The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill Resurrected
That term may be a little strong for something that came across my desk this morning, but who knows.
Before I get the meat of the problem let’s have a little history.
The Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) is a matter of recent memory. This was a $55 million government support package established in 2021 to help New Zealand’s news media weather the COVID-19 downturn and maintain public interest reporting.
It was administered by NZ On Air (in collaboration with Te Māngai Pāho for Māori and iwi media). The contestable fund concluded its funding rounds on 30 June 2023.
It funded 73 projects, 219 journalist roles and 22 industry developed initiatives. More than 60,000 pieces of news content were generated and it supported regional reporting, investigative journalism, data journalism, cadetships for diverse and indigenous reporters, and bi-cultural collaboration under the principles of The Treaty of Waitangi.
The stated purpose of the fund was to assist grassroots community and investigative reporting but major outlets (such as NZME and Stuff) as well as smaller ethnic and local media entities received packages to retain or hire specific roles, such as local democracy reporters.
The fund attracted political debate. Critics argued that government-funded journalism risked compromising editorial independence or amounted to state “bribery”.
The conditions that attached to the funding and the criteria themselves that were imposed compromised press freedom and independence. There was a perception that to obtain funding, one had to toe the Government line.
On the other hand proponents and media organizations countered that funding agreements explicitly protected editorial discretion, and independent administration via NZ On Air served as a buffer between the state and newsrooms.
As the PIJF began to wind down, the then Minister of Broadcasting, Willie Jackson, developed a Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.
The purpose of the Bill was to enable New Zealand news publishers to negotiate on more equal terms with digital platforms.
The intent was that news publishers would be fairly compensated for the value of their news content that is made available by digital platforms online. The Bill would ensure that the negotiations between news publishers and digital platforms are fair and provides a bargaining code and negotiation process for when deals cannot be reached voluntarily.
The Bill was hailed by Mainstream Media (MSM). With the PIJF gone, this was just the lifeline that they needed. It would provide a revenue stream that would allow them to survive.
But Labour did not enact the Bill. Nevertheless it was picked up by the Coalition Government. Melissa Lee, who was the Broadcasting Minister, was not in favour of the Bill and recommended that it be dropped. In a remarkable turn of events, it was Ms Lee who was dropped from the portfolio of Broadcasting and was replaced by Paul Goldsmith.
Mr. Goldsmith was not so keen on dropping the Bill. But by the same token he was in no rush to enact it. Similar proposals were in place in Australia and Canada. Mr. Goldsmith’s position was a “wait and see” one. The Bill remains on the Order Paper but so far it has been going nowhere.
In the meantime a miracle has occurred. Nothwithstanding the dire prognostications of MSM following the end of the PIJF they are still in business. TVNZ continues to broadcast. Radio NZ continues to broadcast. The NZ Herald and the Post are still delivered to mailboxes around the country. Digital editions proliferate. The end of MSM has not eventuated.
And one is compelled to ask whether or not we require a Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Is there such a compelling need for this piece of legislation which will provide a State based regime to support MSM, given that they are still in business.
According to Chris Hipkins, it would seem so. The headline in the Post for 15 September reads ‘The media is going to disappear’: Hipkins recommits to stalled news bill.”
Mr. Hipkins has committed to reviving the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which has been left languishing on Parliament’s order paper since 2024, and said the party will campaign on it at the election.
Surprise, surprise – the news has been welcomed by Stuff who has questioned why other political parties are unwilling to “stand up and protect our sovereignty.” That is an interesting take on the proposal.
Mr. Hipkins’ comments were revealing to say the least.
It was administered by NZ On Air (in collaboration with Te Māngai Pāho for Māori and iwi media). The contestable fund concluded its funding rounds on 30 June 2023.
It funded 73 projects, 219 journalist roles and 22 industry developed initiatives. More than 60,000 pieces of news content were generated and it supported regional reporting, investigative journalism, data journalism, cadetships for diverse and indigenous reporters, and bi-cultural collaboration under the principles of The Treaty of Waitangi.
The stated purpose of the fund was to assist grassroots community and investigative reporting but major outlets (such as NZME and Stuff) as well as smaller ethnic and local media entities received packages to retain or hire specific roles, such as local democracy reporters.
The fund attracted political debate. Critics argued that government-funded journalism risked compromising editorial independence or amounted to state “bribery”.
The conditions that attached to the funding and the criteria themselves that were imposed compromised press freedom and independence. There was a perception that to obtain funding, one had to toe the Government line.
On the other hand proponents and media organizations countered that funding agreements explicitly protected editorial discretion, and independent administration via NZ On Air served as a buffer between the state and newsrooms.
As the PIJF began to wind down, the then Minister of Broadcasting, Willie Jackson, developed a Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.
The purpose of the Bill was to enable New Zealand news publishers to negotiate on more equal terms with digital platforms.
The intent was that news publishers would be fairly compensated for the value of their news content that is made available by digital platforms online. The Bill would ensure that the negotiations between news publishers and digital platforms are fair and provides a bargaining code and negotiation process for when deals cannot be reached voluntarily.
The Bill was hailed by Mainstream Media (MSM). With the PIJF gone, this was just the lifeline that they needed. It would provide a revenue stream that would allow them to survive.
But Labour did not enact the Bill. Nevertheless it was picked up by the Coalition Government. Melissa Lee, who was the Broadcasting Minister, was not in favour of the Bill and recommended that it be dropped. In a remarkable turn of events, it was Ms Lee who was dropped from the portfolio of Broadcasting and was replaced by Paul Goldsmith.
Mr. Goldsmith was not so keen on dropping the Bill. But by the same token he was in no rush to enact it. Similar proposals were in place in Australia and Canada. Mr. Goldsmith’s position was a “wait and see” one. The Bill remains on the Order Paper but so far it has been going nowhere.
In the meantime a miracle has occurred. Nothwithstanding the dire prognostications of MSM following the end of the PIJF they are still in business. TVNZ continues to broadcast. Radio NZ continues to broadcast. The NZ Herald and the Post are still delivered to mailboxes around the country. Digital editions proliferate. The end of MSM has not eventuated.
And one is compelled to ask whether or not we require a Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Is there such a compelling need for this piece of legislation which will provide a State based regime to support MSM, given that they are still in business.
According to Chris Hipkins, it would seem so. The headline in the Post for 15 September reads ‘The media is going to disappear’: Hipkins recommits to stalled news bill.”
Mr. Hipkins has committed to reviving the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which has been left languishing on Parliament’s order paper since 2024, and said the party will campaign on it at the election.
Surprise, surprise – the news has been welcomed by Stuff who has questioned why other political parties are unwilling to “stand up and protect our sovereignty.” That is an interesting take on the proposal.
Mr. Hipkins’ comments were revealing to say the least.
“What’s really obvious is that the media sector needs support from central government, and that needs to be, you know, updates to the legislation that is no longer fit for purpose in 2026 and beyond, and the minister has been unable to deliver just about anything in that space.”
Yet the media is still in business.
Sinead Boucher, owner of Stuff, predictably supports the proposal. She casts this as a power struggle. The Bill, she says, supports local publishers as they go up against the richest, most powerful companies there have ever been, so we can continue to do the work of holding the powerful to account.”
Boucher said without government legislation, there will continue to be fewer journalists telling local stories.
“We now have one political party prepared to stand up and protect our sovereignty - where are all of the other politicians on this issue?”
Once again there seems to be a disconnect with reality.
Put simply the Bill is no more and no less than a State subsidy for news media and given the unqualified support from Stuff, it is probably designed to encourage a compliant and complaisant media, ready to toe the Party line.
Media sovereignty? Really. Sounds to me more like bending the knee. Perhaps Ms Boucher and those who support this proposition should get out in the market place and do what is necessary to enhance public trust and confidence in the media. Participating in a State created subsidy system (some less charitably inclined might call it “welfare”) is not the way to do it.
PS: By way of observation the Ministry of Culture and Heritage still maintains a webpage about the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill – last updated 2 July 2024 – which sets out the anticipated steps that were to be taken to get the Bill through. Clearly, given that the information has not been changed, this arm of the bureaucracy has been relishing the resurrection of the Bill for some time.
David Harvey is a former District Court Judge and Mastermind champion, as well as an award winning writer who blogs at the substack site A Halflings View - Where this article was sourced
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.