GOLDSMITH, LUXON YOU'RE ELECTED TO GOVERN - DO IT

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

"Tikanga is mumbo-jumbo", says NZ webcaster Sean Plunkett. 'Tikanga' is Maori spirituality, and in calling this spade a spade Plunkett sings like a canary in the Kiwi coalmine. New Zealand's Broadcasting Authority has come after him in a power and revenue grab that mimics the UK's Office of Communications and Australia's Esafety Commissioner bids for control of the media and the message, to make it Marxist.

A government is elected to govern. The bureaucracy is not the government. Someone please tell Paul Goldsmith that as far as Media and Communications in New Zealand go he, as Minister, and not Broadcasting Authority CEO Stacey Woods (a Labour stooge, they say), is the government. 

Explain to Mr Goldsmith also that the judiciary - who he's happy to let decide whether or not New Zealand enjoys free speech - is not the government either. Or perhaps Prime Minister Luxon, who sympathises with Mr Plunkett, could explain things to Mr Goldsmith. Otherwise it'll be up to the electors to tell Messrs Goldsmith and Luxon the facts of the matter in a year's time. At the election.

 

From Barrie Saunders at Bassett, Brash and Hide:   

 

Media and Communications Minister, Paul Goldsmith's handling of the BSA power grab follows 80 years of abysmal leadership by National Party governments re broadcasting, which have consistently betrayed their rhetoric about supporting competition and private enterprise. 

The National Party Holland/Holyoake government of 1949-1957, did nothing of consequence to roll back the Savage/Fraser Labour governments nationalisation of radio. No private radio under National then nor any TV at all.

TV came in 1960 courtesy of the Nash Labour government. The only sensible thing I recall about the Holyoake National administration after it won the election late 1960, was to convert the old NZ Broadcasting Service into the more independent NZ Broadcasting Corporation.

 

When David Gapes and co wanted to set up private enterprise radio and they were blocked. They decided to broadcast from a boat but the National Party Minister Scott attempted to physically block the boat from leaving Auckland. Fortunately that failed and so we had one private broadcaster. The law was ultimately changed but getting a radio licence was very difficult and expensive.

I well recall a hearing in Wellington where Robin Cooke QC (Later Lord Cooke) was vigorously challenging Radio Windy's case, presumably on behalf of the NZBC. The so called private enterprise government had made getting a licence as hard as possible.

 

The second TV channel also had a convoluted history. It could have had a private enterprise channel if entrepreneur Gordon Dryden had been successful in his advocacy but the incoming Kirk government favoured it being state owned, and Dryden was awarded NZ$50,000 compensation for the shabby way it was handled.

It was Roger Douglas in the Kirk Rowling government of 1972/5 that decided to split then two channels into two competing corporations - TV1 and TV2. This happened after Kirk died on August 31, 1974. It meant we had two news teams around the country and a new radio entity Radio NZ with commercial and non commercial stations.

 

Not acceptable to National Party leader Rob Muldoon who swept to victory late 1975 and declared he didn't want two cameras on him at press conferences and so in 1980 the two channels were merged into one - Television New Zealand.

 

The Lange/Palmer/Douglas government of 1984-89 introduced many reforms which included broadcasting. This opened up the opportunity for private TV and in late 1989 TV3 commenced broadcasting as the first private enterprise TV in NZ. Pay TV operator Sky came later in 1990. The new Act created the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) as a check on the then powerful broadcasters particularly TVNZ and RNZ.

Early this year the Ministry of Culture and Heritage issued a discussion paper on media which included statement to the effect that as the Broadcasting Act 1989 did not cover internet radio like entities such as The Platform, the Broadcasting Standards Authority's (BSA) scope should be extended to them.

 

 

The Linkedin profile of the BSA's Chief Wokester, Stacey Wood.

The advantage is seen to be consistency of regulation.Instead of waiting for the government to decide on whether to proceed down this route the BSA decided existing law did give them jurisdiction over The Platform and presumably Reality Check Radio. This is extraordinary. One might have thought Minister Goldsmith would have said as we do not believe it has that authority it should await a government decision. 

But no, according to Kiwiblog he told RNZ's Media Watch programme: "That's in the media reform package that went out for consultation .... and the government's yet to make final decisions. There is a lot of noise about it at the moment. Of course if you are in the sector you want to draw attention to yourself and so a lot has been said.

 

"I don't think our democracy is under threat, but it's an interesting little exercise. I think there's a very small group in that category. They're within their rights to test that and it may well go to the courts. I'm happy to let that flow through the system and see how it goes".

 

I hope the Minister will regret these words because they won't be career enhancing.

What he is saying is that if The Platform has to spend $100,000 or more testing this through the courts, with the taxpayers also including big costs, he is happy with that. Truly disgraceful in my book.

 

BSA Chief Executive Stacey Woods - an Ardern apparratchik 

 

What the Minister and so many regulators don't understand is the commercial consequences of their actions. Small businesses such as The Platform often live from hand to mouth. They have no desire, or time or the money for expensive litigation.

 

Only arrogant regulators, of which NZ has far too many, could make such a truly callous and dopey statement. What would happen if The Platform were brought under the BSA? It would be inundated with complaints that The Platform had not acceptably dealt with their complaints lodged to it in the first instance. The Platform has many enemies who would relish the opportunity to kill it with numerous complaints.

The real issue is whether the BSA is needed today. Before this power grab I had argued in a submission to the Ministry it should be disestablished because I could only see mischief from extending its scope.

I have reviewed the BSA's decisions of the last year. Most are dismissed and rightly so. News media do make mistakes and these are sometimes corrected. Often the complaints are about matters of judgement and there is no point in the BSA second-guessing judgements made by journalists working under pressure.

I found no issue of real consequence where the BSA had a very useful social role. The news cycle is so fast that decisions rarely if ever matter in the scheme of things. See the number of times Palestine comes up.

The big media change since the BSA was established is its diversity. No one can regulate it unless they want to emulate Russia or China. This is not hyperbole. Just think about trying to track down commentators on every internet based operation.

Public confidence in mainstream media is around 33% according to AUT. Extending the BSA's coverage to the likes of The Platform and Reality Check Radio will not increase confidence in mainstream media. Their reputation was seriously damaged by its public funding during and since Covid. Rightly so - I am with the 67%.

PM Luxon thinks the BSA has over reached. The Government has four options:
1. Do nothing and see what happens in the courts 2. Extend the scope of the BSA to internet operations.3. Make the BSA voluntary for everyone. 4. Abolish the BSA.
My strong preference is to disestablish the BSA and allow all media entities to decide whether or not to come under a voluntary entity such as the NZ Media Council, which also handles complaints. Self regulation works fine with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

ACT and NZ First have laid put their positions. Is it too much to hope the National Party will end its dismal 80 year record and do the right thing? Or will it be more muddle through?
Further reading: Peter Williams, David Farrar (Kiwiblog), David Harvey (Former judge) and Gary Judd KC, particularly on Radio Hauraki.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/barrie-saunders-the-bsa-power-grab?utm_campaign=