Tag: Paul Goldsmith

RNZ budget cuts are more ideology than good sense

Why doesn’t the National Party and its coalition partners simply admit that they want Radio New Zealand to die a natural – or perhaps unnatural – death?

First, the National government under John Key froze RNZ funding for eight years. Then the coalition led by Christopher Luxon wasted little time to impose a $4.9 million annual reduction. Now the latest Budget imposes a further $1.4 million a year baseline cut. The broadcaster was already operating at a net deficit of $886,000 on last year’s accounts.

That $6 million cumulative annual cut is in addition to the effects of inflation, which has breached the 1-3 per cent target in the past two quarters and is expected to hit 4 per cent in the current quarter. Treasury predictions of a future rate fall fail to allow for a demagogue in the White House and a dictator in the Kremlin.

It is clear that National and its bed mates do not like the state-owned broadcaster, and Christopher Luxon installed a minister to reflect that attitude. Paul Goldsmith has been anything but a champion for RNZ and, as result, it has had no-one to fight its corner in Cabinet

RNZ is seen as a bunch of Lefties whose sole aim in life is to bring unjustified grief to the good people on the other side of the political spectrum who really do know how to run the country.

Of course, that is nonsense. Continue reading “RNZ budget cuts are more ideology than good sense” →

Goldsmith’s expectations and return of a fighter ace

There is no better clobbering machine for a government than the money mallet. So should RNZ prepare itself for another hammering from the coalition government when the 2026 Budget is announced in six weeks time?

In its Budget last year, the coalition gave the state-owned broadcaster a whack by announcing it would receive $18 million less funding over the next four years – an annual reduction of $4.6 million.

The government’s letter of expectation to RNZ last month criticised it for running up a $0.5 million deficit in 2024/5, increasing operating costs by 16 per cent, and employing more staff. Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith went on to say, in a tut-tutting tone, that there was “a vital, ongoing expectation that RNZ deliver improved performance”.

There was no recognition of the fact that the 2024/5 year ended only a month after the 2025 Budget cuts were announced and, since then, RNZ had cut its own budgets in line with its reduced funding, and had reduced staff by 5.3 per cent.

That makes Goldsmith’s letter curious to say the least and invites some reading between the lines.

What I see is a further tightening of the screws. His failure to recognise the moves that have been made since the 2025 budget cuts paints a picture of an organisation that has been profligate when, in fact, it has responded to the 2025 budget as it needed to do. Continue reading “Goldsmith’s expectations and return of a fighter ace” →

A grunt is worth a thousand words

Like a picture, a grunt can be worth a thousand words. The Minister for Media and Communications needed to do no more than make an annoyed sound to convince the chairman of Television New Zealand that the government was, well, annoyed.

Paul Goldsmith would surely have known that he needed to do no more than grunt when TVNZ board chair Andrew Barclay inexplicably raised a contentious One News item in a call he initiated with the minister. A low, short guttural sound said it all.

When interviewed about the call, Goldsmith pressed ‘play’ and stated: “He brought up the story in question, I did not make any comment, as it would be inappropriate for us to discuss editorial matters.”

It would not only be inappropriate, but it would also be unlawful. Section 28 of the Television New Zealand Act states that no shareholding minister (in this case Goldsmith) may give a direction in respect of the gathering or presentation of news or the preparation or presentation of any current affairs programme or content.

A grunt is not a direction. But it speaks volumes.

By now you’ll know what prompted it. A story, stating gang members now slightly outnumbered police, ran before a piece that might be seen as proof that the government’s ‘tough on crime’ policy was working. The later story said there were fewer victims of violent crime and serious repeat youth offending had fallen.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell did not like that – ‘annoyed’ is probably not strong enough – and took to Facebook to say so. A contrite TVNZ news executive rang Mitchell after seeing the post and a second, more positive story followed.

The post was not a direction. But it spoke volumes. Continue reading “A grunt is worth a thousand words” →

Media reform paper: The good, the not-so-good, and the ugly

I must start by shooing the elephants back to the waiting room: There is nothing in last week’s Media Reform discussion paper that will help to sustain New Zealand journalism, nor battle the scourge of transnational social media and search platforms.

I am not dismissing the pachyderms. Far from it, the survival – let alone its sustainability – of principled journalism in this country will confront politicians (and the communities they represent) much sooner than they realise. The looming crisis must be addressed. So, too, must the impact of the Facebooks and Googles of this world.

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill (a flawed attempt to extract some money from the platforms for news media) gets only a passing mention in the discussion paper and is clearly not intended to be part of its feedback loop. In any case, it is on hold and faces the wrath of the empowered tech oligarchs of the Trump Administration if resurrected.

So, for the moment, I will direct my attention to the content of the discussion paper released by Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith last Wednesday. It was an invitation for the public to have their say on a range of proposals affecting the wider media sector. You can access the discussion paper here .

Some of the proposals impact on news media, even if none of them actually addresses the core problems facing that portion of the sector. Each of the proposals in the paper is described as “high level” and the Coalition Government has yet to decide whether to implement any of them.

The discussion paper is devoted primarily to audio-video production and distribution. In many respects, it is a sensible response to increasingly anachronistic structures and regulation that were a product of the age of broadcasting.

There are five proposals in the paper. Continue reading “Media reform paper: The good, the not-so-good, and the ugly” →