Member log in

Labour would create new public broadcaster

UPDATED:  The Labour policy would mean more red tape and more borrowing, Broadcast minister Dr Jonathan Coleman said.

Labour had not said how much creating a new public broadcaster would cost, Dr Coleman said, and would end up borrowing more money to fund it.

"It would add tens of millions of dolalars a year to the $16 billion hole Labour already has in its spending plans."

He said the policy would introduce more boards and regulation to the broadcasting sector, meaing more red-tape and more costs, and that it was hard to see how that would lead to more quality Kiwi content making it onto New Zealand screens. 

"We have been very clear with where we are going with broadcasting.  We are focusing public money on getting the best possible local content onto our television screens, through NZ On Air's competitive funding mechanism while continuing to support Radio New Zealand.  It's a realistic fully funded plan, unliked Labour's." 

Ms Curran said Labour did not anticipate any extra costs to the taxpayer but would take "much needed action" in the sector.

-----

 

Labour would create a new public broadcaster if elected on November 26.

The party's broadcasting policy spokeswoman Clare Curran said this broadcaster would bring together elements of existing non-commercial public broadcasting such as TVNZ7 and Radio NZ.

Labour said the new broadcaster could include a nationwide news service and would be based on the outcomes of a public debate, to be completed within one year of winning office.

Ms Curran said the current government had axed TVNZ7 and stripped TVNZ of its public charter.

“We are currently one of the very few countries in the world without a public television broadcaster.”

A public debate would allow New Zealanders to shape the future of public broadcasting, she said, and would include a discussion of the institutional form, legislative framework and range of funding options, including the use of existing assets and dividend streams, and other international models, such as those used in Europe and the United States.

Labour said it would also continue to encourage the screen production industry, with a review of NZ On Air organisation, its goals and objectives and its models for allocating funding to local content.

It would investigate the merits of providing special tax status to low-profit limited liability content development companies which were New Zealand owned who committed to a defined programme of re-investment in their business, to encourage a competitive New Zealand digital media environment

Ms Curran said Labour would support New Zealand content and provide a stronger mechanism to deliver it.
“A strong, independent, free public broadcasting media service not driven by commercial interests is essential to an informed democracy.”

More by Alex Walls

Comments and questions
19

A LieBore initiated State broadcaster would be as independent of their policy direction/politically unbiased as the BBC is in the UK i.e. THE DE FACTO PROPAGANDA WING OF THE LIEBORE PARTY.

What would Ms. Curran know about 'informed' democracy...she/it is a warped propagandist of long long standing.

The BBC isn't for or against any party, its just anti-government. Sucessive goivernments of all colours hate it, so it must be doing OK.

You mean a broadcaster the poor old taxpayer will pay for but nobody will watch? cos' the facts are we are too small a country to afford to make "high end" TV - so without funds - and don't bs its going to have realistic budgets - all we'll get is re-runs of 20 yr old country calender. Only way this can realistically happen is to re-direct 100% of NZ on Air to the Public Channel & then bye bye to any local content on TV2, 3 or Prime. You can't have it both ways.

Labour comes out with some smart initiatives like a capital gains tax, raising the retirement age & moving money from a highway to Aucklands train solution.

Then they go and wreck everything by promising expenditure on useless initiatives like this??

Labour - LESS IS MORE!

Since Labour's serf's have been mostly ousted from cusshy appointments - Labour will need a new form of propaganda vehicle to feed the deceit, half truth's and deliberate lies to the masses.

If they really wanted a pulpet unto which they can preach their philosophies to the masses - why don't they start business's where the profits can be split amoungst the owners as dividends and then they can pay school leavers $15/hr - as well as solving all of NZ's unemployment problems at the same time.

Come on Goof - you claim to be a "leader" show NZ how it's done then and lead from the front - actions not words. Show, not tell. Deliver, don't preach.

Step up or step out...

I would rather they put money into national content and use the plethora of mediums now available in the modern world to broadcast this content. The modern trend is to move away from serial broadcasts to on demand content - so we can watch when we have spare time. Many of us work at times when good programming is on - would love if they paid for content and hosted it on a range of 3rd party TV on demand sites or broadcasting channels. Content is king in the modern world

Some people like media that provide informed and insightful content, unlike the current crock of * that TVNZ wheels out each night.
These people might be in the minority, and the majority may continue to swill rubbish from the trough. However given the opportunity a larger number of people that suspected may take the opportunity to watch television that isn't sound-bites and idiocy intertwined.
Not all news/information should be entirely for profit, just like many other cultural services the state sponsors, whether rugby or the arts. Informed debate is a tenet of democracy, and people should at least have the option.

Waste of time in this now digital world. Niche programming is better served now than ever. Just need people to know where to look for it. Dinosaur policy. Look forward Labour.

Just what we need - yet another publicly owned broadcaster. We already have three!

Q: how will it be funded without (a) killing NZ on Air or (b) costing taxpayers more?

For example, one option would be to sell TVNZ (why do we still even own it?) to fund it but Labour now seem ideologically opposed to any form of asset sales.

If politicians are going to float new ideas they should, at minimum, be required to explain how they will be funded otherwise it is an almost entirely pointless debate.

In response to: informed debate | Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 10:24am

Informed debate is indeed a tenet of democracy but state agenda based content that cannot stand on its own two feet without taxpayer support is not the answer.

Anyone supporting the notion that they should pay for subjective state programming masquerading as objective content would be paying for misinformation.

Misinformation is not a tenet of democracy, but is perhaps a central tenet of 'social' democracy.

What kind of content would a state broadcaster be providing?

Answer - Mz Clare's Curran_t Affairzzz

As objective as her Red Alert blog where the Troll-in-chief herself bans all dissent.

The LieBore Party are Boring Liars.

Right...farm stuff to do :)

Every fascist state controls the media. Why stop at broadcasting but then labour already control the Dominion so they are well on the way!

It seems that in 1991 Clare Curran was writing for the Australian New left Review.

The Australian Left Review was the journal of the Communist Party of Australia.

It would be interesting to find out if Clare Curran wrote more articles for Australian Left Review and if she was ever a member of the Communist Party of Australia or the New Left Party.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/189

Excerpt: "Neither they nor ALR interviewer Clare Curran ask why there is such a condition. Thus a deep silence about how the orthodoxy was entral feature of the "left" revisionist history. Specifically, the history is reconstructed without any reference to the verbal abuse, censorship, scheming and thuggery exercised since the early 1980s against opponents".

I think it's about time we recognised that the terms " right-left " are becoming nonsensical and obsolete to describe reality .
Here's another clue .
All over the West , it has become more and more difficult to squeeze a cigarette paper between the policies of Right or Left political parties . That's because they are all globalist multicult Left wing state capitalist big government lovers .

This means that the post-West, post-nationalist Mega-Corporate Global Industrial /Energy/ Cheap Labour --
" Right " and the ideological state apparatichik Left are riding on each others coat-tails in a temporary percieved common agenda .

That's until the jobs-prospects and the money runs out .

In reality , the student faculty bohemian trendy progressive radical chic contemporary Left , don't know their arses from their elbows .

They can't even trace the ideological historical roots of the template for all seasons-- cliches , memes and narratives they have in running around in their heads or the intellectual cult figures who wrote the books for the humanities departments that put those ideas there in the first place .

Ideologically and culturally the West lost the Cold War .

The Left has dominated the cultural narrative since the 60's .
They are the cultural neo-establishment / neo-conformists .

The New-Right are the new anti-establishment non-conformist radicals .

The Left success was only possible because there was no opposition from global corporatism because like the Left they are also anti-nationalist -internationalist , and because of moral cowardice by ideological conservatives in the face of a tsunami of Left wing utopian memes since the 1920 's .

However , that irresistable force , the Western state capitalist internationalist Corporate Right/ Left narrative/ agenda is suffering huge cracks in its armoury.

It has a rendevouz with destiny , with the immovable object , which is hard -wired natural law , otherwise known as reality .

Have you stopped taking your medication again?

In response to: Anonymous | Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 4:01pm

http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=7&gs_id=m&xhr=t&q=BBC+bias&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=BBC+Bia&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1c82949ca002f577&biw=1280&bih=582

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/biasedbr.htm

In the words of a BBC insider:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Enough said.

Reply to BBC Bias | Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 4:30pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

I joined the Beeb years ago when we affectionately referred to it as Auntie. Under Labour it became Big Brother and I moved to New Zealand.

Thanks to NZ I have a lovely Kiwi hubby and a National Govt.

Mika

Seems it more of the same from Labour 2 good ideas and then they show its more of the same old same old... more taxes, more wasted money, more bribes to the poor by way of bashing people that want to work harder to earn more FFS