“What do you think is the best possible structure for public broadcasting in New Zealand?”

I have not come equipped with an agreed answer to this question. It is indeed the ultimate question the Government is trying to answer in pursuing its broadcasting policies. But there is much complex work to be done before we arrive at our answer.

Let me instead state what we think the problem is in NZ broadcasting, and then outline how we are going about trying to solve it.

The problem is one of underperformance – not so much by individual broadcasters, but by the New Zealand model of broadcasting as a whole. We do not believe that the true reality and diversity of New Zealand life are well enough represented in New Zealand broadcasting. We think that the contribution broadcasting can make to democratic participation and public debate is under-developed. We recognise, as do many of you, that the quantity and depth of achievement in local content are not what they ought to be, particularly in such key genres as drama, documentary and children’s programmes. Like some of you, we would like to see and hear a greater variety of content of all kinds, including international content.

To guide us as we attempt to address this situation, the Cabinet is considering broad objectives to underpin broadcasting policy development.

It will be easy enough for some to dismiss these by noting that they are high level, or by invoking such cliches as “motherhood and apple pie”. They are high level, as are, for example, the statutory functions of NZ On Air, the Film Commission or Creative New Zealand – or the kinds of declarations one finds in statements of intent. Such verbal formulas do not in themselves set out a course of action. They serve instead as touchstones in the development of specific policies. In working out its policies and strategies a statutory agency will refer to its functions to ensure that it is remaining true to its purpose – that the particular things it chooses to do will contribute to the greater goals for which it was established. What Government will be doing is to adopt a set of objectives to guide, in a similar way, the full range of policies it is pursuing to achieve improvements in broadcast content. It is, I believe, a significant step for the Government to take.

Allow me briefly to say something about why we are developing the objectives.

First, we believe that broadcast media can and should be able to represent to New Zealanders the actual scope and variety of the country in which they live. While there are honourable exceptions, the view that we are offered of our own country through television and radio is a partial and superficial one.

Second, we wish to realise the potential of broadcasting to give people the information they need to take part in the social and political debates of the day – and to give this information comprehensively and impartially. In order to have the opportunity to participate in our society as active citizens – rather than be treated simply as passive consumers – we all of us need broadcast media that can probe to the root of our problems, test conventional wisdom, and hold politicians like me to account. Broadcasting can do this not only by engaging individual viewers or listeners, but by enhancing the quality of discourse in society as a whole, as ideas and opinions are spread and discussed in families, at work or on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Third, we would like to see a broadcasting system that addresses the concerns and interests of minorities, whether they be large communities in the population or a more scattered group pursuing a particular cultural interest. We expect that well developed broadcasting services will cater both to the interests of the mass audience, and to those of the minorities that make up that audience. We see minorities as being served not only by programmes that cater to their interests, but by bringing those interests to the attention of the larger audience. We recognise that the role of Government includes providing for a range of choice beyond what strictly commercial considerations will produce.

And fourth, we would like to see New Zealand broadcasters leading as well as following, creating forms of content that are unmistakably our own as well as creatively adapting the best of overseas practice.

I would like to note a couple of other things about what we are attempting to do. We want to address the interests of the audience as citizens as much, or more than, as consumers. That is, the audience is regarded as an end in itself, not a means to some other, commercial end.

Another thing to note is that, while a diversity of local content would go a long way toward meeting the objectives we are considering, most of them cannot be met by local content alone. They also hold implications for the quality and variety of international content that we get to experience.

Finally, the objectives are being drafted to permit a discussion of quality that does not become diverted into questions of personal taste. They will not in themselves suggest how “quality” could be measured. But they indicate how a framework of assessment might be applied. If broadcasting content is to contribute to a high level of public information and debate, for example, certain standards suggest themselves: comprehensiveness; depth and extent of inquiry; the range of issues and topics covered, compared with what is actually going on in the country. These are ways of viewing the question of quality that can further guide policies aimed at achieving the desired objective of an informed public.

There are some people in broadcasting who, if only from simple human pride, will wish to assert that our aspirations are all being met today. I appeal to your own experience of broadcasting here and in other countries, your own sense of the potential of these media, and ask you: do you believe that the environment envisaged is what we have today?

There are others who will concede that, in some important respects, New Zealand broadcasting is under-performing, but will say that the answer is to pump more money into the existing model. That model is centred of course on the Broadcasting Commission or NZ On Air. The Government has done something, in its pre-Budget cultural funding package, to increase the resources available to NZ On Air for both television and radio.

But this Government believes that other measures, familiar from overseas practice, need to be examined for the contribution they might make to the achievement of our policy. These measures may well be compatible with the existing model, but they would alter the way it works. We are aware that in other countries, such as those that were examined in the valuable NZ On Air survey Local Content and Diversity, governments have opted, so to speak, to pull several policy levers at the same time. In New Zealand we have attempted to get by with pulling just one, and the results have not been all we would wish.

The measures we are looking at have already been announced. They include the development of a charter for TVNZ, and the investigation of quota regimes for ensuring certain kinds and levels of local content.

In the case of TVNZ, the Government recognises in the state-owned television company a potential for public service greater than has been realised to date. We are focussing on the idea of a charter to see how far our objectives can be achieved through this means. We see the achievement of these objectives as part of the point of having a publicly owned broadcaster.

TVNZ has maintained a formidable share of the television audience. The Government does not wish to place this achievement in jeopardy. We know that the company itself recognises that there is an unrealised demand for New Zealand content – that the genres we wish to see more of are in fact popular genres. I am also confident that a better provision for the mass audience can be matched with new ways of serving more specialised interests, and that TVNZ is capable of thinking laterally to achieve this balance. It seems sensible in pursuing our objectives to start with the broadcaster that is actually accountable to government.

A charter is likely to be before Cabinet by the end of this year. I have asked my officials to develop a detailed work plan that will identify phases of consultation with TVNZ itself and with the wider interested community.

While we are beginning with work relating to the future of TVNZ, consequential questions will soon need to be addressed. How will quota fit with a charter for TVNZ, for example? And, most crucially, who should pay for a greater range of content?

To help us answer such questions, Cabinet has directed that a further piece of work should be carried out related ultimately to the quality of broadcast content. This is a review of funding mechanisms. It is intended to:

• Review the current funding structure of NZ On Air
• Consider alternative, including existing overseas, methods for funding public broadcasting;
• Identify possible approaches to changes to the current funding model in New Zealand.

This work is of course closely related to the issue of quotas and new directions for TVNZ. My officials are currently figuring out timetables to allow these complex and interconnected questions to be addressed in the most effective sequence. While some people I meet in broadcasting are already impatient for the outcomes of this work on quotas and funding, I have to tell you that these outcomes will not appear until well into the Government’s first term. When they do they will be the fruit of extensive research and consultation. Key deadlines are likely to fall during 2001.

There is another stream of work also in the planning stage. This relates to the impact of new broadcasting technologies.

You will be aware of some of the changes facing the broadcasting sector. The transition from analogue to digital television, which is already occurring overseas, brings the promise of higher technical quality for broadcast programmes – that is, enhanced sound and picture quality. It also provides scope for radio spectrum to be used more efficiently. This will allow more programme content to be carried. Potentially, therefore, digital technology will offer:

• more choice in programming; and
• different types of programming (such as interactive services and personalised programme content).

At the same time, digital technology means that services that we have traditionally known as “broadcasting”, “telecommunications” and “information technology” are converging. The old distinctions between services, and the means of delivering services, are going to break down rapidly.

Changing technology does give rise to some policy issues. Allocation of spectrum for digital services is one such issue. Various issues relating to consumer access to broadcasting services also arise – for example, the geographic coverage of digital transmission, standards issues relating to set-top boxes, and access by programme content providers to networks.

I don’t propose to go into these issues today: as I have already mentioned, work is under way. There will be consultation and interaction with the industry and interested parties as it proceeds. I believe, however, that we should see new technology and convergence of services as offering new opportunities, rather than simply as a series of problems.

And in concluding, I would welcome any comments that you wish to make.