What is our new public media organisation for?

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the position of the IoD unless explicitly stated.

Form vs function

The proposed Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (ANZPM) entity looks to have its governance cart before its horse, says Tiumalu Peter Fa’afiu MInstD.

“In governance, form follows function,” he says. “Spending $318 million to come up with the form, and then later on, somehow, finding the mission and purpose and the reason for its existence, seems a bit backwards to me.”

Fa’afiu is a former member of the New Zealand Media Council (previously known as the Press Council) and a former chair of the Pacific Media Network, owner of both traditional (radio stations) and non-traditional platforms. Among his current governance roles, he is global vice chair of the International Board of Amnesty International, which brings him into contact with many of the debates shaping the world’s multimedia environment.

To his eye, the proposed Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media organisation, a new Crown entity to be created by a merger of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand, is an answer looking for a question.

“I have always had a question around this work: what is the purpose?” Fa’afiu asks.

What is ANZPM?

The Aotearoa Public Media Bill had is first reading in July. It states that the new media organisation will deliver on a Charter that aims at a wide range of outcomes. These include contributing to:

• a strong and distinctive New Zealand identity
• a valued, visible and flourishing te reo Māori and tikanga Māori
• an inclusive, enriched and connected society
• a healthy, informed and participative democracy.

Fa’afiu questions whether ANZPM can deliver commercial content, public interest journalism, strengthen biculturalism, and improve social cohesion all while holding the government of the day to account in the media’s traditional role of the Fourth Estate.

An Amnesty perspective

Asked if a government-funded organisation can effectively hold a government to account, Fa’afiu has a succinct answer: “No.”

“Amnesty has 3,000 staff in 70 offices around the world. From what I read and see across those 70 offices – and the 130 countries that we are in – I would say the answer is ‘no’.  Its aims are too wide ranging, and I haven’t seen any media organisation achieve such diverse objectives unless it’s under complete State control.

“I’m fortunate to be on a global organisation that sees the changing face of the Fourth Estate, which is meant to represent the interests of people and be a protection in a well-functioning democracy, supporting respect for human rights, direct or representative democracy and multiparty political systems.

“Every year we have many journalists killed around the world. Many of them were targeted by governments.”

Fa’afiu says the pandemic has increased divisions among communities, which has put pressure on democracies globally including its cornerstone freedoms and functions. Even in countries that are thought of as “democratic”, the media is often a political actor, rather than a neutral party.

“Take India, for example. It is meant to be the largest ‘democracy’ in the world. For many reasons including its human rights record and control of media, it is not a democracy. The US is a mess. Then you have the likes of Singapore, which will always be a ‘guided’ democracy including a ‘guided’ media.

“Go back to the basic tenet of what the Fourth Estate is; to reflect the voice of the people. At this stage, I think this programme of work in New Zealand is moving towards a space where the voice of the people is mandated by the one who is funding the entity.”

He stops short of accusing the New Zealand government of manipulating the public broadcasting system but Fa’afiu’s warning is a reminder that a bad government, directly or indirectly, could abuse the system that is currently proposed.

Whither public media?

Conversations about the role of the Fourth Estate need to be had as part of a larger conversation about what makes a contemporary democratic system, Fa’afiu says. This means considering the rise of social media and tech corporations and the evolving nature of the media ecosystem.

The role of the traditional Fourth Estate – TV, newspapers and radio – in democratic systems is changing, he says.

“It’s interesting because this new organisation has taken so long to come to fruition – it has probably taken a decade – and 12 months in the media landscape is an eternity. NZ On Air reports show that TV is still dominant among a certain generation but in the 15-29 age group it is not. In the 30-40 age group, in three years it won’t be.”

“The question I have: is New Zealand too late? If we are catching up, are we going to settle for something that is less than ideal? Can a post-Covid society accept the new role of the State in public media?”

Governing ANZPM

The new public media entity will have a minimum of six, and a maximum of nine, directors appointed by the Minister of Broadcasting and Media, and the Minister of Finance.

For Fa’afiu, the main strategic challenge for that board will be deciding what ANZPM is supposed to prioritise.

“If it is prioritising content, then the government should say it is about content. But I’ll tell you now: you are going to lose the battle against global multimedia institutions.”

The board is likely to require ANZPM to deliver local content, he says. That will raise the challenge of defining what “local content” is.

“As an example, TVNZ today has a programme called FBoy Island. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. As a human society… if that is regarded as ‘local content’ then we are in dire straits. So the first questions is: what is local content?

“Then the second question is; how do you simplify the purpose of this new entity? Is it Fourth Estate, is it local content? Is it commercial? Is it about diversity, equity, and inclusion? If it is all of the above then you will have a complex multi-layered beast.”

The Minister of Finance will have a say in appointing board members. This reflects the commercial imperatives the board will have to manage, which raise further questions for the board about what type of content the organisation should seek to produce.

For Fa’afiu, the risk is that the new entity becomes a facsimile of international “content” media and is unable to deliver on the traditional role of holding the government to account. How can a board avoid that if it doesn’t have a clear statement of purpose, he asks?

UNESCO reported that 55 journalists were killed globally in 2021, the lowest death toll in over a decade. But it notes that impunity for those crimes is widespread. 

“They are the real journalists and reporters that we should not forget. They are the ones who are enhancing the Fourth Estate. It is not the ones who are creating content such as FBoy Island. Nobody should care about FBoy Island, but they label it as local content so that can satisfy some aspect of a government manifesto.” 

Mentoring for success

Peter Fa’afiu says he has been fortunate to have mentors throughout his career.

“A mentor supported me into a state-owned enterprise. I then became a general manager and a CEO of a Crown entity. While I was CEO, two experienced governors, Susan Huria and Paul Cook grabbed me and said it is about time you did some governance.”

His governance career began at a charity, the First Foundation, which he chaired for several years. He has subsequently embraced governance and in 2021/2022 was part of the IoD’s Mentoring for Diversity programme.

“It was excellent. I had a great mentor, an NZX director. We have a similar background. We are both practicing Catholics, which gives us a pou whenua, that standing point. Again, it’s about the purpose.  And of course I have had informal mentors over the years as well, so I’ve been very fortunate.”