
Regional journalism boost at RNZ expense: ‘The bleeding hasn't stopped'
Pipped at the post for community newspaper of the year at this month's Voyager Media Awards, Ashburton Guardian managing editor Daryl Holden consoled himself by chatting with Media Minister Paul Goldsmith.
He badgered the minister about the open justice scheme, under which media giant NZME was granted $3 million in 2021 for a dozen specialist court and legal affairs journalists, spanning from Whangārei to Christchurch, as well as editors. The scheme's partners included Otago-based Allied Press, which ran a rival community paper in Ashburton.
'I said how our area and the central South Island, and probably through to the West Coast, had missed out with the existing open justice system,' said Holden, who co-owns the paper. 'It was a little bit frustrating.'
Fast-forward to Thursday's Budget, and Goldsmith announced he was expanding the open justice team, and local democracy reporting (LDR), which has 16 publicly funded journos in newsrooms, including the Ashburton Guardian, to cover local councils.
'Well, there you go,' Holden said, post-Budget, with Mid Canterbury understatement.
'We were always confident that the LDR scheme would continue, and that's all the noise we'd heard about it. But the extension of the open justice system, and particularly that emphasis in the press release about regional journalism, that is a surprise, and that is fantastic news for a newsroom like us.
'It can be monumental if we've got sort of funding to be able to fill gaps in our news coverage.'
One of the biggest complaints Holden heard about the Guardian before he started in March 2021 was the lack of court coverage. He was asked: Is it too controversial?
'We just couldn't afford to hire anyone,' he said. 'Having that funding to be able to do that is important for democracy. It shows if you do something really wrong, that perhaps it could get covered in the newspaper to show people that democracy is working.'
The Government announced $6.4m in new funding, over four years, to boost council, court, and community reporting. 'It will get funding into regional newsrooms so that more local frontline journalists can report on the things that matter to their audiences,' Goldsmith said in a statement.
'If NZME is struggling, and if Stuff is struggling, it doesn't take Einstein to work out that smaller community newspapers must also be doing it tough.' Daryl Holden, Ashburton Guardian
Gavin Ellis, the former NZ Herald editor-in-chief, who reviewed the open justice and LDR schemes for the previous government in 2023, said: 'That's a good move, and I think it'll be generally applauded.'
There was less cheering, perhaps, for Goldsmith's other announcement – cutting state broadcaster RNZ's annual budget by 7 percent, or $4.6m a year, to $62.3m.
'Government-funded media must deliver the same efficiency and value-for-money as the rest of the public sector,' the minister said, while noting RNZ's annual budget increased $7.3m in 2020, and $25.7m in 2023.
The cuts were imposed over four years, for a total of $18.4m.
Conan Young is a journalism lecturer at University of Canterbury, who worked for RNZ from 2004 till 2023. His last role there was as local democracy reporting editor.
He said the broadcaster spent some of its new money on hiring top journos, like national crime correspondent Sam Sherwood, and strengthening its investigative team. 'You'd certainly say their journalism is a lot more muscular.'
But the full benefits were yet to flow through, Young said. 'For RNZ to be on the brink of something quite special and really important, given the state of newsrooms around the rest of the country, to hear about this huge funding cut is really gutting, not just for RNZ, but for journalism in general.'
As the MediaRoom column reported last year, RNZ has experienced an online surge, with its monthly unique readers skyrocketing from 422,000 in September 2018 to 1.56m in August 2024.
But big media companies – struggling because overseas-owned digital platforms are hoovering up advertising revenue – can see RNZ as a subsidised rival, taking away their online audience.
'There might not be any love lost there,' Young said. Yet RNZ has become a news distributor akin to the now-dead NZ Press Association, funneling free copy to those who want it, including its supposed rivals.
In the context of the Government's overall budget, $18.4m is tiny, he said, but it's a huge cut for RNZ, constraining its ability to invest in journalism.
'It seems incredibly mean-spirited, and almost not really reading the room, in terms of where media is at the moment,' Young said. 'There are so many things the Government could be doing to actually make a difference, such as getting tech platforms to actually pay their fair share for the content that they use to bring in their audiences.'
The phrase mean-spirited might conjure up memories of last month's abrasive performance on RNZ's Morning Report programme by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who told host Corin Dann: 'The fact is, you're paid for by the taxpayer and sooner or later we're going to cut that water off, too, because you're an abuse on the taxpayer.'
After Thursday's Budget, the Act Party trumpeted the cuts in a newsletter to supporters, saying: 'Additional savings have been found in all parts of government: from cuts to 'bilingual cities', more debt collection from legal aid recipients, and a reduction in funding for RNZ.'
Ellis, the former NZ Herald news boss, said there may be a political motive behind the RNZ funding cut – 'not by National but by the other coalition partners, I don't know'.
Peter Thompson, associate professor in media and communications at Victoria University of Wellington, is vice chair of the advocacy charity Better Public Media.
He said the cut 'looks a little bit like political retribution'. 'I'd really like to believe that's not the case but, really, National is showing its true ideological colours. It really doesn't seem to like public media.'
A responsible Budget, as the Government tried to paint it, wouldn't have undermined public media when the industry was in crisis, he said.
To muddy the waters somewhat, Young, the university lecturer, doubted Peters had a hand in the funding cut. 'Everybody knows that he actually loves the media, and he would love nothing more than to come on Morning Report and be interviewed – in fact he does, quite regularly.'
(Newsroom asked Peters' office for comment on Thursday evening.)
Goldsmith, the Media Minister, told Newsroom: 'Funding decisions are made by Cabinet as part of the usual annual Budget process. Budget decisions are not made by individual ministers.'
Despite RNZ 'operating in a period of tightened fiscal constraint' – which, several commentators said, was actually a political choice – Goldsmith expected the public service broadcaster to improve audience reach, trust and transparency.
Ellis responded: 'It's rather counterintuitive to think that you could do that by cutting budgets.'
The broadcaster would try to protect its newsroom, he believed, but given its tight budgets, and little wiggle room, it may have no choice but to leave vacancies unfilled. 'Over the four years that this is supposed to be enforced, it will have the effect of cutting their newsroom resources.'
Young, of the University of Canterbury, said he would be surprised if journalist jobs were lost as a result of the cuts.
In a statement, RNZ board chair Jim Mather said: 'While we are naturally disappointed with a funding reduction, we acknowledge the Government's fiscal challenges at present as well as the headwinds affecting the wider media sector. We will now carefully review our plans to ensure we continue to strengthen trust with audiences and provide outstanding public media that matters for New Zealanders.'
Merja Myllylahti, a senior lecturer at the AUT research centre for journalism, media and democracy, co-authored the recently released Trust in News report, in which RNZ was perceived as the country's most trusted brand.
While the minister demanded value for money, RNZ was already showing value, Myllylahti said. 'It's expanding online quite rapidly, and it has become a major news hub for the online news as well. Personally, I feel it's not the right time to cut [funding].'
When budgets were cut, spending reduced, and that hit newsrooms, she said. 'Normally it's journalism and journalists who suffer.'
She believed more should be invested in public service journalism.
In Finland, where Myllylahti is from, the public broadcaster, Yle, employed 3000 staff and had an annual budget of about €600m ($NZ1.15b), for a country of about 5.6 million people. Right now, however, its funding is being cut, and hundreds of jobs might go.
Lara Greaves, an associate professor of politics at Victoria University of Wellington, said cuts to RNZ, or media funding in general, stretched already thin resources, to the benefit of politicians.
But it wasn't just media funding being chopped. Greaves noted cuts to research and academia, including 'those who criticise the Government as a routine part of a healthy democracy'. 'Taken together, this is all quite worrying.'
Thompson, of Better Public Media, said the $18.4m cut to RNZ should be viewed in the context of RNZ's funding freeze under John Key's National-led government.
'Much of the extra funds that it received under Labour was really putting right a much, much longer structural problem.'
For years, Better Public Media has been advocating for the Government to impose a small levy on digital services, expanding the telecommunications levy. For example, Thompson said, if there was a 1 percent levy on roughly $2 billion of digital advertising that would generate $20m a year for journalism.
Thompson said strong public media supported democracy, and an informed public, by creating a media entity not beholden to advertisers and mass audiences. Publicly funded media could fill gaps not covered by struggling commercial businesses.
One supposed solution to the industry's funding woes was Labour's Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, but Thompson preferred the levy model.
It's hard to predict the Government's next move.
While in opposition, the National Party called Labour's bill a shakedown, but then, in July last year, Goldsmith said the coalition would make changes and pass it by the end of the year.
Except it didn't. Progress on the bill was paused before Christmas.
On Thursday, Goldsmith said 'modern legislation' would ensure the media sector was financially sustainable for years to come. 'I am considering submissions from the recent consultation on media reform.' More information would be released 'in the coming months'.
Let's return to Ashburton Guardian's Daryl Holden, who was relishing the prospect of applying to NZ on Air for more funding.
Last year, he told Parliament's economic development, science and innovation committee the media industry was bleeding to death.
Since then, TV3's Newshub closed its newsroom (Stuff now provides its bulletin), and there's been a wave of newspaper closures, and layoffs.
'The bleeding hasn't stopped,' Holden said, after the Budget. 'Let's put it like this – if NZME is struggling, and if Stuff is struggling, it doesn't take Einstein to work out that smaller community newspapers must also be doing it tough.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
All Blacks 2025: NZ rugby coach Scott Robertson's revolution enters decisive stage
The All Blacks' story has certainly followed a revolutionary path in that there was a seismic cleanout of personnel after the 2023 World Cup – a grand toppling of the previous regime that felt brutal and public in the way so many lost their jobs, and lost them while they were still in them. And then came the period of unrest, the uncertainty in the aftermath of the blood-letting that saw Robertson suffer upheaval in his own coaching team after assistant Leon MacDonald quit after five tests. It saw Robertson pick an unwinnable fight with his employer by regularly protesting existing All Blacks' eligibility policies and advocating for change. Then in the final test of the year there was TJ Perenara's politicised haka, which caused significant angst and upset among the senior playing group. There was also an at-times bitter and toxic battle between warring factions trying to amend New Zealand Rugby's constitution to change the way directors were appointed. Damian McKenzie was given sporadic opportunities at first five-eighths last year. Photo / Photosport Last year was turbulent, and there was an air of volatility about the All Blacks in their chop-and-change selections (Robertson was unable to commit to Damian McKenzie as chief playmaker), their up-and-down performances, and their failure to deliver a transformational brand of rugby that was cohesive and enlightened. If there was a revolutionary tactical blueprint, a bright new vision for how players are presented to the public, and an intent to unearth a cohort of emerging superstars, it never materialised amid the constant upheaval. But 2025 should be the year that stage two of the revolution begins. Robertson now has his coaching team set up how he wants, and with MacDonald gone there is no longer ambiguity about the axis of power and who is playing Trotsky to his Lenin. Scott Robertson and Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. Photos / Getty Images; Supplied Graphic / Herald This is the Robertson-Scott Hansen regime and, despite the clamouring for the captaincy to be shifted to Ardie Savea, Scott Barrett is the third member of the inner sanctum. The power base has been established inside the team, and so too has it been fortified within NZR. In February, a significantly more competent and focused board of directors, led by former All Blacks captain David Kirk, took their seats. They made their presence immediately felt by getting chief executive Mark Robinson to publicly align Robertson with the eligibility policy. This effectively ended what was increasingly being seen as less of a broadly principled quest to update a no longer fit-for-purpose law regime, and more a thinly disguised attempt to bend the rules to select the Japan-based Richie Mo'unga. The greater stability in the wider rugby landscape and the confidence that may have grown within Robertson and his coaching team because of that greater stability could potentially see stage two of the revolution begin with a more radical lens applied to selection this year. Super Rugby has shifted into the playoffs to provide a more intense environment. Perhaps Robertson will be using these next few weeks to decide whether there is room in his 35-man squad for new players, and indeed whether there are some potential unexpected twists in the way some already identified talents could be utilised. Top of the list as a possible new cap will be Chiefs loose forward Simon Parker, whose work this season has been unmissable. He may well be the thundering big lump the All Blacks are constantly hunting for. At 1.97m and 117kg, he's a unique beast in New Zealand. Athletes of these dimensions roam all over Europe, but in New Zealand it is rare to find someone of this size capable of playing in the back-row and able to live with the high-paced, aerobic demands of Super Rugby. Parker may be the player the All Blacks can develop into becoming their version of South Africa's Pieter-Steph du Toit – a feat which would effectively be revolutionary in itself. As a positional twist, perhaps these next few weeks could provide reason for Robertson to double down on using Ruben Love as a wing in the test arena. The 24-year-old won his solitary cap playing on the right wing last year (after running at fullback for the Hurricanes) and has this season shown himself to be a more than capable first five-eighths. Is Love the sort of multi-skilled all-rounder the All Blacks could park in the No 14 jersey to replace the departing Mark Tele'a and give themselves three play-makers on the field at any one time? As revolutionary concepts go, having two natural No 10s in the back three is as radical as they come and would align strongly with Robertson's desire to have his All Blacks play a sweeping style of rugby based on the accuracy of their pass and catch. The revolution did begin last year, just not in the way everyone expected or wanted. But this year, the people need to see what they thought they were going to get in 2024 – a new-look All Blacks team that justified the decision to topple the previous regime. Gregor Paul is one of New Zealand's most respected rugby writers and columnists. He has won multiple awards for journalism and has written several books about sport.

1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
'Intensification on steroids': Nelson housing plan rejected
Nelson's ability to provide enough homes over the next 30 years is now uncertain after the city council's housing density plans were largely rejected. For almost two years, Nelson City Council has been working on Plan Change 29 – a controversial overhaul of its planning rules to make it easier to build high-density housing across the city. But many of the council's goals have since fallen over after the hearing panel that oversaw the process recommended that most of the plan change's proposals be rejected. Nelson's elected members accepted the panel's recommendation today which saw many elements of the plan formally scrapped. Opposition to the plan was widespread and vocal as submitters sought to protect their sunlight access, and councillors' commentaries often declared the result a win for residents. ADVERTISEMENT Mayor Nick Smith said the council had overreached by proposing "intensification on steroids". (Source: LDR / Max Frethey) Mayor Nick Smith described the plan as 'intensification on steroids' and said the council needed to learn from the 'strong kickback' from the public and engage earlier with the community in the future. Included in the scrapped measures were residential zones and overlays that would have allowed buildings of up to six storeys to be built on some sites without a resource consent. The changes that weren't rejected will focus intensification in the inner city and city fringe, and most natural hazard provisions were also kept. Councillor Pete Rainey said the changes for the central city were a 'really positive step in the right direction' but added that 'the issues facing the city are not going to go away. We need to do something about them'. More than 1200 households in need of affordable housing – survey The council's original proposal was deeply unpopular, with hundreds gathering to oppose the plan in September 2023. (Source: LDR / Max Frethey) ADVERTISEMENT A recent Nelson Tasman Housing Trust survey showed that 1222 households in the region were currently in need of affordable housing. Under the council's revised planning rules which have now largely been rejected, the number of commercially feasible dwellings over the next 30 years was expected to climb by 23,450 for attached homes and 6825 for detached dwellings. But the current planning rules only enabled 6500 attached and 3175 detached dwellings over the same period. Now that most of the new rules have been rejected, council staff were unsure how many extra dwellings would be feasible. Even though the changes for the inner city and city fringe were approved, they're only expected to provide 'relatively modest' boost for capacity. Housing demand was still expected to be met until 2027, but council staff were uncertain if the limited changes agreed to today would be able to meet Nelson's housing need over the next 30 years. The council had originally proposed the planning changes to adequately cater for growth as required by the 2020 National Policy Statement on Urban Development. ADVERTISEMENT However, the hearing panel's recommendation to reject large parts of the council's plan change essentially boiled down to the proposal not adequately considering urban form and amenity value provisions that were outlined in the council's own 1997 regional policy statement. That determination from the panel would be embarrassing for the council as it had paused work on updating its regional policy statement in 2021, which had been drafted and would have likely allowed many of the intensification proposals to go ahead. The pause was attributed to ongoing uncertainty from central government about Resource Management Act reform. Not the end of intensification Deputy mayor Rohan O'Neill-Stevens said the city's intensification didn't end with the Plan Change 29 process. (Source: LDR / Max Frethey ) Several councillors said the fault lay with the elected members of the current and previous councils who pushed on with the process despite the uncertainty. Smith added that the process had shown the 'fundamental problem' of the Resource Management Act, which needed to be reformed. ADVERTISEMENT 'Despite hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment, and some of the very best experts in the RMA… we've been tripped up by provisions that date back to 1997.' But despite the hurdles, elected members were clear that today's rejection of these specific higher-density zones was not the end of intensification in Nelson. The region's future development strategy expects about 78% of Nelson's long-term growth to be accommodated by intensification. 'We need to engage strongly with our community to shape future work, whilst acknowledging that status quo is not a static option,' said deputy mayor Rohan O'Neill-Stevens. 'Together, we can find a way forward that we can all be proud of.' The decisions are expected to be formally notified to the public on Tuesday, starting a 30-working day period where appeals can be lodged to the Environment Court. Approved changes: ADVERTISEMENT Increased building heights and revised development standards for the inner city and city fringe to enable greater residential and commercial development Updated flood, fault, and liquefaction hazard overlays and associated rules New provisions allowing papakāinga development within the inner city and suburban commercial zones Amended provisions for the Manuka St hospital site to provide opportunities to enable the on-going operation of the facility Rezoning of the St Vincent and Vanguard St industrial area from industrial to inner city fringe to allow more diverse and intensive land uses in this key location. Rejected changes: The general, medium, and high-density residential zones and their related rules for housing development Increased building heights in suburban commercial areas Most heritage changes, including the removal of the Church Hill view shaft The state highway noise overlay The slope hazard overlays and its associated rules. Local Democracy Reporting is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air


Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'