Back in 1994 when I was the Opposition Spokesperson on Broadcasting, I introduced the New Zealand Public Radio Charter Bill to Parliament. The prevailing view at the time was that public broadcasting was of no value. More broadly, New Zealand broadcasting was thought to be of no value. As the Minister of Broadcasting at the time argued, New Zealanders could get all they needed by accessing the enormous number of media outlets beaming into New Zealand via satellite.  

Championing public broadcasting was not a widely supported cause. Those who did support it were regarded as relics from a bygone age. Dr Michael Tracey, a British academic who was visiting New Zealand at the time noted that most New Zealanders seemed to have forgotten what public broadcasting was.

Thankfully, twenty-five years later, remnants of public broadcasting can still be found in the form of Radio New Zealand (RNZ). But it would be fair to say that public broadcasting is not in good shape. Nor is commercial broadcasting. Advertising revenue is down, competition is fierce, new forms of media create disruption and no one really knows where it is all going.

But there is a view held by a sizable constituency that both public broadcasting and local content is important. At least that’s a substantial improvement on 1994.

The current Government is part of the sizable constituency. During the time of the 5th Labour Government broadcasting came in for a lot of attention (1). In contrast, the Key/English National Government did not bother with a Broadcasting Minister. Returned to Government in 2017, efforts were made (by Minister Clare Curran) to bolster public broadcasting. As we know, this did not end well.

Curran’s replacement, Kris Faafoi – someone with considerable experience in the media – made it clear he would be making changes and, true to his word, he is discussing with his Cabinet colleagues three major options - the most interesting of which is the possibility of disestablishing both TVNZ and RNZ to create a completely new public broadcasting entity.

Few things cause more speculation in the media than talk about the media. And such has been the case since Minister Faafoi made it know he was close to making a decision.

But it would be fair to say that (channelling Dr Michael Tracey) public broadcasting remains something of a mystery to most commentators. All to often it is equated with content and the argument is that funding should be made available on a competitive basis for one and all.

This argument, quite reasonably, comes mainly from commercial media. Reasonable, because in a massively oversubscribed media market like New Zealand with content pouring in from around the world it is very difficult to make a dollar. In particular, it is very difficult to produce expensive, quality, investigative kinds of content and make a dollar.

In this situation the call is for funding that will keep New Zealand media in work and for money to flow into news and current affairs.

No one can argue with that. But it is not public broadcasting just because it is made by New Zealander. Nor is it public broadcasting because it is news and current affairs.

I am all in favour of funding to be made available for New Zealanders to make content of all kinds for all formats. Despite all the uncertainty the 21st century will bring, it is absolutely vital New Zealanders front up with the money to support their media where it is needed.

The aim should be to maintain a mixed economy of media – public media, publicly supported media (in part or in full), advertiser funded media, Maori media and various forms of community based media – that ensures the widest range of broadcasting possible. Each making a distinct contribution.

What, then is distinct about public broadcasting? The usual distinction is that it is non-commercial. But this is not the case. Much of public broadcasting could be commercial. Advertisers, to take but one example, have long wanted access to Morning Report on RNZ because its audience is thought to be the nation’s ‘decision-makers’.

This is why it is more useful to talk of public and advertiser funded broadcasting.

In essence, public broadcasters acquire funding to make programmes while advertiser funded broadcasters make programmes to acquire money.  This does not make one better than the other – but it does make them different. It is this difference that makes ownership a significant issue. Building an organisation that serves the public interest will bring together quite different people and behave in a different way to one that exists to deliver audiences to advertisers. Once again, this does not make one better than the other – just different.

It is the source of the funding that allows public media to be driven by eight key principles:

1.     universal availability;

2.     universal of appeal; 

3.     provision for minorities, especially those at a disadvantage;

4.     serving the public sphere in order to serve the public good;

5.     a commitment to inform and educate as well as entertain;

6.     public broadcasting should be distanced from all vested interests;

7.     encourage competition in good programming rather than audience ratings and,

8.     liberate the programme maker.

Overall, if public broadcasting is to mean anything it should provide an environment for innovative, experimental programming (and even the odd mistake) as it seeks to serve the interests of all citizens (as opposed to a defined group of consumers that is interest to an advertiser).

Over the past forty years or more, as the media has gone through a staggering amount of change, these principles have sounded quaint. They sound less so today as we realise just how important public broadcasting can and should be. To take but one example, as the media market has fragmented, consumers have migrated to outlets that mirror their way of thinking. The result is (best seen in the United States) that society becomes divided into camps that know little about each other. Any sense of a nation disappears, and the results are not pretty as factions become less and less tolerant of each other.

It is for this and a myriad of other reasons that the Government is right to be concerned about the media in general and public broadcasting in particular. If the reforms now being considered can provide an environment where a mixed economy of New Zealand broadcasting can flourish while at the same time New Zealanders access content from all over the world, make the best of social media (it does has its strengths) and explore new forms of media as they arrive – we will be ready for the 21st century. Not all of this can or should be reliant on the public purse. But if we are clear about what we mean when we talk of different kinds of media and we use our money wisely we can ensure we are informed, educated and entertained in the most diverse way possible.

1.     Disclosure. I was Minister of Broadcasting from 2002-2005. To name some policies implemented: Freeview, the shift from analogue to digital, TNVZ Channels 6&7, Maori Television (led by the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia), community radio, Maori radio, additional funding for RNZ, additional funding for New Zealand on Air, the voluntary New Zealand music quota, experimental funding for TVNZ to explore public service content and the TVNZ Charter.