Mediawatch: Ministers' 'Helpful' Handouts Go Multimedia
"Dear Prime Minister: the rise in crime and antisocial behaviour since COVID 19 struck is stark and confronting. We ask that you please take urgent action to support recovery and retain our reputation as a safe city and country."
That was the message of a full-page ad in the Weekend Herald placed by groups representing Auckland businesses, accusing the government of failing to act on past promises.
It was almost identical to a similar plea to a previous PM four years ago.
The following day the current PM was the target of another open letter advert in the Sunday papers. This one - placed by electricity retailers, users and Consumer NZ - called on him to fix "a broken energy sector".
That campaign also featured on TVNZ's Q+A show the same day, and in a front-page New Zealand Herald story the next day, the Minister of Energy - the aptly named Simon Watts - acknowledged our electricity market was "not functioning as well as it should".
But it's not the first time that he's been singled out by a lobbying campaign in public.
In June, pro-electrification group Rewiring NZ deployed AI animation to turn him into a superhero in ads that urged the public to make it an election issue - and it used a billboard near the Beehive to make sure that he didn't miss it.
TVNZ's Q+A said lobby groups like Federated Farmers and the Sensible Sentencing Trust had used the same spot for the same reason in other campaigns.
But do ministers targeted by these ads even notice them?
"Yes, I do. On the way to the airport, out of Parliament and down onto the quays there - it's pretty hard to not to," National's Chris Bishop told TVNZ's Whena Owen.
But are campaigns singling out individual politicians in public really effective? Most ministers are also lobbied behind the scenes by the same special interest groups. Being hectored publicly as well could make them more inclined to dig in rather than give in.
"Lobby groups have always taken out ads in newspapers. Now they're moving it to digital billboards which can be up longer and can be cheaper," said Dr Claire Robinson, the author of Promises, Promises: 80 years of Wooing New Zealand Voters.
"They can be located at traffic lights where ministerial cars have to stop. It's probably a really good way of getting something under the nose of a cabinet minister who may not open the newspaper anymore in the morning to see it there."
"If you want to lobby a minister now you've got not only print, radio and TV - and you've got your own channels, social media and even LinkedIn posts. There's a complete industry in being able to disseminate your messages, hoping that one of them is going to get through," Dr Robinson told Mediawatch.
Politicians going multimedia
Politicians aren't shy about getting their own messages out to the media either - and have specialised staff to do it.
Journalists' email inboxes are clogged with media statements from ministers and MPs hoping that their comments will make it into the media's coverage.
And now they are going multimedia too.
Last weekend reporters got video of the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio greeting Winston Peters, along with a media statement, after an ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Malaysia, which was attended by Peters.
NZ First posted that footage on Facebook on the day of the meeting - and then there was another version last Tuesday featuring Peters looking statesmanlike, with a TikTok-type soundtrack added.
The same day the streaming show Herald Now ran the Rubio footage during an interview with Peters.
Should media be wary of airing images hand-picked by ministers' staff?
"Yes, because by using it they're essentially using party generated pictures and feeding the beast - and exacerbating the rule-breaking of political parties," Dr Robinson told Mediawatch.
"Anything that is generated through party social media channels really needs to be stopped at the door.
"But at the same time the media loses all perspective when a PM or foreign minister meets a US president or Secretary of State. In 2014, photos of John Key playing golf with Obama were splashed across the newspapers . . . and nobody asked who took the photos back then."
MPs offering mp3s
Recently reporters have also received sound bites from ministers along with standard media statements.
Last week, Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee announced anti-money laundering law changes to make managing property easier through family trusts. The release included a minute-long MP3 clip of her reading out some of the key points - and 'video on request'.
In June her office also sent three separate sound bites about the 'Three Strikes' law coming into force.
Why send selected comments rather than allow reporters to record their own in a media conference in the usual way?
"Quite often we'll put out a media release, then we get all the phone calls looking for a grab. Why not give a grab ourselves?" McKee told Mediawatch.
RNZ's reporters in the press gallery in Parliament told Mediawatch they wouldn't use audio supplied under those circumstances.
"I believe it has been picked up by a couple of radio stations but I haven't actually tracked it myself."
ACT leader David Seymour has spoken about bypassing the media because they "abuse their power to edit" and refused to allow ACT's ministers to appear on RNZ's Morning Report. He's even appealed for funds from ACT supporters to fund his own online media channels.
Is McKee supplying audio comments as a substitute for interviews or media conferences at which she could be challenged or questioned by reporters?
"That's not the reason. It's actually realising that our media are quite stretched - for time and for people," McKee told Mediawatch.
On that issue of the family trusts and anti-money laundering laws, McKee was interviewed by RNZ news after sending out the statement and audio.
"I've always made myself available to the media. Should they want a sound grab directly, I'm happy to give it. We just thought that this would help the media, especially if they do have those tight deadlines. And of course some have less staff now."
"It doesn't take me long to add a couple of 10-second sound bites to the media releases we put out. And of course if it is being picked up then it is useful to some. So we'll continue to do it."
McKee says she hasn't tracked which media outlets have used the supplied audio.
Another minister handing out sound bites with media statements lately is Associate Minister of Transport James Meager.
"Now is the perfect time to look ahead toward building a resilient maritime economy for future generations," he said in mid-June, announcing pumped-up investment in navigation services for shipping.
One week later, Meager sent out three more sound bites, about a funding boost for lifesaving.
Meager credits his press secretary, former Newstalk ZB journalist Blake Benny.
"He came to me with the idea that if we include some audio grabs with our press releases, it makes the job of producers and radio reporters so much easier," Meager told Mediawatch.
If so, it might mean not having to answer questions about contestable claims made in statements - or confront contradictions?
"There's always the option for journalists who want to ring up and press on some of the details in those press releases. I'm always happy to take interviews. The only time I decline would be if it's outside my portfolio or if I literally can't do them."
Few ministers ever issue statements on matters outside their portfolio - and Meager declined to say which outlets had broadcast his recorded statements.
More to come?
Before he became an MP, he set up an online archive of political ads - electionads.org.nz - with partner Dr Ashley Murchison, an expert who wrote a PhD about responses to political ads.
Some of Nicole McKee's recent media statements said video was available on request as well. Meager doesn't offer that - yet.
"But if we had the resources and that made people's lives easier then it might be something that we look into. I used to work as a press secretary and I think I wish I'd been smart enough to think of this six years ago," he told Mediawatch.
But he says he and other ministers will be offering the media more multimedia stuff in future.
"I'm doing a couple (of soundbites) this weekend for a couple of announcements we're making in the top of the South so hopefully they'll be picked up. In the weekend when staffing levels are lower, that might be a little bit helpful too."
Exploiting a week spot
"Political parties have always used new technology to try and get their messages across - even going back to Michael Joseph Savage in 1938 when he used film, which was a new technology back then," Dr Claire Robinson told Mediawatch.
"I think that the politicians hope that the time-poor media will just insert (the content) into coverage. But there's something deeper going on here because they're exploiting the whopping decline in journalism employment," said Dr Robinson, who is also the current chief of Toi Mai / the Workforce Development Council, which published a development plan for journalism in 2024.
"That decline is because of government-enabled inaction or policies that have seen that advertising money that used to sustain news media organisations go offshore. In the old days (they) would have more scrutiny and political parties are now exploiting that gap and creating their own media."
Bending the rules for funding the ads
In a recent piece for The Post, Dr Robinson said the public pays for political parties' digital media messaging - but shouldn't be paying for some of it.
"The rules are really clear. You can only electioneer using public funds in the three months prior to an election campaign. The rest of the time parties are enabled to create information, but not to electioneer with social media," Dr Robinson told Mediawatch.
She says the NZ First party publishing footage of Winston Peters in Malaysia as foreign minister on social media is an example of the problem.
"It has their party logo and is using Peters' role in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs for party purposes. It doesn't say 'Vote for NZ First' but the boundaries are blurred. It is really saying our leader is a great leader because he can create amazing relationships with people."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
'A ray of sunshine': NZ litigants spurred on by international climate ruling
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A landmark ruling by the United Nations' highest court puts further pressure on the New Zealand government over a large hole in its climate plans, a group of climate lawyers say. Another litigant taking on big polluters calls it a "a ray of sunshine" - while the climate minister will only say it's "long and complicated". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found overnight that countries can be responsible for paying reparations for damage caused by their greenhouse gases. It also said governments are legally obliged to set climate targets that are consistent with keeping temperatures within 1.5C (not 2C) and that they must "pursue measures capable of achieving" those goals. The decision said states could be in breach of international law for failing to address fossil fuel consumption, granting fossil fuel exploration licenses, and providing fossil fuel subsidies, something the New Zealand government is doing with its $200 million fund for drilling . New Zealand is currently on track to be over 80 million tonnes of emissions short of meeting its 2030 climate target, because the coalition government has broken with plans by previous governments to meet the target largely by buying carbon credits from overseas. The coalition has been told there is no feasible way to meet the target purely inside this country, without some kind of offshore deal. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has acknowledged that this is true, he has so far ducked making any public commitment to closing any of the necessary deals beyond "exploring options". At times, ministers have explicitly said the government wouldn't spend money offshore to meet the target, despite officials warning them that their inability to explain how New Zealand would close the gap would lead to overseas scrutiny. Jessica Palairet, executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action, said the international ruling confirmed that paying lip service to international climate targets wasn't enough. Under the Paris Agreement, countries' targets are known as NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions. The first ones run from 2021-2030, and the second set from 2031-2035. "The judgment confirms that New Zealand can't just say it hopes it will meet the NDC and that it's committed to our targets, it has to take real and demonstrable steps towards meeting it, it has to demonstrate that intent to meet it. The judgment clarifies that, and I think in the face of an 89 million tonne hole, there are real questions about whether or not we're doing that," she said. "When we made the NDC commitment in the first place, we had a plan for how we were going to meet the gap, but the government is changing course and the ICJ starkly brings into focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said the ruling also sharpened questions over whether New Zealand's second Paris Agreement target , out to 2035 was aligned with curtailing heating within 1.5C. Watts has defended the new target of 51-55 percent reductions by 2035, saying the cuts were difficult to achieve and met the definition of ambition, but several experts - and independent advice - disagreed. "There have been real questions raised about whether our second NDC is 1.5 degrees aligned," Palairet said. "Put it this way, Simon Watts specially asked officials for the second NDC to align with domestic emissions budgets, to avoid having to pay offshore mitigation." "The problem is that our domestic emissions budgets are set according to a test that's different to the where that leaves us is we have an NDC that likely isn't 1.5 degrees-aligned likely doesn't reflect highest possible ambition and likely doesn't reflect our fair share," she said. "The ICJ opinion really draws into sharp focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said court's opinion that 1.5C was a binding target could also have implications for the government's plans to lower the country's methane target. The coalition has been considering lowering the goal for methane reductions from between a 24 and 47 per cent by 2050 to between 14 and 24 percent. "The ICJ opinion has crystalised 1.5C as the target states have to work towards," Palairet said. "The government is considering reducing our methane target to 14 percent," she said. "The problem is that government's own independent expert advisory panel said that a 14 percent target was consistent with 2C, so I think there's a real question if New Zealand reduces its methane target to 14 percent, whether that's consistent with international law." Palairet said the government's gas and oil exploration subsidies and backtracking on the ban on new offshore exploration might also be incompatible the court's statements. "The ICJ had really strong statements on those kind of subsidies and decisions being in breach of international legal obligations." "It's advisory only, it's non-binding but it is really authoritative and it holds significant legal and moral authority and it's very likely going to be used in court cases all around the world, including New Zealand court cases." That might include Lawyers' for Climate Action's existing judicial review against Watts, which argues there are glaring holes in the country's emissions reduction plans. The world's top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification. It also said states were obliged to cooperate to solve climate change. Asked to comment on the ruling, Watts sent a written statement noting the advisory opinion had been issued. "Climate change is an important issue in our region, and we know our Pacific Island neighbours are following this development closely," it said. "This is a long, complicated opinion, and New Zealand will study it carefully before commenting on the substance." Iwi climate leader Mike Smith said environmental lawyers were already discussing how to use the landmark ruling in New Zealand. Smith won the right in the Supreme Court last year to sue seven companies - including Z Energy, Genesis Energy, NZ Steel and Fonterra - for their role in causing climate change. He said the findings by the international court overnight offered hope in a time of worsening climate damage. "In all of that darkness this is a ray of sunshine, this is a beacon, it gives us hope that we can leverage these decisions and effect change," he said. "It strengthens [my case] in the sense that the decision confirmed that states are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and they must not support or subsidise emissions-intensive activities." "I've been talking to the lawyers from ELI, the Environmental Law Initiative, and they are all putting their minds to what falls out the bottom of this opinion and what opportunities are there now to bring further proceedings against the government."
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Government orders Sport NZ to scrap transgender inclusive community sport guidelines
Minister for Sport and Recreation Mark Mitchell. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Sport NZ is ditching its guidelines for the inclusion of transgender people in community sport, after direction from the government. It has also removed the document, which the government originally asked it to review and update, from its website. Labour has labelled the decision a step backwards, and is questioning why the position changed from updating the principles to removing them entirely. First published in 2022, the document asked sporting bodies to consider a set of "guiding principles" to make participating in community sport more inclusive for transgender people . But last October, then-minister for sport Chris Bishop said sporting bodies were "grappling with a tricky issue," and asked Sport NZ to review and update the principles . Former Sport and Recreation Minister Chris Bishop. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii National's coalition with New Zealand First contains a commitment to "ensure publicly funded sporting bodies support fair competition that is not compromised by rules relating to gender". In 2023, New Zealand First campaigned on making any publicly funded sporting body "that does not have an exclusive biological female category, where ordinarily appropriate" ineligible for public funding. Announcing the review, Bishop said the principles did "not reflect legitimate community expectations that sport at a community level should not just be focused on diversity, inclusion, and equity, but also prioritise fairness and safety". The completed review was handed over to Bishop's successor Mark Mitchell. Rather than an update, the government has now told Sport NZ to stop all work on the guiding principles and remove them altogether. "After considering the review, the government has informed Sport NZ that it should not be involved in publishing guidelines related to gender in sport," said Sport NZ chief executive Raelene Castle. "Sporting organisations will continue to make their own decisions on the participation of transgender people in community sport and there are a range of expert organisations that can provide support," she said. Sport NZ chief executive Raelene Castle. Photo: Photosport / Andrew Cornaga Earlier this month, the Save Women's Sport Australasia group published an open letter to Mitchell, urging him to "dump" the guidelines. "Their continued existence creates unnecessary conflict for national sporting bodies, particularly those reliant on Sport NZ funding, who may feel pressured to adopt these guidelines despite their misalignment with international federation policies," the letter said. The group previously met with Bishop and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters , in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the review. Labour's rainbow issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert said removing the principles was a step backwards, and the government was kicking people while they were down. "It's about enabling organisations to keep people safe, to support people, and most of all create inclusive environments. But here we have the government removing and excluding people from playing sport, and that's not acceptable," he said. He said there was no evidence for removing the guidelines, and Sport NZ had not raised any issues with them. "Sport NZ has always advocated for the inclusion of trans people in sport, no matter what age they are. We want people to be involved, we want all New Zealanders to be playing sport. Most of all, we don't want people excluded and I don't think that's what New Zealanders expect either." He questioned whether there was a "political trade-off" with New Zealand First in order to remove the principles, instead of update them. "Sport NZ, they did want inclusivity, and I absolutely agree with that. Why has that position changed?" Labour's rainbow issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver The "overarching principle" of the document was inclusion. "Every New Zealander has the right to participate in Sport and to be treated with respect, empathy and positive regard. Transgender people can take part in sports in the gender they identify with," the document said. The guiding principles were based around: Each principle had its own series of suggestions, such as providing private spaces in bathrooms, using gender-inclusive language, and establishing robust anti-harassment codes of conduct. The principles were not mandatory and were not rules or criteria, as Sport NZ noted it would not be possible to provide a one-size-fits-all approach across every code. The guiding principles did have a section on safety, noting "the gender identity of a player does not create a danger or risk to safety" and "transgender players, as with all cisgender players, are diverse and varied in their height, weight, strength and stamina". It said mismatches or significant disparities may contribute a risk to safety, depending on the sport, but various sports had age and weight restrictions to reduce mismatches or any subsequent injuries that may arise. RNZ has approached Mark Mitchell for comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
1News
a day ago
- 1News
'Many' link Govt's emergency housing policy to homelessness rise
Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka has acknowledged reports of rising homelessness but says it's "not just down to one thing" as he defends the Government's tougher rules for emergency housing. Potaka was grilled on the issue on Q+A, where he conceded the changes to increase scrutiny for emergency housing support applicants have been "reported by many" as contributing to making more people homeless. When asked directly whether the policy changes had contributed to leaving more people homeless, the minister said: "That's a very strong view that many people have." But Potaka refused to make that connection himself, instead attributing claims of a link to "anecdotal" reports and what others had reported. Person helps person up (file image). (Source: ADVERTISEMENT "There's a range of factors that influence [homelessness], and the changes to the emergency housing policy have been reported by many people as being a contributor." The Government introduced tougher eligibility for emergency housing last year, including scrutiny of whether people had "unreasonably contributed" to their own housing need. When interviewer Jack Tame suggested the policy could've "put more people on the street", Potaka said: "Those are the things that we have acknowledged that there are some challenges, and we are responding to those with agility." His office later clarified to Q+A this did not mean the Government was actively considering changing emergency housing settings. Reacting to the minister's interview, the Greens said he was "refusing to take any accountability" for the outcomes of the harsher policies. Govt's policies 'very, very harsh', providers tell minister Speaking to Q+A, the minister confirmed an updated briefing on homelessness from the Housing and Urban Development Ministry had found rough sleeping had increased "in some areas". He insisted the rises may be down to a range of factors. ADVERTISEMENT Tougher emergency housing rules and two-strike warning policy for tenants has meant more young people on the streets, says charities. (Source: 1News) Potaka said the latest insights briefing he had received showed "there's a whole range of potential causes, including that, but a whole range of other things", such as mental health, addiction, cost of living, and other physical health issues. "It does recognise, throughout the country, there are community housing providers [and] councils who are saying, hey, there's a big, big challenge with homelessness." Some providers had described the emergency housing policy as "harsh", Potaka said. "They report that the emergency housing policy is very, very harsh. That's what some of the anecdotal reports are saying." The associate minister said he would release the homelessness insights report "soon", but did not provide a specific timeframe. Potaka maintained there were multiple factors behind rising homelessness: "What they're saying is we've got a whole range of causes." Labour has been pressuring the Government over the report earlier this week. ADVERTISEMENT The senior minister spoke to Q+A's Jack Tame. (Source: Q and A) Housing Minister Chris Bishop denied that homelessness and rough sleeping were rising as a result of the Government's changes in a Q+A interview in March. 'Refusing to take responsibility' - Greens on interview Reacting to Potaka's interview, the Greens' housing spokesperson Tamatha Paul said the Government needed to "admit" that its policy was increasing homelessness. "This Government has cut back on public housing, slashed emergency housing access, and is refusing to take any accountability or responsibility for the impact this is having on the rising rates of people being forced to live on the streets, in tents and in cars." The coalition rolled out changes for emergency housing eligibility in early to mid-last year, including a tougher approach to allowing people into homes in the first place. People seeking support would face greater scrutiny, more requirements for information, and to prove they hadn't themselves "contributed" to their needs for emergency housing. ADVERTISEMENT At the time, officials warned the Government that the changes risked putting more people into situations of rough sleeping. Q+A's Whena Owen takes a look at changes to emergency housing and public housing policy. (Source: 1News) "Making these changes ahead of significant increases to the supply of affordable housing and more preventative wraparound supports does create a risk of increased levels of rough sleeping, people living in cars and overcrowding," they told ministers at the time. Target met but concerns remain Potaka defended the policy changes, saying the Government had also met its target to reduce emergency housing numbers by 75%. The policy intended to move people from emergency housing facilities, such as motels, to more stable housing. "We set up a target. That target was to reduce the number of whānau and households living in emergency housing. We've reached the target, but we've also recognised there are still some challenges and some issues," he said. The associate minister said tracking of people leaving emergency housing had improved, with the Government now knowing where "85-86%" of people went. ADVERTISEMENT "When we came into administration, the teams knew where around 50% of people were going. Now we know that there is about 85-86% of where people are going. In my view, that's actually good progress," he said. Govt not actively considering changes to tougher rules In a subsequent statement, the associate minister clarified to Q+A that this did not mean changes were coming to the Government's policy on emergency housing. "Emergency housing remains available for those in genuine need, and the causes of homelessness are not just about housing," a spokesperson for Potaka said. "A long-term response to the complexities requires consideration across multiple portfolios, for example helping people to face physical or mental health and addictions challenges, they might need help learning financial skills like budgeting, or help connecting and working with support services. "In the housing portfolio, $500 million in funding goes into programmes to help people, for example through the Housing First programme. "To help increase the amount of affordable housing, Budget 2024 allocated $140 million for 1500 new social housing places to be operated by community housing providers. ADVERTISEMENT "The Government has also accelerated $200 million into Māori housing projects across the country that will enable the delivery of 400 affordable rentals in high-need areas." In his Q+A interview, Potaka was also questioned about his conservation portfolio and how changes to smoking laws would affect Māori. For the full interview, watch the video above Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
