Act gives power to ‘muzzle’ media

Press, 27 July 1989, Page 7

Act gives power to ‘muzzle’ media

By NIGEL MALTHUS The new Broadcasting Act has loopholes which could be used by an unscrupulous government to muzzle New Zealand broadcasters, the directorgeneral of Television New Zealand, Mr Julian Mounter, warned yesterday.

With deregulation the key word in many countries, the freedom of the electronic “press” was, in some minds, more under threat than it had been since World War 11, he said. Mr Mounter, speaking to an audience at the University of Canterbury, said that there had been a tussle between broadcasters and governments over freedom of the press during the last 30 years. That, he said, “should serve as a warning that even the most honourable of governments sometimes forget that freedom of speech and freedom of expression through the media is an essential guarantee of a true democracy.” Mr Mounter said he welcomed deregulation. In an age of satellite broadcasting, there was no real option, and no justification for building walls around national broadcasters. Without deregulation, New Zealand would have been in danger of being swamped by external signals, and if TVNZ had not been freed from the bureaucracy surrounding it as part of the 8.C.N.Z.,

it would have found itself in a disastrous position, he said.

But the cost of deregulation — because of the belief of some lobby groups and politicians that other controls were needed — was the Standards Authority set up by the new act.

"This body, unlike its new equivalent in Britain, has exceptional powers. It can fine us. It can even take us off the air. It can write codes of practice for broadcasters without the concurrence of those broadcasters.

“It can act as judge, prosecutor, and jury, and, but for some hard lastminute lobbying by broadcasters, it would have been a body operating with not even the check of an appeal.” Mr Mounter said that the Standards Authority would have been welcomed by those who feared a drop in standards with deregulation. “But the fact is that this country now has a body, appointed by the Government, that has the power to tell us what we should and should not see and hear through our broadcasting system.” Mr Mounter also warned that the board of TVNZ, as a State-owned enterprise, could be dismissed by the shareholding Ministers for a variety of reasons. Although there was a measure of protection on editorial matters, he questioned whether it was appropriate that the board of the State broadcaster could be dismissed for reasons other than failures covered by the Companies Act. Mr Mounter said that the legislation was excellent in many regards, and the Broadcasting Commis-

sion a "superb" aspect of the new act. It would receive all the broadcasting licence fee money and distribute it for local productions reflecting New Zealand culture. It could not independently commission programmes not already “accepted” by a broadcaster — a protection of editorial integrity and control for the broadcasters — but would have to be immensely careful in what it chose not to continue funding, he said. The danger that the commission might stop funding a programme it had supported for years if it started highlighting faults in the then Government, was probably remote but should not exist in legislation, he said. The legislation allowed TVNZ to compete at home and internationally in a way which would allow it to prosper and ultimately turn its prosperity back into local production, but had to be considered only as a first step. “I believe that those who drafted this legislation must look again at it, refine it, and improve it,” Mr Mounter said.