Ngā Aho Whakaari and Kawea te Rongo joint submission

Date: 23rd March 2025

Submitted by: Ngā Aho Whakaari and Kawea Te Rongo

Introduction

This submission is made on behalf of Ngā Aho Whakaari and Kawea Te Rongo:

1. Ngā Aho Whakaari – Māori in Screen is a legacy not-for-profit organisation with nearly 900 members and a mandate to safeguard and advocate for the rights, aspirations, and cultural expressions of Māori in the screen sector.

2. Kawea te Rongo, the Māori Independent Journalists Association, has been reinvigorated in recent years as an independent group that aims to support, develop and advocate for Māori journalism. The name pays homage to the first Māori journalist group, established in the early 1990’s. Kawea Te Rongo plays an integral role in providing Māori journalism with a collective voice as the media landscape undergoes significant change.

3. The two industry groups have teamed up to provide feedback on the Media Reform: Modernising regulation and content funding arrangements for New Zealand: discussion document to ensure the voices of Māori in all parts of the industry are reflected in these proposed reforms and to ensure Te Tiriti o Waitangi is embedded and upheld.

4. This submission will provide an overview of the key areas of concern and will go through each of the draft proposals in more detail providing recommendations and considerations.

Summary

5. There is an undeniably strong case for change and that current legislation is not fit for purpose.

6. The reforms must assert the role and importance of Public Service Media (PSM) in Aotearoa New Zealand, ensuring that Māori perspectives and te reo Māori are central to any new models, with Te Tiriti as the foundation. It is not sufficient for only Te Māngai Pāho (TMP), Whakaata Māori and iwi radio to be the primary spaces for Māori content; all media entities have an obligation to uphold this commitment to Māori and all New Zealanders.

7. The Waitangi Tribunal and previous governments have both affirmed the obligations the Crown has in regard to te reo Māori and the rights for Māori in broadcasting. These rights and obligations do not change, and should be upheld in any new structure or entity, regardless of the way media is transmitted. ¹

8. New Zealand, as a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also has international obligations. Article 16 of UNDRIP declares that Indigenous Peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination. It also says that states should take effective measures to ensure state-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity, and that privately-owned media should be encouraged to reflect cultural diversity. ²

9. A key concern is the proposed reforms do not include options for new or ongoing government spending. Aotearoa New Zealand already has a low per capita spend on public service media compared to similar countries. With increasing pressure on commercial funding models, combined with a rising threat of mis- and disinformation, increased investment is sorely needed and the lack of attention to that in this document is concerning.

10. The lack of proposed change to levels of funding, combined with a lack of detail over how any change management process would be resourced without cutting into existing funds needs to be addressed.

Key Concerns & Observations

11. The document makes little mention of the role PSM plays, could play, or the future of organisations like TVNZ.

12. While Māori Media is being reviewed under a separate inquiry, the absence of the role of Te Māngai Pāho (TMP) and Māori Media in these proposals presents challenges and risks further marginalizing Māori content.

13. Further to p. 12 Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) administered funding is out of scope in these proposals, we urge Ministry of Culture and Heritage to actively collaborate with TPK regarding any proposed changes as they intersect and it is untenable to simply try to put that out of scope when looking at significant changes to media in Aotearoa.

14. The Broadcasting and Spectrum claims brought before the Waitangi Tribunal in the late 1980s and early 1990s highlighted the marginalisation of Māori language and content. Any new measures to increase prominence and visibility of New Zealand content on new platforms must avoid repeating the mistakes that led to those claims.

15. This context is integral, and is the lens through which our submission needs to be considered.

16. While possible measures including levies and other funding devices are welcome, there remains little focus on the ongoing funding situation, the declining viability of advertising, or the absence of any mention of how revenue from any new mechanism would be divided, including if it would be used to fund journalism. The absence of the role of social media companies remains the ‘elephant in the room.’

17. The proposals fail to address the crisis in the creative and media sectors, where professionals can no longer reasonably afford to work.

18. Some countries have specific requirements for content investment, ensuring support for certain genres, independent productions, productions of national expression, or those in specific languages. We would urge these to be taken into account.

¹ Broadcasting Act 1989, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Maori Claim (1986) and Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on Claims Concerning the Allocation of Radio Frequencies (1990)
² United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Draft Proposal 1: Ensuring Accessibility of Local Media Platforms

Require TV manufacturers to ensure local media services are prominent and visible to audiences on devices such as Smart TVs so they can be easily found by audiences.

19. This submission supports this move, and we know precedents exist in other countries.

20. What is unclear is how Māori Media, content and services will be safeguarded as a ‘local media service’.

21. The proposal states that measures around prominence for audio (for example, radio, car interfaces and smart speakers) are not being considered, and that officials would rather monitor developments in that space. However, not including audio seems shortsighted.

22. International examples show that many audio regulatory regimes for audio have already been developed, which Aotearoa could learn from. For example;
- Australia’s prominence legislation did not initially include audio, but a review is already underway³. Audio provisions have already been introduced in the UK and European Union as part of their media reforms ⁴⁵.

Draft Proposal 1 - Recommendations

23. To ensure Māori media services are identified and included as ‘local media platforms’, there would also need to be a clear set of criteria for what Māori media or platforms are, in order to prevent misclassification. This may need further work in identifying what those are.

24. Any discoverability rules must make Māori content prominent as per Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

25. There needs to be a clear emphasis and commitment outlined to promote Māori services

26. Aotearoa New Zealand should apply similar urgency to radio and audio prominence

³ https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/news/listening-out-public-views-radio-prominence
⁴ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/15/contents
⁵ https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-service s-act_en
‍

Draft Proposal 2: Increasing Investment into and Discoverability of Local Content

Require 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.

27. The proposal is that all professional audiovisual media providers, including New Zealand TV broadcasters, New Zealand streaming platforms and global streaming platforms to have local investment obligations and discoverability requirements. However, how Māori is categorised as part of any new regime, as per Te Tiriti, is not included or taken into consideration.

28. We support investment obligations in principle, however local content investment obligations must include a minimum amount of investment for te reo Māori content.

29. This could be resourced by a levy model which is already in place in many other countries.

30. There is some favour taken with the levy model proposal over the direct local funding obligations administered by the platforms themselves. The direct funding model doesn’t provide any assurances as to the commissioning processes and whether it would provide good public service media outcomes. It would also require government oversight to ensure the platforms are meeting those obligations and funding the type of local production for which the scheme is intended.

31. Another case for a possible levy model is that it would bring money into the local sector to be disbursed by independent funding agencies.

32. There is a need to define Māori content to prevent misclassification, for example when the reality TV show, Police 10-7, was categorised as Māori content.

33. We have concerns about any measure that is based on a ‘proportion of revenue’ if nothing is done to help the industry. Otherwise, the amount of money that continues to be invested will continue to sink. Further to p. 30 we support that platforms, especially international streaming services, that are making profits in the NZ market should be required to pay towards local content production and a preferred model is some sort of levy that is distributed by funding agencies charged with funding quality PSM type of content.

34. International examples that elaborate further from the discussion document:
- In Canada, the CRTC requires online streaming services that make $25 million or more in annual contributions revenues and that are not affiliated with a Canadian broadcaster to contribute 5% of those revenues to certain funds⁶. The contributions are then directed to areas of need, such as local news, French-language content, Indigenous content, official language minority communities (OLMC) and Canadians of diverse backgrounds. In the case of Indigenous content, this is paid into the Indigenous Screen Office Fund, which has the mandate to support Indigenous narrative sovereignty through storytelling on screen. ⁷

- Under the European Union’s 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive, Member States are able to impose financial obligations on providers established on their territory. Those obligations can take the form of direct contributions to the production of and acquisition of rights in European works. They could also impose levies payable to a fund, on the basis of the revenues generated by audiovisual media services that are provided in and targeted towards their territory

Draft Proposal 2 - Recommendations

35. We would insist and strongly recommend that Māori storytelling and subject matter, Māori storytellers and Māori audiences are very much a part of any new regime, as per Te Tiriti, and is equitable to all local content in how it is categorised.

36. When carrying out the work to define ‘local content’ as suggested in the proposal, that p. 35 is a significant factor when making that definition.

37. Any new regime would also need protections for Indigenous story and narrative sovereignty, and the protection of mātauranga Māori.

38. To strongly consider the levy model with clear legislated and regulated caveats in order to protect, promote and endorse Māori content, Māori storytellers and platforms as per Te Tiriti and to serve Māori audiences

39. That if a levy model is favoured, to ensure a fair proportion of monies raised is allocated to te reo Māori content and that such disbursement models provides for te reo Māori content, administered by Te Māngai Pāho (or a similar te reo Māori specialist funding agency pending reviews at Te Puni Kōkiri).

⁶ Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2024-121
⁷ Indigenous Screen Office

Draft Proposal 3: Increasing Captioning and Audio Description (CAD)

Require more captioning and audio description (CAD) on content that is broadcast or streamed to ensure access for disabled New Zealanders.

40. We endorse any measure that makes content as accessible to as broad an audience as possible. However, the inclusion or emphasis of one of New Zealand’s national languages is noticeably absent from this proposal.

41. International examples:
- UK’s Media Act 2024 requires “sufficient quantity” of accessible audiovisual content in minority languages, including Gaelic, Irish and Welsh.

- Canada requires broadcasters to caption 100% of their programming, including advertising. This applies to both English and French broadcasts. We would urge similar for English and Te Reo Māori.

- Ireland’s CNAM has detailed rules for Irish sign language in television broadcasting.

Draft Proposal 3 - Recommendations

42. With any increase of CAD services, there is a clear inclusion and equity for te reo Māori.

43. As per the international example in Canada, with 100% of programming is captioned for both English and French broadcasts, we recommend the same is done for English and te reo Māori in Aotearoa.

Draft Proposal 4: Modernising Professional Media Regulation

Revise the broadcasting standards regime (including the Broadcasting Standards Authority) with platform-neutral and system-level regulation of professional media.

44. The revised and refreshed function and purpose of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) is needed and we support this move for it to fulfill a more regulatory function, with clear caveats to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. .

45. It was only in recent years that the BSA stopped taking any complaints regarding the use of te reo Maori, a bold and welcome move. This sort of approach needs to be maintained and consistent with the BSA’s role being revised.

46. Although it proposes the regulator’s function is to develop standards alongside industry, there is a clear intersection with other bodies currently out of scope (Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, Media Council).

47. Much work is needed to define ‘Professional Media’ as indicated in the proposal in order to keep up to date with the rapidly changing landscape. For example; some online platforms who only host and create content online and on social media. There is a big question mark around whether there is a need for better regulation as people consume through online user-generated content. There is an obligation to protect and mitigate disinformation on online content which, under these proposals, may not be viable to be regulated or monitored.

48. Although not directly relevant, there is some synergy between this point when considering online platforms and the Fair News Digital News Bargaining Bill which may need more consideration.

49. The BSA would need to be able to effectively regulate both domestic and overseas-based organisations, the Irish Media Commission being a good example of a recently-created entity.

50. International examples:
- UK – Ofcom.

- Canada’s Online Streaming Act 2023 expanded the definition of “broadcast undertakings” to incorporate online providers under the purview of the CRTC, although social media is excluded. The agency is currently developing specific regulations to implement the act.

- In Ireland, the Coimisiún na Meán was formed to replace the former Broadcasting Authority. The Commission is responsible for overseeing the updated regulations for broadcasting, audio-visual on-demand media services and video-sharing platform services. Significantly, the Media Commission has a broad range of investigative and enforcement powers. The Act brings video-sharing platform services, such as YouTube, within the scope of Irish regulation. It is also responsible for schemes to promote media diversity and the Irish language.

Draft Proposal 4 - Recommendations

51. To include the Te Tiriti o Waitangi in any revised charter or function of the BSA.

52. Make Māori representation a requirement for governance and management models of any future regulatory structures - there is a noticeable absence of Māori representation in the current BSA structure.

53. Consideration and further work to ascertain if it would be beneficial to create a single entity overseeing all professionally produced media.

Draft Proposal 5: Streamlining Crown Content Funders

Consolidate NZ On Air and the Film Commission into a single entity, supporting efficient administration of government funding for local content and industry development.

54. This proposal is of significant relevance to the independent production sector we represent and we urge that the bodies and advocacy groups this decision impacts are actively engaged throughout the development of these reforms, particularly Māori in the industry.

55. The distinction between ‘film’ and broadcasting as reflected in the NZFC and NZ On Air mandates no longer aligns with modern content creation or distribution models.

56. International examples:

- Ireland’s Fís Éireann/Screen Ireland manages film and television funding.

- Canada’s Online Streaming Act includes dedicated Indigenous content funding and visibility requirements.

Draft Proposal 5 - Recommendations

57. The new entity has legislated obligations to uphold and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in applying efficient and equitable funding.

58. Any new body has designated governance representatives and staff, including some at management level that act as kaitiaki and advocates for Māori storytelling and Māori storytellers.

Additional Comments and Feedback for Consideration

Splintered and Overlapping Funding Entities and Notable Intersections

59. The unintended consequence of the creation of Te Māngai Pāho (TMP) was a reduced focus on the ‘promote Māori language and culture’ aspect of the NZ On Air mandate.

60. This function/responsibility must be centered in any new structure. The role of PSM in nation-building and reflecting our society must have Te Tiriti as its basis.

61. There are potential issues in excluding Part 4A of the legislation from the scope, which defines a separate TMP review of Māori language entities.

62. History tells us that the creation of TMP affected ‘mainstream’ organisations, and there is currently a lack of clarity in what should be complementary roles.

63. Another intersection for consideration is the cultural protections Aotearoa has under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT) and if these will be jeopardised as part of these reforms - particularly Draft Proposal 5.

64. The current protections under the GATT relevant to these proposed reforms include;

- The option to accord more favourable treatment to Māori persons or organisation across all modes of supply;

- The option to allocate a minimum of 6 percent of the Broadcasting Commission (NZ On Air)’s budget to Māori programming; and

- To provide assistance to the film industry through the Film Commission.

65. This poses the question we urge to be taken into consideration and addressed, is if NZ on Air and the NZ Film Commission cease to exist as entities in their own right, does this extinguish the cultural protections permitted under GATT with respect to each.

Conclusion

66. A significant point of discussion missing from this proposal is the ability for regulatory frameworks to be agile and respond to the rapidly evolving media landscape. With the rise of AI-generated content, the decline of traditional funding models, and audience fragmentation, regulatory bodies must be adaptive. The role of the government and industry in ensuring the sustainability of local content needs to be a priority in media reform and we hope the relevant points we have made are taken into account..

67. Most crucially, this discussion document fails to acknowledge or incorporate Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This submission strongly recommends that any media reform must embed, meaningfully, Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation of public service media, ensure sustainable funding, and safeguards Māori content and language within Aotearoa’s media landscape.

68. Lastly, an overall recommendation, we strongly advise a Māori industry working group is created to help guide and consult on these reforms, this could also be a valuable conduit between the existing working group advising on Māori Media Funding, to ensure any reforms are aligned.

69. Ngā Aho Whakaari, Tumu Whakarae, Kay Ellmers and Kawea Te Rongo co-chair, Māni Dunlop, would like the opportunity to speak to this submission as these are highly complex and nuanced issues that need depth of analysis to ensure these reforms in modernising our media with a fit for purpose approach that benefits the industry and all of those who consume media from iwi radio to the 6pm news, to grassroots community content to our feature film and high end drama series content screened globally - all of which these reforms impact.

70. Thank you for considering our submission and we look forward to hearing from you.
‍

Ngā mihi,

Kay Ellmers                          Māni Dunlop
Tumu Whakarae                    Co-chair
Ngā Aho Whakaari                 Kawea te Rongo