Speaker by Various Artists

This post is the first of a series to be authored by the Law Commission and published here as part of an exercise in facilitating broad public discussion of the Commission's Review of Regulatory Gaps and the New Media issues paper.

You're encouraged to share your views here (the disclaimer below explains how what you write may be used). If you are not already registered to comment on this site, you'll need to do so. It doesn't take long. Our discussion forums do not allow HTML proper, but code to format text and create links is displayed by the composition window. Enjoy -- RB.

---

Who are the news media and how should they be regulated?

This rather ambitious question encapsulates the first two limbs of the terms of reference given to us by the former Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, in October 2010, when he asked the Law Commission to review the gaps which were emerging in the regulatory system for news media in New Zealand.

At first glance it is clear a couple of important, and arguable, assumptions underpin this question, and indeed our terms of reference.

The first is the assumption that the "news media" comprise a class of publisher (we use this term in its broadest sense to encompass all channels and formats of communication) still capable of being distinguished in a meaningful way from others exercising their speech rights. Secondly, the question assumes this type of publisher requires some type of special regulatory control.

Both of these assumptions are of course open to debate in the era of the read/write web, where anyone can break news and comment on public affairs. In chapter 2 of our Issues Paper we describe this rich new media landscape and the growing interdependence between new and mainstream media.

So why attempt to perpetuate this old-world distinction between “news media” and other publishers? And why make them accountable to anything other than the minimum legal constraints which apply to all citizens exercising their free speech rights?

In chapter 4 of our Issues Paper we attempt to answer these questions by posing another, more fundamental, question: what is the function of the news media? What is it that distinguishes the news media from other types of publishers?

These questions are the subject of a very large and divergent academic literature which we cannot traverse here. But it may be worth re-stating the orthodox view that suggests the key functions of the “Press” in a liberal democracy are to:

* act as an independent watchdog on government and other seats of power;

* represent the public (for example in Parliament and the courts );

* disseminate information to the public;

* provide a forum for debate and the formation and expression of public opinion.

Democratic societies all over the world have acknowledged the importance of these functions by affording the news media special legal and non-legal privileges ( we summarise these in chapter 3 of our Issues Paper) to ensure they have adequate protections and have access to the places, people, and information necessary to do their job.

However it has largely been left to the free market to deliver this “public good” and as British academic James Curran argues, public interest journalism comprises only a small - and diminishing - fraction of the content produced by modern media companies. As Curran and others point out, in the West the call for "press freedom" may sometimes be interpreted more as a call for a freedom to maximise profits rather than to hold governments to account.

At the same time, many would now argue that citizens are no longer dependent on this corporatised news media to fulfil the democratic functions assigned to the traditional "Press". Instead the networked society provides everyone with the tools to report the news, to participate in debates, and to collectively arrive at an accurate account of matters of public interest and importance. The advent of WikiLeaks and the role of social media in the Arab Spring provide two examples of this democratised process for the dissemination of news and information.

So why hold onto the concept of the news media? And why continue to afford them special status and hold them accountable to higher standards than other publishers?

We argue that rather than holding onto the concept of the news media as a privileged entity, we need to hold onto the activity, or underlying purpose, of the news media - an activity we argue must continue to attract certain legal privileges and accountabilites, irrespective of who carries it out or in what medium.

In chapter 4 we explain why we have reached this view. In particular we set out some of the defining characteristics of the news media, which, in theory, if not always in practice, distinguish journalism from other forms of publishing, such as polemic or propaganda.

Foremost among these have been:

• a commitment to accuracy;
• a commitment to distinguishing between facts and opinions;
• a commitment to serving the needs of readers over that of parties with an interest in disseminating particular information or points of view;
• a commitment to fairness and transparency in how news and information is gathered and presented.

Although inevitably subjective and notoriously difficult to achieve and measure, these principles are reflected with remarkable consistency in the codes of ethics of journalists around the globe.

Trustworthiness, as American newsmen Kovach and Rosenstiel note, is the cornerstone of news reporting: " The desire that information be truthful is elemental. Since news is the material that people use to learn and think about the world beyond themselves, the most important quality is that it be useful and reliable."

We argue that the need for authenticated and credible sources of news and information is as important today, in the age of ubiquitous publishing, as at any time previous.

But we are not suggesting that the old providers and methods of gathering and disseminating news should take precedence over the new. Instead we argue that whoever fulfils the democratic function of the "Press" should have access to the statutory and non- statutory privileges that have in the past been reserved for traditional news media.

More controversially perhaps, we argue that those who engage in this type of publishing must exercise their powers responsibly, and be accountable to the public on whose trust they rely.

We are very interested in people’s views on these issues and to the specific questions raised in our Issues Paper, including:

Do you agree with our position regarding the on-going importance to society of a free and critical “Press”, committed to providing credible and disinterested accounts of the important news and issues of the day?

Do you think the qualities which have traditionally been seen to distinguish journalism from other forms of communication remain relevant in the digital era when anyone can receive and impart information from a multiplicity of sources?

For the reasons outlined above the law gives the “news media” special privileges and exemptions in recognition of the important role it plays in a democracy. Is it still in the public interest to treat the news media as a special class of publisher, afforded special legal (and functional) privileges?

 

1. Rights and Responsibilities: If we accept that for the moment at least there is still a role for the news media, the question then arises as to whether this class of publisher should continue to have special legal recognition – and he held accountable to the public. If so, is there a public interest in extending this system of rights and responsibilities to new publishers who wish to position themselves as credible sources of news and information. Does our proposed statutory definition of news media work ?
2. What type of regulator: if we accept the need for some form of accountability for the news media, what form should it take? Voluntary or compulsory and are the incentives sufficient?

___

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:

This discussion is being advertised across several new media websites - guests to Public Address are very welcome but please refer to the rules here.

This discussion is part of the Law commission’s consultation on their issues paper “The News Media meets ‘New Media’ : rights, responsibilities and regulation in the digital age. I.E. your comments below may be taken into account when the Law Commission writes its final report on Media Regulation issues. The discussion will be moderated, however this moderation will be in accordance with the normal rules of moderation in this forum, presented as part of the user registration agreement:

While we encourage vigorous debate, we require forum users to refrain from personal abuse and aggressive behaviour towards others. Posts which breach this policy will be deleted by moderators and persistent offenders will be de-registered.

 Several other things follow from this:

 1. The Law Commission may participate in the discussion.  Any comments it makes in this forum should be regarded as provisional as the Commission will not finalise its policies and recommendations to government until it tables its final report which is expected at the end of 2012.

 2.  Parts or all of this discussion may be archived as part of the official record of this Issues Paper Consultation (Practically this means that  if you change your mind on something then you are encouraged to say so and explain why - otherwise your initial view may be interpreted as a kind of submission).;

3.  This discussion may be subject to the Official Information Act - and certainly any remarks made by the Law Commission will be; The Law Commission encourages all participants to also make formal submissions to the Law Commission here.  If you form an opinion on these issues as a result of reading the discussion in this thread then please share that with the Commission directly if you wish.

 - The Law Commission and Russell Brown (Host and publisher of Public Address)

One of the joys of a new government, depending on your level of masochism, is the release of Briefings to the Incoming Minister (or BIMs). Even if the Government doesn't change, technically each Minister is “incoming” because they have a new warrant. It's a chance for ministries, departments and other crown agencies to take stock and summarise the way ahead, flagging any urgent needs the Minister might need to attend to. It's also a chance for them to get some things out in the open, where they might otherwise be hidden in corporate reporting, and to signal where changes across the sector might be on the horizon. Treasury's BIM is always widely scrutinised for that reason. There's a handy list on the Beehive website, but I've found it's not complete.

Not all Crown Agencies produce a BIM. The core Public Service agencies do and some of the Crown entities but there are many (most) that are not required to as they don't report to a minister. There's a great brochure on the State Services Commission website  which breaks down the agencies into sectors. In jargon terms, this is the “machinery of government” (we used to talk about “whole of government” - until someone wrote down the acronym...)

There are 32 Public Service departments subject to the State Sector Act. All bar the GCSB have provided a BIM this year, and the GCSB would probably claim that theirs was so secret we couldn't see it anyway, so there. Interestingly, the SIS is not part of the Public Service, though still (like the Police) regarded as part of the State Services. They didn't do one either, though the Police, the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Defence Force (in conjunction with the MoD) all did.

Of the 208 named entities in the machinery brochure, 77 have produced BIMs (including the New Zealand Ballet – WTF? Maybe they're going for funding later in the year), in some cases multiple BIMS (MED, Justice and DIA among others have multiple Ministers) for a total of 119 documents and 2865 pages. Now that's what I call bedtime reading! And they're still coming in, as far as I can see. The list at the Beehive site doesn't include all the ones I know about as yet.

This post isn't about the content of the BIMs – it will take me a while to read them all, and I might drop a few like Veterans' Affairs and the Artificial Limb Board. What I want to post about is the format, and what it means for open government.

Firstly, I'm really glad they publish them at all. Once upon a time, the BIM was strictly between the Minister and the Department, and they could be very free and frank indeed. When I joined the Post Office in 1982, I must have been part of the last tranche of public servants who had to sign the Official Secrets Act as part of my induction. It was replaced in July 1983 by the Official Information Act which proposed:

consistently with the principle of the Executive Government's responsibility to Parliament,—

(a) to increase progressively the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand in order—

(i) to enable their more effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policies; and

(ii) to promote the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials,—

and thereby to enhance respect for the law and to promote the good government of New Zealand:

(b) to provide for proper access by each person to official information relating to that person:

(c) to protect official information to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.

 The bone of contention over the years has been the “increase progressively”! Still, we get a lot more now than we used to.

While the BIMs are designed to get a new Minister familiar with their responsibilities quickly, especially anything urgent, they are also a valuable resource to the public who find ministerial pronouncements too opaque to make sense of. IF they can be read, and that's a big if and the main reason for this post.

There are some issues. Long after my time at the NZPO, I was in at the beginning of the government getting on the web, firstly at IRD where I built their initial website in 1996, and later at SSC as part of the E-government Unit. In that role, I was responsible for developing and publishing the Government Web Guidelines (later, Standards) to try to ease accessibility to government information by ensuring information wasn't locked into formats that, for example, blind people couldn't process through text reading software. We weren't alone in this – the US had the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the UK had their own Web Guidelines (which we pillaged thoroughly!).

It's 10 years since we published that first release. The NZG has come a long way in that time, but it's still not perfect, especially when we come to OIA requests. There's still a generation or two that learned their trade under the OSA, rather than the OIA, and look for ways to withold information rather than make it available unless it actually needs to be withheld, but mostly the problems are around people not thinking how information will be used.

Of the 119 documents I downloaded, 96 were only provided as a PDF. Once that would have had me banging my head on the table, as PDFs have regularly been used as electronic versions of paper documents, rather than as containers of information. Don't get me wrong, I'd still prefer to see HTML/CSS documents, but at least the current crop is largely accessible, i.e. they can be read in a text-to-speech (TTS) reader. 8 documents were supplied both as PDF and Word .doc files (Ministry of Health, Ministry of Culture and Heritage and Inland Revenue), 2 were provided as Word .doc only (Creative New Zealand and the Artifical Limb Board), and 1 was supplied as .docx only (Health Quality & Safety Commission). The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs (not on the beehive list) put up a .pptx as an appendix but the main BIM was PDF.

Only 12 documents were supplied in PDF and HTML (Conservation, Corrections, Labour, Education, Science and Innovation, Takeovers Panel and Treasury) and only one was supplied as  HTML only (Teacher's Council).

This is disappointing, as HTML is the language of the web. It's actually very easy to repurpose word-processed documents as semantic HTML, if you design your documents to be semantic in the first place. Sadly, most government agencies even now seem to still regard computers as fancy typewriters. And the web as somewhere you put stuff after you've finished with it.

The worst BIMs, though, come from a group of agencies who really don't “get it” at all. Their PDFs are scanned of printed pages or locked PDFs that you can't even cut and paste from and they are:

• CERA – text but locked – content copying not allowed.

• Crown Law – scanned paper pages

• MED Small Business – scanned paper pages (Oddly, the other MED BIMs were fine)

• MFAT - scanned paper pages (no huge surprise there – MFAT are notorious for being hard to prise any information out of) (IMHO, of course ;-)

• NZ Police – scanned paper pages

• Reserve Bank – password secured so that annotation and extracting pages is disallowed

• Tertiary Education Commission – scanned paper pages

• Tourism New Zealand – pages appear to be images, probably produced by a smart copier

• Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit – scanned paper pages 

CERA and RBNZ obviously knew better, but still allowed their need to 'control' the information get in the way of disseminating it to the public. The other agencies should know better but old habits are obviously hard to break. I have copies of the 2008 BIMs as well (a number of agencies still have them on their site, but not a majority) and they are still available from the Beehive site as well. If I can find the time, in the next little while, I'll review them the same way and see whether we're improving or not. But it is disappointing that, 10 years after first setting down standards for publishing on the web, we still have recalcitrant agencies who think they own our information.

If I had to pick an agency that did it best, I'd probably say Treasury. Aside from COMU's brainfart (and they've always plowed their own furrow), they produced their reports with HTML as the primary format and with Persistent URLs (PURLs) so that links remain live permanently. The Department of Conservation comes a close second as their primary format is HTML.

There may be other BIMs to come. If I see them, I'll note them in the comments.

Singer, songwriter and cookbook writer Flip Grater managed to grab six days back in her native Christchurch recently, and spent them searching out new and old features of the city's gastronomic infrastructure. We asked for her notes.

---

In the days when I wasn't on the Fly My Pretties tour or my own Cookbook Tour book tour, I managed to do some exhausting, stomach-stretching, wallet-emptying, happy-making research into kai and coffee options in the New Christchurch. I am now pleased to report that I have plenty of great news and am really excited about food, wine and music venues in The Garden City. As the city begins its rebuild, everything is new or re-vamped and people are taking risks and creating really interesting spaces.

Church Corner has become something like a Ch-Ch-Chinatown. There are several excellent Chinese restaurants including one that specialises in Szechuan-style cuisine and a Yum Char place that is always completely full and almost exclusively with Chinese diners (always a good sign!) The area also has Vietnamese, Korean and Indian as well as a specialty teashop and a crammed-cupboard-style Asian supermarket.

Of course, my favourite Szechuan restaurant has always been Gingko and the owner Suanne tells me they’re re-opening in February on Cambridge Terrace. Yessss!  

For the best dumplings head north to China Kitchen, which has reopened on Papanui Rd and is even better than before!

The best hand-pulled noodles in town can be found at Zest Noodle House, Northlands Mall.

For modern Thai Chinwag Eathai has re-opened on Victoria Street. 

At the finer end of the scale Jonny Schwass is about to open a new restaurant called Gorilla. Site and opening date yet to be confirmed but keep an eye on his website. The George Hotel’s 50-Bistro has a great breakfast menu and kumara gnocchi on their dinner menu – yum!

For gourmet groceries head to Container City AKA Cashel Mall AKA Re:Start and pop into the relocated and revamped Johnson's Grocer.

Christchurch vegetarians are still spoilt for choice. The Buddhist Centre cafe on Riccarton Rd is open and has expanded its menu, The Lotus Heart has moved to St Asaph St between Fitzgerald and Barbadoes, and my favourite vegetarian spot Welcome is still open on Wharenui Rd. Plus Halswell New World has started to import Quorn (mushroom-based fake meat product from UK). As far as I know they’re the only importer of this product in the country and it’s about bloody time someone sold it here!

Liquids:

For coffee, those cats at Switch are still my favourites. Their New Brighton roastery and café is open plus they have a fantastic new cafe on Madras St (across from CPIT) called Black Betty.

Addington Coffee Co-op has queues out the door these days, and rightly so. They have excellent coffee, food, ethics and outdoor spaces, as well as a brand new store selling fairly traded goods and locally made stuffs.

Eastsiders are raving about Under The New Red Veranda, which has re-opened in a house around the corner from the original Under The Red Veranda.

Oh, and C4 of course – they’ve relocated to Tuam St.

Underground’s Sydenham café has remained open for the Southsiders.

For beer: The Brewery has become an Eastside hub in Woolston with Cassels and Sons beautiful tap beers, good pizza and regular gigs. And when the new Dux Live opens on Lincoln Rd we’ll be able to enjoy Ginger Tom again … just like the new good old days..

Awesome news for South Island whisky lovers – Whisky Galore has re-opened on Victoria Street!

For whisky in a bar setting, try The Darkroom on St Asaph St next to the re-opened Galaxy Records and the cupboard-like new RDU studio.

Of course the best whisky selection used to be at Goodbye Blue Monday and I’m pleased to report that the Moore family (previous owners and part-owners of Cartel, Goodbye Blue Monday etc) will be opening a caravan-style bar called Smash Palace on Bealey Ave in January so we may again experience the ex-mayor collecting our glasses.

For wine: St Germaine for a wonderful selection of French and NZ wines. The mysterious container bar across from Chinwag on Victoria Street also has a good list and a great vibe.

As I said, exciting times! Love Christchurch.  

Michael Stedman is the managing director of Natural History New Zealand, a Dunedin-based producer of factual programmes which has won more than 400 international awards and works with the BBC, PBS, Japan's NHK and many other leading broadcasters. It has its roots in TVNZ's Natural History Unit, which was deemed a "non-core business" and sold to Fox International Channels in 1997.

Michael was asked to give this year's John O'Shea Memorial Address, which traditionally opens the annual conference of Spada, the Screen Production and Development Association. The following is the notes for that speech.

---

MICHAEL STEDMAN : JOHN O’SHEA MEMORIAL ADDRESS

AUCKLAND, 10 NOVEMBER 2011

________________________________________________

 

GOOD MORNING

Before I begin I would like very belatedly, to thank SPADA for the award, presented to me last year.

Being asked to deliver the John O’Shea lecture / speech is an honour and carries with it an expectation that I will say something interesting. This is where I have a problem. I much prefer being behind the curtain getting on with what I know best, production. For me, delivering this is a little like being a rabbit in the headlights.

It will come as no surprise to most of you that I have chosen to take this opportunity to share my views on public broadcasting and its threatened demise.

In the current debate few have bothered to try and define what we mean when we talk about Public Service Broadcasting.

For me public broadcasting is about choice, about diversity, about depth, about substance, it speaks to our innate curiosity, it celebrates our creative achievements, it inspires, and it is a place of endless possibilities.

Years ago I was told by a programmer at TVNZ that people didn’t like documentaries because they had to think.  No one told Discovery, an empire that has been built on the belief that people are intelligent information seekers.

Mine is a view from the deep South. I am non-aligned - an observer who for the most part has avoided the politics of Wellington and Auckland,  preferring to keep my head down and just get on with it.

My only foray North was as part of the government task force into the screen industry followed by a place on the ill-fated Screen Council.

For those of you who have little or no idea who we are and what we do, here’s a snapshot of our history.

NHNZ began life as the TVNZ Natural History Unit and has existed in one form or another for close to 35 years.

The major change for the Unit occurred when TVNZ became an SOE and was required to deliver a dividend to Government.

You didn’t need much of a brain to realize that the major area of discretionary spending was production and in my view it was in production therefore that the monetary cuts would fall.

With the support of the then CEO Julian Mounter I began exploring the international market. He believed that there were areas in NZ production which could find overseas markets.

We took small steps into a very large and scary world. I’ve often described it as akin to selling vacuum cleaners, the more doors you knock on the more you sell.

We began to augment our income with sales and coproduction. We had begun to develop a reputation among channels like Discovery and National Geographic. It all looked promising until there was a change of Chairman.

 Like so many members of TVNZ boards, the new Chairman knew nothing about television, had no vision, wanted instant results and only measured success by an increased dividend to Government.

Under that scenario we had two choices:  contract and close, or escape the clutches of a hostile owner.

We proposed a sale. The potential dollars from a sale made this proposal an immediately attractive proposition to the Board of TVNZ.

TVNZ put an obscene amount of money in their pocket and we were flicked on to Fox.

NHNZ built its foundation on three words:

VISION - Ours was to become a world leader.

BELIEF - I had absolute belief in the talent in this country.

ADAPTABILITY - You adapt or die. Many of our competitors failed to adapt to a rapidly changing television landscape and are now extinct.

We began in the American market. Having established a set of relationships, we then moved into Europe and finally into Asia.

So where are we 12 years on?

• We sell to 180 countries
• We have won over 400 international awards
• We co-produce with Channels around the world: In the US alone we co-produce with Discovery, Animal Planet, the Science Channel, National Geographic, Smithsonian, the Bio Channel and PBS. In Europe and Asia we have an equally strong presence.
• We own  production companies in Singapore and South Africa
• We have a production base in China, and are the largest Western producer of documentaries about China in the world.
• We have a development office in Washington DC.
• Out of our Dunedin base we produce around 60 documentaries a year with budgets ranging from the low end $300k to the upper end of $1.2 million.
• The NHNZ group produces around 200 hours a year.

• We are a world leader in 3D production. Last year we produced 20 hours and we are in pre production on further 3D documentaries.
• Our new facility is state of the art and there are those they have said it is best in the country.

All of this growth has been fuelled on the back of great documentaries. Our only involvement with FIC is to discuss the size of our profit!!

So why is this relevant to you?

It’s simple. We were born out of a public broadcasting system as were many of the internationally successful NZ companies.

The fact we were sold by TVNZ and have gone on to grow and succeed illustrates the lack of understanding successive Boards of TVNZ have had and continue to have about the industry they’re charged with overseeing. The success of  NHNZ  also illustrates that there can be major economic value to NZ from the values at the heart of public service broadcasting.

We have carried with us these values and a commitment to storytelling excellence that were all part of growing up within a public service broadcaster.

Our mantra since day one has been profit through excellence.

Ironically, whilst owned by Fox International Channels we co-produce with a substantial number of public service broadcasters around the world.  PBS, ZDF, France Television, RAI, NHK, CCTV.

For example we are the largest co-producer in the world with NHK of Japan. NHK has a 6 billion dollar annual income.

I have been part of this industry for all of my working life. I began as a film editor and it is production that has always driven me. It is at the heart of what I do.

If my career was a film then the closing credits are not far off.

I have been part of an industry that has been the victim of on-going political manipulation, arrogance, ignorance and never ending change. It is an industry of immense uncertainty.

I remember well visiting an MP to express my deep concern at what was happening to public broadcasting and my concern at its apparent demise. In my view we were facing the end of civilization as we knew it!!

That was in 1973 and the same debate is still going on.

Successive Ministers of Broadcasting from both sides of the House have, over a very long period, implemented change, all of them in the belief that they knew better.

In turn they have appointed compliant Boards who, with some exceptions, have understood little about the television industry but have had the power to wreak havoc.

That the industry has survived and has continued to grow creatively is a testament to the remarkable people who are the industry.

I was part of TVNZ. In fact I was the first Director of Production, following the deregulation and the setting up of TVNZ as an SOE.

So I understand well the crushing and debilitating impact of changes of direction by successive Governments and Boards - changes that have resonated through the entire industry, changes that created uncertainty, changes that impeded growth, changes that have seen New Zealand audiences denied programming that truly reflects and enriches this remarkable country.

What astounds me are the people below the 7^th floor in TVNZ who for years in the face of constant change have managed to continue running TVNZ. I certainly could not have survived in that environment.

The decision to end TVNZ 7 by both government and TVNZ clearly signals the end to any cultural imperatives. The unease of a dual remit has been resolved. TVNZ’s only bottom line appears now to be the delivery of a dividend.

If anyone doubts that, I invite them to read TVNZ’s latest statement of corporate intent. A chill ran down my spine. It is a thinly veiled grab for as much public money as possible.

In fact it’s not thinly veiled. It’s a very direct grab for an increased share of NZOA money in order to bolster its commercially driven imperative.

 

QUOTE from TVNZ’s Statement of Corporate Intent.

Increase TVNZ’s share of NZ On Air funding

TVNZ will continue to commission and produce commercially-viable local programming and we will continue to participate in the NZOA contestable funding to support this aim.

However, we face two challenges.  Firstly, we need to increase our share of overall funding.   In doing so, we need to direct more of our efforts towards securing funds for commercially-attractive, peak programming.  Secondly, we need to engage NZOA to broaden the availability of funding for commercially-attractive genres.

Genres that demonstrate the greatest commercial potential are drama, comedy, entertainment and popular factual, yet only about 50% of NZOA’s total awards support peak programming across these categories.

 

It is a disturbing that NZOA money is being targeted for what are clearly commercial aspirations.

One has to wonder why?

Is it because TVNZ is financially in need of support in order to achieve something close to a respectable bottom line?

Or is it, and more worryingly because of the elephant in the room, an elephant that uncontrolled is distorting and dramatically changing the New Zealand television landscape.

Unlike most developed countries we lack regulatory controls, controls which provide checks and balances and bring with them responsibilities.

The elephant is of course SKY whose influence in this market is immense and largely unseen.

SKY has the scale to outbid and out muscle any of the other players when it comes to the very fabric of television, the buying of programme rights.

This has been graphically illustrated over the years with most major sports now behind the curtain of pay television.

It has the ability to force prices of programming up to a point where they are simply out of reach for free to air broadcasters or free to air broadcasters are forced to pay increasingly higher prices in order to maintain the status quo.

This of course will have a negative impact of the money available for local production.

There is virtually no contribution by SKY to local production unless funded by NZOA for screening on Prime.

Under the previous Government TVNZ and TV3 argued for a review of the media landscape. It didn’t happen.

Ironically Julian Mounter as CEO of TVNZ saw the future; TVNZ acquired a major shareholding in SKY as a means of ensuring that free to air maintained influence in the emerging media landscape.

With a change of TVNZ chairman that shareholding was sold down and the rest is history.

SKY has a long term vision.  By contrast TVNZ’s vision changes every three or so years and is driven, as I said earlier, by a Board with little or no understanding of the industry.

Some thoughts on the latest fiasco in which the industry finds itself embroiled:  the renewed debate on public broadcasting, the result of the abandonment of TVNZ 7.

The previous Government gave us the Charter in some half-hearted attempt to preserve public broadcasting.

There are those who lament the passing of the Charter as though it was something of value, believing that we will be all the poorer because of its demise.

From my perspective the Charter was appallingly drafted, never implemented and didn’t make one iota of difference. It was yet another step in a long line of political tinkering, another chapter of ill-conceived change.

This same Government also funded NZ TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 but with funding for only five years. If they had been serious about the importance of public broadcasting this funding would have been for at least 15 years.

It could be described as a self-serving and insincere political ploy, another case of tinkering.

But at least it was an attempt, an acknowledgement that public service broadcasting had a role.

Under the present Government and Minister of Broadcasting there is no such acknowledgement

The current Minister appears to be of the view that all citizens’ needs can be met by commercial broadcasting including SKY and that the market should rule. Well I’m sorry Minister, that’s unacceptable. You are the Minister of Broadcasting in all its forms and that brings with it the responsibility to ensure that there is more on offer free to air than the completely commercial and advertising driven programming that is commercial television.

The assumption that all needs can be met by a commercial market also begs an important question.

Is the television market driven, responding to what people want or does television create and control the market?

Where does our public responsibility lie?

If the best choice we can offer the viewer from our current line-up of advertiser friendly programming relates to which dog show they like best or which cooking show or which American crime show, then we put our audience in cultural jeopardy.

Have we grown a market which believes that offering different flavours of candy floss is real choice?

New Zealanders deserve, and have a fundamental right to a great deal more choice.

The current indifference is destroying the last remnant of diversity in broadcasting through sheer neglect.

The Government has funded NZOA broadly speaking to fund programmes which don’t have a commercial imperative, but speak to our identity and reflect our richness and diversity.

This is all well and good. The only problem is that the trump card is held by the broadcasters: unless they agree to screen a programme, it doesn’t get made.

Even if the programme is funded by NZOA it must perform on air.  Since all the broadcasters are rating driven, it’s a very delicate dance and one that is controlled by the broadcasters.

When NZOA was established there were two players: TVNZ and TV3. Since then the demand for funding from NZOA has continued to grow - Prime, Stratos, the regional channels… The pie, as it is all over the world, is being cut into increasingly smaller slices.

The size of the domestic market has led many NZ production companies to look overseas for growth opportunities to augment the shrinking pie and their success has been astonishing.

SPP, The Gibson Group, Touchdown, Green Stone, Pukeko Films and NHNZ to name but a few have all made significant inroads into the international market and this in turn has fuelled growth domestically.

In my view these inroads must continue if the industry is to expand.

What the Government doesn’t seem to understand is the economic benefits that have grown from public service broadcasting, creating an environment which has provided a seeding ground for ideas and people many of whom have become major export earners.

Despite the growth internationally, domestically the industry remains unchanged, working within and debating the same models and issues it has debated for many years. Are we stuck in a time warp tinkering around the edges of an industry that is radically changing?

Are we all hoping in vain that the Government and the State Broadcaster will one day miraculously change and embrace, at least in part, some of the aspirations we all have for the achievable elements of public broadcasting?

The current statement of corporate intent would suggest not and if recent history is considered then the likelihood looks even more remote.

The ever increasing relationship with SKY is concerning. I would have thought the growth and strengthening of Freeview would have been a priority for the State Broadcaster given the imminent switch over.

 Are we, as owners of the State Broadcaster and as citizens going to find ourselves unable to access programming unless we pay?

The demise of TVNZ 7 has been placed at the feet of government, but what about TVNZ’s role and responsibility in this demise?

TVNZ had years to make it work, to find ways of sustaining the Channel. They have, not surprisingly, failed.

The cynical part me wonders whether or not TVNZ wanted the Channel to succeed at all. After all TVNZ 7 had the potential to cannibalise part of TV ONE’s audience. Why would you want an in-house, non-revenue generating competitor?

If, as an organisation, TVNZ does not attempt to meet any of the expectations of a public broadcaster and if its only goal is profit, with the entire programming schedule built around that goal, then this surely must to lead to the question of TVNZ ownership.

There is certainly no argument for retention based on its current return on investment.

Is it time to sell TVNZ and allow it pursue unencumbered the commercial path it has chosen?

So where would that leave NZ in terms of public service broadcasting? Probably in the same place as it is now!

One of the drivers behind the success of NHNZ is our ability to constantly adapt to a world that is constantly changing, a world in which the only certainty is uncertainty.

Many of our competitors internationally have failed to adapt. The price has been extinction!

So if the notion of public broadcasting in NZ is to avoid extinction, do we not need to adapt and look forward with new models, new ways of preserving and celebrating our identity?

If we truly value the notion of TVNZ 7 or an equivalent, do we not need to start building a sustainable strategy, a strategy that convinces the Government, in particular Treasury, that public service television has not only a cultural imperative but also a long term economic one?

Public service television is a lot more than television for a few pointy heads.

It is a space of innovation, of risk; a place where young programme makers can take their first steps; a space where concepts can be developed free of the restraints of advertising agencies’ demand for ratings; a place where we can showcase our talent and our diversity; a space where the staggering number of incredible programmes currently made by first time films makers can be seen by other New Zealanders.

For example, for 10 years NHNZ has partnered the University of Otago in offering a Science and Natural History Film Making Masters level degree course. Every year the course produces 10 commercial half hour documentaries which have won over 40 newcomer awards. They are screened internationally but not in NZ and in my view that is appalling.

Importantly public service television is also a space where the news service is more than the current tabloid fare, where current affairs, debate and ideas once again have voice.

We need to adapt and we need to find a single voice; a voice that can argue for both the cultural and economic benefits of public broadcasting; a voice that can present well thought through and achievable alternatives within the reality of the money available.

In my view part of the reason we don’t have a strong and vibrant voice advocating on behalf of public broadcasting comes back to the industry itself, the industry of which I am a part.

For years the industry has failed to speak with a single voice and therefore has sent mixed messages to Governments.

We have SPADA, the Directors’ Guild, the Writers’ Guild, the Techo’s Guild, Actors’ Equity and on it goes, all driven by varying degrees of self-interest, each sending their own message to Government, along with messages from various academics, media commentators and a myriad of other experts.

There is nothing approaching a consensus and in the vacuum created nothing changes.

In fact spirals down.

Nothing concrete has been advocated by the wider industry. There are no strong arguments about the long term value, both social and industrial, of having an effective public broadcasting component to our media landscape.

There is no data on the levels of support that may be available. For example NHNZ makes around 60 documentaries a year. In almost all cases we hold NZ rights, on some occasions 2nd window. All of these programmes could be available for screening in NZ and no, it’s not about money. We already supply programming free of charge to some of the regional television stations.

This industry desperately needs a strong and cohesive voice, a voice that can’t be ignored by Government.

Recently the industry has begun a dialogue under the banner of SINZ, a name which sounds confusing and I have to say a bit lame.

Why not take the high ground and call yourselves the NZ Screen Council?

There is no question in my mind that the NZ industry is truly talented and punches well above its weight. I am constantly staggered at what is produced in this country and in our international success.

Working together this industry has achieved a great deal both domestically and internationally. Team work is in our DNA.

It is after all, at the heart of every great production.

Why then are we unable to work together on a strategy that is so important to our media landscape, to our audience, to our identity and to our future?

This conference could well be a defining moment in our broadcasting history.

There are people at this conference who have ideas, good ideas, about how the industry can re shape the public vote in order to ensure public broadcasting survives.

At the heart of television are creative and innovative ideas, ideas that are given life by the production industry. This industry must use this gift for creativity and innovation to unite in the common goal of preserving public service broadcasting.

Unless those ideas are given a voice, debated and shaped into a path forward then there is no doubt the government and TVNZ will simply fade public broadcasting to black.

Governments come and go.

Broadcasting Ministers come and go.

Boards of TVNZ come and go.

CEOs of TVNZ come and go.

But we remain.

For us it’s a lifetime commitment.

Thank you

All over the world there are two kinds of city rail stations. The first are the ‘end of the line’ stations like Britomart as it is now. And the one that all the Wellington bureaucrats use, ending as it does right where they work. The overseas models for these are the grand palaces built in the 19^th century for the important comings and goings of inter-city travel. When they were new these were an ambitious and invasive new architecture rammed through old neighbourhoods; dramatic and transforming. And now like St Pancras in London and Gare du Nord in Paris they are booming again as modern high speed electric rail is on the rise. Known to the locals as ‘Big Train’ stations.

The other kind is the more humble metro station, named after the queen of all city systems; the Paris Métro. These stations have the reverse characteristic of their big siblings, the critical feature here is that they do not terminate, they are not the final stop. They are a through route, a way to elsewhere, for more humdrum and less predictable movements. Less Grand Central, but rather, Tooting Bec or Knightsbridge. These are parts of networks designed specifically not to tell you your business. They provide flexible and variable movements, fast, clean and efficient, unencumbered by the traffic above to get anyone, for whatever reason, snappily across town. Workaday.

Curious then that in both Wellington and Auckland there are networks for local train travel grinding to a halt at terminus stations. Wellington is of course a strange place, both geographically and because of that peculiar industry, government. But Auckland is without excuse, except of course, for the meddling of Wellington. Because let’s face it, Britomart is no more the centre of Auckland than Waterloo is of London. But like those London stations it is a centre.

So what’s with the stopping? It’s as if the southern motorway ended at say Nelson St and every car had to stop there reverse home again at the end of the day. Surely even the suits at the Ministry of Transport can see just how ludicrous this is.

---

Fixing this hopeless blockage is the main reason for building the City Rail Link. The plan is to continue the soon-to-be electrified rail lines out of Britomart, under Albert St to a new station between Victoria and Wellesley Sreets, smack in the middle of town.

It then heads on up the hill to another below the intersection of Karangahape Rd and Pitt St. Then under the motorway to a new Newton Station. Perfectly sited to deliver and retrieve punters not only from the Powerstation and Galbraiths Pub but also the tonier diners at The French Café.

And then, the coup de grace, connecting to the existing lines near the Mt Eden Station to transform the three disparate limbs of Auckland’s network into an coherent whole. It is often called a loop, but as the trains won’t go round and round in a circle and it does close the crucial gap in the system, ‘Link’ is really more accurate.

Trains will still travel from distant places like Papakura or Swanson, but instead of getting to the bottom of town and going back the way they came, they will travel through the city and on to the opposite end of Auckland. Passengers are not assumed to only be heading into downtown but rather to any point across the network.

In addition a new programme of feeder buses to refurbished stations at places like Panmure and Manukau City mean more and more people will be able to access the advantage of fast and direct travel. Next year sees the introduction of real integrated ticketing to all public transport services in Auckland which will enable transfers between different routes and modes all for the price of a single journey so we can expect the already spectacular growth in rail use to skyrocket further.

Currently network patronage is growing at over 20% a year and will very soon hit a ceiling that it will not be able to pass through until the electric trains are operating around 2014. But because of the limitations of the dead-end at Britomart it will almost certainly be at capacity pretty much immediately then too. Until the link is built.

And once it is we can then get on with the other obvious low hanging fruit of this network, completing the Southwestern Line between Onehunga and Manukau City, serving Mangere and of course all those workers and travellers at and around the airport. In one go providing a fast and predictable connection from most of Auckland to these important destinations. But the capacity this line will generate cannot function without sorting out Britomart first.

---

Other benefits will flow for the Link too. The new stations to deliver people to, from, and between more parts of the city silently and without cluttering up the streets above. Aotea, the midtown station, is likely to become busier even than Britomart, speeding millions of people each month to a variety of city destinations; The Universities, Sky City, the Art Gallery, The theatres around Aotea Square, and all the shops and offices of central Auckland.

The Link will allow the growth of business in Auckland to occur unrestrained by the otherwise clogged city streets, while also helping to improve both air quality and street-life. While opening up more space for the growth in bus numbers from the North Shore, by reducing those from the parts with the new rail links. It will also mean capital and land will not be lost to providing yet more unproductive car parking.

The two new southern most stations, K’Rd and Newton, will stimulate these undervalued and underperforming city fringe areas. Because unlike a new city motorway new train stations increase foot traffic and property value. And travellers on the Western Line will arrive at all three city stations and Britomart much quicker than they do now as the new route takes out the inefficient dog-leg to Newmarket.

For example a trip form say Moringside to central Queen St will reduce from 28 minutes to just eight. Improving productivity for these commuters, or perhaps allowing them a valuable longer lie-in.

---

Still, the best thing by far is that Auckland will suddenly have a real interconnected network. A Metro. Not an intra-city service trying to operate on an inter-city layout. While it is only adding 3.5km to the total network it is the key to unlocking the value already inherent in the whole of the existing asset but currently out of reach. And even though because the new link is underground it will be an expensive 3.5km this offers a lasting value way beyond its initial outlay.

Sydney built the bulk of its underground in The Depression, the heart of the New York Subway and the start of the Paris Métro are well over a century old now, London older still. These are extraordinarily long lived and enduring investments of extraordinary value for a city.

Vitally too, a functioning and expanding electric network adds important resilience to our biggest city in an age of uncertain and increasingly expensive oil supply.

We already spend more on imported oil than we earn from dairy exports every year and should be making every effort to reduce our vulnerability to this finite resource. Here is a proven technology and a project ready to go that will enable millions of journeys to be powered by our own renewably generated electricity. Clearly this is a prudent investment.

All New Zealand needs Auckland functioning as well as possible, source of 36% of our GDP, so this is truly a project of National Significance. And an urgent one too if we are to prevent the clot that is forming in should be the heart of a dynamic 21^st century Auckland.

Transport is the one sector that has large sums of money available for big capital works. In the recent Government Policy Statement a figure of around $17.5 billion has been identified as available for new transport infrastructure over the next ten years. Clearly there is the ability to unlock the Auckland rail network with some of this? Only a very reckless gambler or a crazed ideologue would aim spend this resource entirely on an all-in bet on yet more motorways, surely?