‘It's time for Media Reform.

We know the media and content production sector is facing complex challenges.

Audiences now have unprecedented access to global media, making competition for viewers and advertising intense.

However, much of the legislation underpinning our media landscape is outdated and stifling innovation.

That is why we've released Media Reform, a discussion document aimed at modernising regulations and funding for media sector – leveling the playing field.

As a Government, we strive to ensure regulatory settings treat all players equally and don't create unnecessary barriers.

We have an interest in local production and a strong media, while realising it's up to the individual businesses to demonstrate how best to respond to a changing market.

The Government cannot solve these problems entirely.

There are five Media Reform proposals we want your thoughts on.

TV manufacturers to ensure local media services are prominent and visible on devices, streaming platforms and TV broadcasters to invest in local content, and implement measures to ensure it's more discoverable on their platforms.

More captioning and audio description on content that is broadcast or streamed to ensure access for disabled New Zealanders.

Revising the broadcasting standards regime, including the Broadcasting Standards Authority, with platform neutral, and system level, regulation of professional media.

And finally, consolidate New Zealand on Air and the Film Commission into a single entity.

I want to hear from the wider sector and the public about these proposals, and how we could improve or change them to support the best outcomes for both the sector, and for New Zealand audiences.’

None of the Media Reform proposals include changes to funding levels. However, they are designed to withstand changes in funding – up or down. This recognises that decisions about how to spend taxpayer money are made through the annual Budget process.

There are two other pieces of legislation currently before Parliament that are separate, but complementary to, the proposals in Media Reform:

• The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is designed to encourage online platforms (like Google and Facebook) to contribute to the sustainable production of local news. The Government is currently evaluating international developments to assess what benefits there may be for New Zealand.
• The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill would remove the advertising prohibitions that currently apply only to TV and radio broadcasters on Sunday mornings and certain public holidays. The select committee considering this Bill is due to report back to Parliament by 18 June.

Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill (NZ Parliament)

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill (NZ Parliament)

New Zealand’s international commitments include obligations not to treat local service suppliers better than foreign service suppliers operating in the same sector.  In particular, and in contrast to some other countries, New Zealand’s obligations span a wide range of audiovisual services, with only very narrow exceptions.

The proposals being made, therefore, have been designed to help New Zealand industry navigate changes to the way media is delivered and received; while ensuring we do not discriminate against foreign service suppliers.

For more information: Our work with the WTO (MFAT)

The Media Reform proposals were developed based on feedback from the sector about priority areas for reform, and recognising that other work underway seeks to address specific challenges facing particular sub-sectors of the media.

Initial analysis has identified impacts on the media sector beyond audiovisual content production – particularly for draft proposal 4 (modernising professional media regulation) and draft proposal 5 (streamlining Crown content funders). We welcome feedback about how you see these proposals affecting the wider media sector, and opportunities to secure benefits beyond audiovisual content. 

The rules would benefit local TV services that provide free access to local content through an online streaming service or ‘app’ and have a threshold viewership. Further work would determine details such as the threshold, but the Ministry expects this would currently include TVNZ+, Freeview’s streaming app, ThreeNow and Māori+.

Local TV services would also only receive prominence on the basis their apps were up to date/compatible with regulated TV devices.

The rules would apply to TV devices used primarily for viewing of audio-visual content, such as smart TVs and smart TV accessories (e.g. streaming sticks). This would rule out mobile phones, laptops, tablets etc. 

The Ministry is aware of some concerns regarding radio prominence and access to local radio services through smart speakers and in-car entertainment systems.

While there are similarities between radio and TV prominence, radio prominence issues appear less developed in New Zealand. There are also some key differences around the technology used and consumer needs and expectations.

We will continue to monitor developments here and overseas around radio prominence, but we are not proposing intervention at this time.

We welcome any views and evidence from submitters in relation to radio prominence issues in New Zealand and on our proposed course of action.

The requirements would apply to all professional audio-visual media providers. This would include New Zealand TV broadcasters, New Zealand streaming platforms and global streaming platforms.

The proposals do not apply to social media or other user-generated media platforms like TikTok or Instagram.

We are seeking feedback on what should be included in a definition of local content. The intention is that this proposal would result in content that reflects New Zealand stories, places, voices, and faces.

Relevant factors could include if the subject of the content is New Zealand or New Zealanders, if New Zealanders hold key roles in production and if it is filmed in New Zealand.

Our initial analysis suggests local content investment obligations would be better than a levy at achieving the twin policy aims. These aims are to support more top-quality local content to be made and to support audience access to, and engagement with, that content.

A levy would require greater sector investment in local content production, achieving the first aim. But the content created with the levy funding would not necessarily be commissioned, bought, or shown on the global streaming platforms that New Zealanders are using – so it might not achieve the second aim.

We are interested in feedback on this position, and whether a levy has other benefits that make it a better option than investment obligations.

The people and stories that we see and hear in the content we consume reflects and shapes our sense of who we are as a society.

Audiences now have unprecedented access to global content. It is important that we protect and enhance the ability for New Zealand to retain and develop our unique stories and voices.

Local content reflects and develops New Zealand’s cultural identity, informs and entertains people, encourages debate, promotes healthy civic discourse and connects communities and businesses.

NZ On Air is responsible for its funding strategy and decisions about what initiatives to support with the money it is allocated through the Budget process.

No funding changes are proposed as part of Media Reform, but a legislative requirement for more captioning and audio description would be designed to withstand changes in funding – up or down.

The proposal would apply to professional audio-visual media providers operating in New Zealand. This would include TV channels and streaming platforms and exclude providers that mainly host non-curated and user-generated content (like YouTube and TikTok).

At this stage, the proposal does not specify types of content that should be captioned or audio described. However, the rules could set out what types of content should be prioritised, for example, emergency messaging, children’s content, te reo Māori content. We are interested in feedback on this option.

We are not proposing changes to the standards that already apply to a range of media organisations. This proposal aims to ensure that the same standards apply more consistently across the modern media environment.

The scope of Media Reform proposals is confined to matters within the Ministerial portfolios of Media and Communications, and Arts Culture and Heritage. The Classification Office sits within the Internal Affairs portfolio.

If this proposal is progressed, further work will consider how the new media regulator can work best with the Classification Office to ensure alignment and reduce duplication.

There are two main reasons why the proposal does not include regulation of social media:

• Responsibility for governmental policy for social media sits between multiple government departments and Ministerial portfolios. The proposals in Media Reform are confined to matters within the Media and Communications and Arts, Culture and Heritage portfolios.
• The proposal is designed to address some key and longstanding issues for professional media regulation, in a way that can be implemented efficiently. We know from previous work on the wider content regulation system that reform encompassing social media along with professional media is complex, with a range of different perspectives about the right course of action.

This proposal is about the structural arrangements for delivering funding, rather than the funding itself.

No funding changes are proposed as part of Media Reform, but a consolidated entity would be designed to withstand changes in funding quantum – up or down.

Te Māngai Pāho is specifically mandated to promote te reo Māori and tikanga Māori through funding for Māori language programming. It sits alongside other Māori language entities, within the Māori Development portfolio. Te Puni Kōkiri is considering ways to improve collaboration and outcomes across those entities.

The entity’s primary purpose or purposes would depend on the scope of its functions. However, we would expect to bring together current focuses, including:

• reflecting New Zealand (including the integral place of tangata whenua, te reo and tikanga Māori) and delivering for local audiences,
• increasing the reach and impact of funded content both domestically and internationally, and supporting industry development.

The proposal in the discussion document does not take a position on whether funding media platforms (as opposed to content) would be a function of a consolidated entity. We are interested to hear your views on this question.

If it were not included as a function, our initial analysis identified the option of other Ministries administering different components of current platform funding, where their functions are aligned. Alternatively, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage could take over responsibility for any platform funding.