to balance effective representation against cost savings.

As I revealed in late 2021, Labour’s Cabinet had agreed to that in June to force councils into its reforms rather than take an opt-out approach – but did not publicly announce it until October.

Cabinet papers showed finalisation of the mandatory ‘all-in’ strategy was delayed to September – with the aim of using the intervening time to build support with the councils, including negotiating with LGNZ to not actively oppose the move, damaging the representative group’s own internal relations.

That secretiveness from Labour, combined with the sustained oppositional campaign led by National, ACT, the Taxpayers’ Union and a breakaway grouping of councils, helped to fuel public opposition.

Of course, the ‘Stop Three Waters’ catchcry also leaned on fears around co-governance and communities losing control of their water assets, but the backlash was effective enough that Labour had to water down its reforms and have Kieran McAnulty visit every council in the country to sell the idea.

By contrast, Bishop and Watts have been relatively upfront about the need for change across the entire sector.

Their warning on Tuesday that oppositional or inactive councils will have reforms imposed on them makes clear the stakes and at least gives some certainty about what the alternative is – a wise move.

But that’s not to say their approach is all sunshine and roses.

Letting councils come up with their own plan may have worked in securing at least acceptance from councils in joining their own water reforms, but it also inevitably meant more groupings and reduced savings.

Applying the same approach to council mergers could end up with some messy, bespoke proposals with their own unique ways of working.

It also risks leaving some councils isolated – without the resources to perform as effectively as their neighbours – and could mean some of the complex structures and processes the reforms aims to eliminate are retained.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrote to Bishop last month warning that allowing proposals to come from the sector could lead to having “many more unitary councils than the 17 regional entities” which could “pose serious problems for functions such as catchment management, that must not be fragmented”.

It seems unlikely to come to that – with all the complications involved, the government is incentivised to make the new council boundaries as simple and streamlined as possible.

Bishop and Watts were also clear on Tuesday it was Cabinet that would make the final decisions, and while they will take ideas and pay lip service to councils’ preferences, they will also want a solution that best serves all ratepayers.

The shift away from what they had announced in November – where groups of city and district mayors would come up with the plans – is then almost a mirror to Labour’s shift to a mandated approach to water, but with better stage management.

We’re already seeing complications, with LGNZ’s statement on Tuesday warning some regions would face “greater complexity that needs to be worked through”, and asserting that all councils in a given region – including at the regional level – should be included in amalgamation plans.

As with Three Waters, mayors approached by RNZ after the announcement backed the idea of change – but were quick to raise concerns about how they would be directly affected.

What’s more, National faces the problem of having vocally campaigned for “localism and devolution” on the back of Three Waters, but once in government having consistently taken council decision-making powers away.

Think of Christopher Luxon’s speech to LGNZ in 2024, the crackdown on so-called ‘nice to haves’, the legislated change in purpose for councils, and most tellingly the 4 percent rates cap announced last year.

These are actions that fit the mould of “Wellington knows best”, and sharply at odds with the rhetoric of the last election.

Unlike Labour, this government – far more cash-strapped – is also offering councils no additional funding to ensure its reforms are effectively managed.

Where National would surely decry wasteful spending, similarly cash-strapped councils are already feeling ignored with increasingly expensive rates making up only about a 10th of the total tax take – the rest going to central government.

Their repeated calls to have the option to impose a bed tax or to set their own fees and fines have largely faced resistance – although Bishop indicated imminent legislation to enable “development levies”.

The election promise of “regional deals” has also ended up looking relatively ineffectual – Auckland mayor Wayne Brown calling the first one “quite underwhelming” less than a month after signing it, no doubt partly as a result of the lack of funding that had made overseas examples shine.

Regardless of all this, local government reform seems unlikely to become the flashpoint for opposition that Three Waters became.

While Luxon’s pre-election rhetoric is a mismatch with his government’s actions, those moves have been popular with National’s base.

The timing is also far more favourable, with Cabinet not making final decisions on council proposals until 2027 – after the general election, rather than before it – so simmering backlash to any final decisions would come at the start of the next government’s term and land at the feet of whoever is in power.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A former Broadcasting Standards Authority member says abolishing the regulator gets rid of one of the few ways people can challenge harmful media content.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith said the media landscape has changed since the BSA was set up in 1989 and regulation hasn’t kept up.

Former BSA member Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i told Checkpoint the change is a loss for communities.

Meanwhile, the government wants to explore options for self-regulation for broadcasters including through the New Zealand Media Council which has oversight of print media.

An associate professor in media and communication at Victoria University of Wellington said it was a “momentous” move to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Peter Thompson, who is also part of the Better Public Media organisation, said he was also surprised there hadn’t been any significant public consultation on the matter.

He called the move “politically expedient” and “democratically indefensible.”

“In essence, we’re abandoning enforceable content standards for the media in a digital ecology where many media are struggling to maintain professional standards.

“I expected a far more fulsome discussion of the options that were under consideration before any decision was taken.”

Thompson said removing content standards like accuracy, balance and fairness in an environment where the media were under so much pressure “really invites a significant political risk,” because it meant any media operator that chose to ignore those standards “effectively can now do so with impunity.”

He agreed media regulations needed modernising, but pointed out the BSA had been one of the key actors that’s been arguing to update them.

Thompson said the reason the decision to scrap the BSA was so momentous was the impact it could have on journalism and therefore democracy.

He said there was already a “commercial race to the bottom”, which makes it easier to proceed on the basis of “cutting corners, cutting costs, cutting journalists, in many cases”.

“Having a set of enforceable standards puts a clear line in the sand about what the public and society at large expects from our media sector.”

He didn’t think there’d be a wholesale abandonment of those standards, because that would be a problem for brand image.

But he was concerned about a “significant opportunity cost” being attached to upholding those standards, which could then lead to compromising on those standards.

“That could happen on a slow but steady trend, such that we’re led eventually in a race to the bottom, where all we have is commercial media companies fighting viciously over eyeballs and advertising share and ignoring the key tenets that uphold the Fourth Estate.”

He said those who had been arguing the BSA was “some sort of Stasi like bureaucracy out to stifle free speech” were deliberately misunderstanding its function.

“The Broadcasting Standards Authority, in many ways, is an anachronism.

“But key standards such as accuracy, balance and fairness are not an anachronism, and nor I have to say are they a threat to free speech.

“In fact, they are the very standards that underpin responsible free speech and dialogue in a democratic society.”

Media Council to engage with government

The New Zealand Media Council Chair Brook Cameron told RNZ it would engage with the government as it progressed their considerations on the future of the BSA.

“The purpose of the New Zealand Media Council is to support trust in media and freedom of expression by upholding high standards of journalism.

“The Media Council has a robust process for receiving and determining complaints to ensure the public has confidence in a fair and independent NZ media sector.”

The Platform celebrates decision

The Platform was celebrating the decision, with host Sean Plunket posting on social media that it was a “wonderful 4th Birthday present” for the outlet, which marks that anniversary on Saturday.

He told RNZ he had been “a little surprised” that the government had stepped in on the matter but the result was good news for freedom of speech and for New Zealanders.

“People are saying this is a victory for The Platform or a victory for me, not really. I didn’t choose this fight. I was sitting there doing what this outfit’s been doing for the last four years, and I find it amazing that the BSA decided to pick a fight which ended up in its own demise,” he said.

“It means that an outdated government bureaucracy that was seeking to write its own rules and entertaining complaints that didn’t have any real basis has been told that it needs to go away and that its time is over.”

He had no intention of joining the Media Council, he said.

“I don’t want to sit around the table with big newspapers and media players who are owned by overseas investors quite often, and are mostly interested in selling advertising for real estate agents.”

If misinformation was being spread online, people could complain to those spreading it, he said.

“I mean, Radio New Zealand spreads misinformation, right? And no one’s stopping you guys from doing it… you guys are just going to have to be more careful about fact checking and whether or not you’re displaying inherent bias, as we all are.

“At the end of the day, I’ll tell you what regulates The Platform is our audience. They’ll tell us when we get it wrong, and our numbers will go down and people won’t listen to us.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand