Louis Houlbrooke
Campaigns Manager
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi – a former TVNZ reporter – has announced a new $55 million fund that NZ on Air will distribute to media companies for “public interest journalism”.

This is scary. Instead of following an Australian or Canadian model of tax credits, or giving taxpayers a tax deduction for media subscriptions, the Labour Government will have their hand-picked buddies at NZ on Air choose what media and stories get taxpayer support.

We responded to the announcement on Friday, in a statement that was (unsurprisingly?) not quoted by the media:

To claim NZ on Air is independent is laughable. It literally has the Prime Minister’s personal lawyer and debate coach sitting on its board. Conservative media that is critical of Wellington’s world view never gets a look in for funding.

Here at the Taxpayers’ Union, we are against corporate welfare in principle.  Officials picking and choosing which business to support with taxpayer money always results in perverse incentives. But the very worst corporate welfare is when it directly affects the media and political agenda. That’s what Kris Faafoi has designed.

This model has absolutely no safeguards for political neutrality or independence. The previous funding decisions by NZ on Air to reward leftwing campaign journalism speaks for itself. If the Government was serious about protecting media diversity, why aren’t half NZ on Air’s board appointed by the opposition?

The National Party should immediately commit to abolishing this fund, and following overseas models that rely on what people want to read, not what the Government of the day wants them to read.

We certainly look forward to those fair-minded people at Radio NZ’s Media Watch giving this issue a fair hearing.

There may or may not be some sarcasm in that last line.

Please share this BFD article so others can discover The BFD.

Any content that has been made publicly available is attributed to general as an author. This content does not necessarily reflect the views of the site or its editor. This content is offered for discussion...