The future shape, delivery and support of Aotearoa's screen and radio sectors has brought forward a cavalcade of comments - with Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) releasing a summary of the submissions received on the Government’s recently proposed changes to media regulation and content production.

It's been a huge area of debate for those in the creative industries - drawing a total of 197 submissions from both organisations and individuals.

Who took part?

The purpose of the Media Reform public consultation was to seek feedback on five proposals that aim to create modern media legislation for New Zealand’s media and content production sector and New Zealand audiences.

The feedback process to the five proposals put forward by MCH drew comment from many with skin in the game. 

Among them, Crown entities like Radio New Zealand (RNZ), NZ On Air, NZ Film Commission (NZFC) as well as Television Networks and Production Companies (representing Great Southern Television, Greenstone, Kevin & Co., Libertine Pictures, Pango, Sky, South Pacific Pictures, TVNZ, Warner Bros. Discovery) NZME, Stuff and Community Access Media stations.

Representatives of international streaming services - so often the central discussion point when it comes to content regulation in this country - also chimed in, including Netflix, Spotify, NBC Universal and Apple.

Among the other interested parties sharing their two cents worth were the likes of sector advocacy bodies the Radio Broadcasters Association, Australia New Zealand Screen Association, Screen Production and Development Association, as well as APRA AMCOS, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), Creative Waikato, Equity NZ, Freeview NZ, NZ Music Commission, NZ Society of Authors, Ngā Taonga Sound and Vision, NZ Media Association, Privacy Commissioner, Recorded Music NZ, Sky NZ, Taxpayers' Union, The Physics Room, The Spinoff, WeCreate, Whakaata Māori and Women in Film and Television.

Proposal 1: Ensuring accessibility of local media platforms

This would require TV manufacturers to ensure local media services are prominent and visible on devices such as smart TVs so they can be easily found by New Zealand audiences.

Of the 122 submissions, approximately 84% percent were in support, with just 14% percent against it.

As many across the country can attest to, submissions pointed out that local platforms can be hard to find on smart TVs, particularly compared with international apps.

While many submitters broadly agreed with the proposed definition of ‘local TV services’, many believed it needed to be refined to ensure certain local platforms would qualify. Which devices would be included was also raised, with some arguing the likes of smart phones, tablets, computers and gaming consoles should fall under this umbrella. 

There was also clear advocacy for an equivalent radio prominence regime.

Proposal 2: Increasing investment into and discoverability of local content

This proposal drew the most feedback with 147 submissions - unsurprising considering it addressed the hottest topic in the reform debate: requiring streaming platforms and TV broadcasters to invest in local content and implement measures to ensure it is more ‘discoverable’ on their platforms, supporting the production of and engagement with New Zealand stories.

There was broad support for the proposal and recognition of the need to protect local content - with approximately 80% in support, with 13% opposed. 

New Zealanders - of all backgrounds - being able to see themselves on screen was addressed as crucial. Many submissions specifically mentioned the importance of our stories being intertwined with our national identity.

One guild submitted that investing in local content is essential for fostering New Zealand’s culture, supporting local talent, and ensuring that our stories are told on a global scale. It argued the requirement to invest in and make local content discoverable is an important step towards cultural sustainability.

A large number of submitters described how the sector is at a critical point due to a lack of funding and that this is leading to a reduction in local content. Many submitters specifically commented on the need to require global streamers to invest in the New Zealand content they benefit from.

One production company submitted that the local media industry is in crisis; the economic downturn, alongside fragmentation in audiences, has impacted the sector to a point of market failure for local screen content.

Another guild stated that without significant and immediate additional funding, New Zealand screen production faces an existential threat. It argued that New Zealand's distinctive cultural voice - internationally recognised as authentic and iconic - is being severely disadvantaged on the world stage due to critical funding shortages.

What is local content?

What qualifies as ‘local content’ is seen as a pivotal element - with feedback suggesting the success or failure of this draft proposal would owe much to the definition. Submitters considered that the definition should ensure that local content is created by New Zealand-based creators, producers, and talent and tells New Zealand stories.

A broadcaster considered that the definition must cover scripted and all non-scripted genres and be content made for Aotearoa’s audiences, which tells New Zealand stories and reflects our country’s identity and culture.

A guild considered that local content should include works created by New Zealand-based creators, producers, and talent, with content primarily focused on New Zealand audiences and produced within the country.

One submitter recommended utilising the "significant local content" framework from the New Zealand Screen Production Rebate and extending it to include official co-productions. One broadcaster supported NZ On Air’s definition of “local content” as programming that reflects New Zealand identity and culture as a useful definition.

Make 'em pay?

There was support for an option that includes a levy as well as an investment obligation for streaming platforms. Submitters considered this combination could bring complementary benefits or that a levy could function as a back-stop.

A guild considered that a combined investment obligation and levy could create a more reliable funding mechanism for local content, while also ensuring platforms contribute directly to the industry. The investment obligation would ensure that platforms actively engage with local content, while the levy could ensure a steady stream of funding for New Zealand content creators.

One media organisation considered that any changes or new requirements must support the sustainability and growth of the Māori production sector, support the Māori media sector workforce and talent pipeline, build Māori capability across the media sector and ensure Māori perspectives, stories and Māori language revitalisation outcomes are maintained or accelerated.

Among the benefits listed of a potential levy in the feedback were to ensure public interest content is factored into funding decisions, including Māori perspectives and stories and to provide a reliable and transparent funding stream to a range of New Zealand content creators.

But not everyone was in favour - pointing out the potential negative impacts like an increase in production costs and decreasing New Zealand’s attractiveness as a production destination. They listed repercussions such as local media companies getting fewer hours of content for their investment than they do today (or forced to spend more) and the costs could push content providers to either leave or deprioritise the New Zealand market, undermining the investments made from international partners.

Proposal 3: Increasing captioning and audio description

The most supported proposal on the discussion block - requiring more captioning and audio description (CAD) to be made available on content that is broadcast or streamed in New Zealand to ensure access to media for all New Zealanders.

Of the 107 submissions received on this proposal, approximately 89% were in support and 8% were not.

A large number of organisations representing those with disabilities were among those giving feedback, including Arts Access Aotearoa, Audio Described Aotearoa, Blind Citizens NZ, Blind Low Vision NZ, Deaf Aotearoa, Disability Responsiveness New Zealand and Disabled Persons Assembly.

A large number of supportive submitters were in favour of increasing CAD on the basis that it would provide fair and equitable access to media content available in New Zealand, particularly for disabled communities who rely on CAD to be able to engage with content. 

Many submitters also mentioned that the proposal would extend equity and inclusion to those who speak English as a second language, or those who prefer to access media content with CAD. The primary concern submitters raised with the proposal was the cost of producing good quality CAD, and therefore the compliance burden legislative requirements would place upon content providers, particularly smaller providers with large content libraries.

Some submitters were concerned that without ongoing public funding, content providers would “race to the bottom” to meet requirements as cost efficiently as possible (like using AI) at the expense of maintaining good quality CAD, especially for content in te reo Māori.

A few submitters, particularly those from the disabled community, said that they often preferred to use international streaming platforms due to the technical limitations of local streaming platforms. However, they would like to be able to use local platforms instead to access more local content.

Proposal 4: Modernising professional media regulation

The proposal to modernise the broadcasting standards regime to cover all professional media operating in New Zealand - not just broadcasters - drew 62% support among the 117 submissions - with 23% against it.

The majority of submitters called for a future-focussed media regulatory system that included media content providers and user-generated content on social media platforms. The largest number of submissions specifically called for social media platforms to be included within the regulatory regime. These submitters argued that user-generated content reaches a larger audience and therefore has the potential to cause more harm and disinformation.

Many media stakeholders called for global content platforms to be subject to the same responsibilities and obligations (including financial and regulatory obligations) as New Zealand media companies. This would increase the consistency and durability of media regulation in New Zealand. Many media organisations specifically advocated for the inclusion of YouTube under the definition of ‘professional media’, as this platform has a significant degree of editorial curation, and a large volume of professional media content.

A few submissions raised the associated costs with a new regulatory system. The BSA noted it is important to ensure that any new regime does not impose burdensome costs on an already struggling broadcasting industry.

Proposal 5: Streamlining Crown content funders

Another big talking point - 146 submissions were made on the proposal to consolidate the New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC) and NZ On Air into a single content funding entity. The rationale - to improve efficiencies and support strategic funding outcomes, including by pooling resources and focusing industry development efforts.

Support for this reached approximately 63%, with 19% against it - but almost all support came with varying caveats.

Many submitters wanted reassurance that it would absorb and carry over the remits of both current entities, namely economic development of the screen sector (NZFC) and funding diverse local stories (NZ On Air).

NZFC’s submission stated the “unique and distinct voice” of NZ film needs to be prioritised in a merged entity, while NZ On Air commented that “while our legislated remit is cultural, our impacts include strong economic benefits.”

Some submitters were concerned that combining two entities into one might reduce competition and limit funding opportunities for different types of productions. They considered there is a risk that limiting the media sector’s funding opportunities to one institution may create perceptions that this one outlet has a disproportionate amount of influence over the sector.

Where from here?

In the broader questions in the feedback survey, some were concerned that the draft proposals would increase government intervention into media and content creation.

A range of submissions called for alternative measures - like separate funding streams for commercial and local productions, sustainable public-interest journalism, different regulation for private and state-owned media and reviewing the Copyright Act (1994) to better protect intellectual property owners in the AI era. 

Among the suggestions that have been listed as out of scope - an increase in funding, regulation of social media platforms, trade agreements to prioritise and protect domestic production, funding pools for smaller creator and tax breaks for platforms that invest in local content.

Manatū Taonga Deputy Secretary of Policy, Performance & Insights, Emily Fabling states "Our policy team continues to do further analysis and engagement on these proposals, based on the feedback we’ve received. We appreciate the expertise, experience and insights provided to our Ministry during consultation."

Analysis and policy advice to Government will continue in the coming months, and any changes will require Cabinet approval.