THE PRESS MONDAY, MAY 2, 1988. Changes to broadcasting

Press, 2 May 1988, Page 20

THE PRESS MONDAY, MAY 2, 1988. Changes to broadcasting

New policies on broadcasting have become almost a biennial event in New Zealand; Governments, it seems, cannot resist the urge to tinker with television and radio. The new policy announced last week by the Minister of Broadcasting, Mr Prebble, owes little to the Royal Commission on the subject which reported less than 18 months ago, but proposes yet another set of rules for the industry. The result appears to be an attempt to have the best of all worlds; to strip away most restrictions on entry to the industry without yielding it up to the worst excesses of unfettered competition to find the lowest common denominator, yet to maintain a strong element of public ownership and State direction of key elements. At least two radio networks and both existing television channels will be retained in public ownership, but the doors will be opened to increased numbers of radio stations and specialist television services. The easing of controls on television is little more than acknowledging reality. Satellite television programmes are an established part ofinternational communications, although the Government’s bureaucracy, bound by outdated laws and regulations, is still trying: to prevent' their reception in New in some instances. Mr Prebble is wise enough to realise that playing King Canute means wet feet and few friends. Thus, cable television and encoded user-pay systems will join the household satellite receiving dish as facets of home entertainment that are as free of regulatory controls as video recording machines or video games already are. £ Having conceded that present obstructions to private reception of satellite programmes are unworkable and undesirable, and that hindering the development of other domestic television and radio services would be equally inappropriate, the Government has had to ask itself how those parts of the State system it intends to keep in public ownership can best compete when their entrenched advantages over private-sector competitors have been removed.

This has forced the Government to acknowledge that many of the requirements loosely termed “social aims,” with which the system is hedged about, are dead weight in the sense that they are not profit-making. I This is not necessarily so in all instances, but'it shows up the nature of broadcasting: either you have the audience for a programme or you do not and, if you do not have it for the programme, you do not have it for the advertising that supports the programme. The audience is seeing or listening to something else or nothing at all. The trick today, as it has been in the past, is to-restrict the alternatives, particularly for television, and thereby concentrate the attention even of somewhat reluctant viewers. Often they will see something to their advantage, and unexpectedly so. New Zealand’s,.,, biggest problem for. broadcasters is the smallness of the audience; the more it is fragmented, the more difficult it is to serve. This alone is going to restrain the enthusiasm of potential newcomers to television, and especially as many viewers’ attention will be diverted away from the main channels by video and satellite programmes. At any moment, even in peak viewing time, the audience for a channel may become discouragingly small yet the cost of programmes will remain as high as ever. Given this fact, it is idle to expect all channels to spend huge- sums oh locally produced programmes to meet a local- quota. They may, of course, be ready to turn out very cheap local programmes. These will not automatically be poor viewing; they may be

good, but hardly the socially significant material that the Government wants to secure for the screens. The Government does not intend that these social aims should be set aside. In a comment which betrayed a basic uncertainty over the role of broadcasting, Mr Prebble said that it was important that New Zealand news media reflected New Zealand values and culture. He referred to the “dominance” of foreign content on television programmes and said New Zealand ownership was the only protection against media moguls from overseas. The Government has resolved to maintain controls on overseas ownership through the Overseas Investment Act and the Commerce Act (rather than through broadcasting regulations), and to keep separate the social aims from broadcasting’s commercial activities. Mr Prebble stated the case: “Where the Government requires the industry to pursue social objectives, the cost of these should be transparent.” So, indeed, it should; but Mr Prebble’s announcement lias left a large question about precisely what these objectives will be, how great the cost is expected to be, and just how the cost will be met. It is intended that the State-owned networks and private broadcasting compete for whatever budget the Government allocates to these social aims. It is possible that the money will come from the public broadcasting fee — generally known as the television licence fee — but the Government is not committed to retaining the charge; some other source of revenue might be needed. The notion of contracting out the responsibility for providing minority cultural and educational programming is sound enough. Allowing private broadcasting to compete for a slice of the pie might result in a broader spread of these programmes, reaching a wider audience than would be the case if they were restricted to a minority interest station to which only a handful of people ever tuned. Unlike other publishing ventures, all of which are bound by the market, the broadcasters work within a further restraint. This is space on the air waves. How this will be allocated has not been explained. Knowing the propensity of the Government in such things, the possibility that space will be put out for tender from the highest bidders cannot be discounted. The question may not be critical for some time.

One feature of the new policy that already has attracted criticism — and is likely to attract more — is the abolition of the Broadcasting Tribunal. Commonly in the world some form of oversight of the industry is considered necessary to ensure that reasonable standards are maintained. New Zealand has been served fairly well by the existing tribunal.

Mr Prebble suggests that some form of broadcasting ombudsman will safeguard the public interest, as the tribunal has done. The success of this guardian will depend a lot on the powers and remedies that will be available to the holder of the new post. These powers have not been spelt out, in common with a great deal else that is needed to fully assess the worth of the new policy. The detail might be expected in the next few months, before Parliament is called on to change the relevant laws. The detail will need to show not only that the proposed system can be made to work, but also that it will achieve what is claimed for it. The benefits attributed to the proposals sound fine; so did the advantages that were promised from all the previous changes to the broadcasting system — and in spite of them we are assured that this new raft of changes is essential.