Paul Goldsmith: Media Minister addresses the risks that come with introducing the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill

The Media Minister says there is a risk digital platforms will retaliate if they're forced to pay to use New Zealand news content.

Paul Goldsmith has confirmed the Government is pursuing an amended version of Labour's Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

It aims to ensure internet giants like Facebook and Google pay local media companies for using their work.

Goldsmith says some platforms have been clear they're not keen on the bill.

"It is quite a tricky area, but we think on balance - it's worth having this as a backstop just to encourage those conversations to happen."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good afternoon. The government has today announced how it's going
to help save the struggling media industry. It's going to
go back to the old plan force the likes of
Google and Meta to pay news media for content that
they use through the Fair Digital Bargaining Bill. Now there's
a lifeline for Shortland Street. It will get a screen
production rebate for local news local shows rather and advertising
restrictions on the TV advertisers and TV on Sundays and

(00:22):
public holidays will also be removed. The Broadcasting Minister, Paul
Goldsmith is with me now, Hey Paul.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Good morning, good afternoon. How are you going.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
I'm very well, thank you. Now, Paul, once you do this,
is Facebook going to ban news content here in New
Zealand like they have in Canada.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Yeah, there's a risk of that that there's always a
risk of that. Ultimately, companies have to make decisions for
themselves and the purpose of this legislation really is to
act as a backstop so to encourage those big extremes.
Have you've spoken to them negotiations.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
You've spoken to them. Did they say they're going to
do it?

Speaker 2 (00:55):
No, they didn't explicitly say that.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
No, no threat at all, No.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Wen Didy threat. But if they've made it clear that
not very keen on this legislation, as has Google Google,
and so you know, it's it is quite a tricky area,
but we think combalance it's with having this as the
backstop just to encourage those conversations to happen as part
of a swimmer measures that we're trying to do too.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
So internationally, Facebook has been very difficult, but Google has
been a lot easier to deal with than seems to
have struck deals and places like Australia and Canada and stuff.
Do you expect Google to play ball here?

Speaker 2 (01:28):
I hope so yes.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
If if Facebook does pull the pin and ban the
news content is the most likely outcome, then that we
have the same outcome as they have in Canada, which
is where the small publishers start to fail because they
haven't got those Facebook clicks coming through, and then maybe
you have to end up bailing them out.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Well that's always the risk, and of course the risk
is if we do nothing, of course, in then you
know the deals that we have so far might not
materialize with Google and otherwise, so whatever you do, there
are risks. Ultimately, this is you said in your introduction
that we're going to save the media. We're not claiming
to do that. Obviously, there's a fast changing environment. The

(02:07):
way that people get their news and information is changing dramatically,
and obviously it's up to businesses to figure out how
to meet the new demands of their customers. You know,
you super he's doing a pretty good job with that
and other areas that everybody's trying to figure out how
to survive in a difficult environment, and that's ultimately what matters.
But what we're doing today at the government level will

(02:28):
help a bit, and so that's so it's worth making
that effort.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
Paul, Are you prepared if this does lead to some
smaller publishers struggling and being unable to make their business
work because of the law, are you prepared to bail
them out?

Speaker 2 (02:42):
Bailing out is not something that the government's looking to
do too often. Obviously, we're struggling overall, we've got a
type fiscal environment. We're not in the business of bailing
out media if we can possibly avoid it, and possibility
isn't it. Oh no, no, would no, No, I'm not
making any promises to anybody in that regard. Ultimately, you know,
the media has to figure out how to survive in

(03:05):
a difficult world. But there are a few things that
can actually make a difference. It's sort of arcaine rules
around advertising that we're not going to come to that.

Speaker 1 (03:12):
I'm going to come to that all. I mean, if
we end up in a situation where as taxpayers we're
having to pay some newspaper down the line to survive
because we stuff their business, that's not going to be
an ideal outcome.

Speaker 2 (03:22):
Is it. No, it wouldn't be, and we won't be
looking to do that at all. We're not paying media directly,
and I think we learned the government. I think I
hope the country learned. It's less than that. If you're
having big trade emins from government agencies to the media,
that creates all sorts of problems, particularly around trust and perspective.
So we're not doing that. What there are a couple

(03:44):
of areas around open buses and things which I think
has worked quite well, and that's a New Zealand on
air sort of program, and we're ensuring that that carries on.
And so you know, we're working at a whole lot
of levels. I'm not suggesting that any of this is
easy and none of it on its own is going
to be transformational, but we might do a few things
that will make it somewhat easier for the various media

(04:06):
outlets to keep going and to be sustainable. And then
I think that's worth the effort.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
You've written to New Zealand and Are You've asked them
to consider funding a couple of programs. What are those programs.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
It's Open Justice, which is kind of reporting on court basis,
which is fantastic, and Democracy reporting, which is around local government.
Both of those areas weren't getting the coverage that they
needed and required and a good functioning democracy, and I
think both of those projects have been quite useful.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
Yeah, very pleased to hear that. Do you think that
the changes that you're making for Short Story are actually
going to save it because you are allowing them to
claim potentially up to ten million dollars but the show
actually cost twenty million to make.

Speaker 2 (04:44):
Yeah, well, ultimately that's a decision for TV and ZED
at the end of the day, what we're doing is
enabling them to or changing the kind of threshold for
support through those rebates. It was a sort of a
per hourly rate and now we're saying if you're doing
it series that costs more than ten million a year
than you're eligible and you know, ultimately it's for the

(05:06):
Film Commission to make that decision whether to fund Shortened
Street and then ultimately for TV and said to make
it work. But certainly what we're doing will make that
calculation easier and hopefully it might be able to be sustained.
And the reason why people say why do we need
to be involved in all this and kind of point
of make there is that it is actually an important

(05:27):
institution I think for us in terms of training generations
of actors and producers and all that, and so you know,
if we can do something to help increase the chances
of it carrying on longer, just as they have done
in Australia with Home, in a way, I think it's
worth the effort.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
Paul, Thank you very much, really appreciate it. Paul Goldsmith,
Broadcasting Minister.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio