![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Commission - Government Responses |
Last Updated: 18 September 2016
Government Response to Law Commission report on
The News Media Meets “New Media”: Rights,
Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age
Presented to the House of Representatives
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO LAW COMMISSION REPORT ON
THE NEWS MEDIA MEETS “NEW MEDIA”: RIGHTS,
RESPONSIBILITIES AND REGULATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Introduction
The Government has carefully considered the Law Commission’s
report, The News Media Meets “New Media”: Rights,
Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age. The Government
welcomes the report, which has thoroughly investigated the impact of
technological convergence on the news media,
and proposed a single regulatory
regime.
The Government responds to the report in accordance with Cabinet Office circular CO (09) 1.
The Government response is not to give effect at this time to the
Law Commission’s proposal for a new regulator
for all news media, but to
observe the further impact of technological convergence on the news media, and
the news media’s
response to it. The Law Commission's proposal will be
kept in mind as a highly developed option to address any difficulties
presented by media convergence.
Executive Summary
The Law Commission’s Report (the Report) reviews the impact of tec
hnological convergence on the news media and the current
regulation of news
content. The Report also considered the definition of “news media”
for the purposes of the law in
an era when anyone with an internet connection
can disseminate news and opinion.
The Report concludes that a new independent body should be created
to regulate standards and receive complaints across
all news media. The new
independent body would replace the current medium-based regulators.
The Report includes 32 recommendations for changes required to establish the
new converged standards body. There are an additional
two recommendations
regarding a review of the regulation of entertainment content.
The Government response thanks the Law Commission for the Report and notes that the Government’s preference is not to make any statutory or institutional changes at this time and to continue to observe how issues of technological convergence are dealt with by the news media. The response notes that the Law Commission’s proposal will be kept in view as a highly developed possible model should reform be considered necessary at a later date.
The Government response also notes that the maintenance of a free and
independent news media is central to New Zealand’s
democracy.
Law Commission report and Government response
In relation to the news media the Law Commission was asked by the previous
Minister of Justice to address:
how to define “news media”
for the purposes of the law;
whether, and to what extent, the jurisdiction of the
Broadcasting Standards Authority and/or the Press Council should be extended
to
cover currently unregulated news media and, if so, what legislative
changes would be required to achieve this end.
The Law Commission was at the same time asked to address th e
question, “whether the existing criminal and civil remedies
for wrongs
such as defamation, breach of confidence and privacy are effective in the new
media environment and, if not, whether
alternative remedies may be
available?”. The Law Commission was subsequently asked by the
Minister Responsible for
the Law Commission to fast-track work on this
third question. As a result, the Government in March 2013 announced
several
measures to tackle cyber-bullying and other harmful communications.
This response, therefore, does not consider the Law Commission’s
proposal
regarding harmful digital communications, as the Government has already made
decisions on these matters.
The Law Commission’s proposal
The Report looks at issues raised by media convergence, in which news content
is subject to different regulatory regimes, depending
on the medium by which it
is carried. The Law Commission also looked at how to define “news
media” for the purposes
of law in an era when anyone with an
internet connection can disseminate news and opinions.
Unlike the reviews that have occurred recently in the UK and Australia, the
Law Commission’s review was not driven by a crisis
of confidence in the
mainstream media. It does not suggest that the integrity of the status quo is
in question, although it regards
the current regimes as fragmented and
as falling behind developments in technology. The review considered whether
the development
of new, less formal kinds of media provider provided an
opportunity to rationalise the differing regulatory regimes.
The Law Commission recommended the creation of an independent body, not established by statute, that would regulate standards and receive complaints across all news media. This new body would assume the functions of the Pres s
Council, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) (in relation to news
and current affairs) and the new Online Media Standards
Authority.
“News” would be “interpreted broadly to include news,
current affairs, news commentary and
content which purports to provide the
public with a factual account and involves real people” (recommendation
3). A majority of the body’s complaints panel, and of an appeals
panel above it, would be drawn from outside the media.
The new body’s functions would be to: “formulate a code
of practice”, which would be reviewed regularly;
“to adjudicate
complaints about breaches of the code; to monitor and report on trends
in media practice and
audience satisfaction; and to mediate disputes
about matters which otherwise might proceed to court” (recommendation
12). The standards proposed by the Law Commission that the code of practice
would cover would be broadly similar to those currently
applying to news and
current affairs under the statutory broadcasting standards regime, although
without the requirement of balance
in the treatment of topical issues that is a
feature of the broadcasting standards. These standards would have no statutory
basis.
The Law Commission also recommends that “complaints about unethical
conduct should also be accepted for adjudication even if
the code does not
contain any express provision about such conduct”, an innovation compared
with the broadcasting regime.
The body would also conduct research into public
attitudes and publish “advisory opinions” (recommendation
19).
The regulation of content other than news and current affairs
(“entertainment” content) would remain with the BSA and
the Office
of Film and Literature Classification, although the Law Commission recommends
that this area of regulation also be reviewed.
In respect of good taste
and decency and the protection of children in news and current affairs
content, jurisdiction would
be shared between the BSA and the new body.
Membership of the new body would be voluntary, but only those who submitted
to its jurisdiction would be able to access the current
privileges and
exemptions offered to the news media under law. Membership would be available
to persons or entities publishing regularly,
where “a significant
element” of their pu blished output was news. Those that mainly aggregate
news produced by others
would be covered, but not entities that only provide the
infrastructure for others’ content (such as Facebook, Google or Twitter).
Members of the body would be bound by contract to contribute to its funding and
to abide by its powers and the complaints process.
The Law Commission proposes
that some state funding would be provided, but not for the main complaints
function.
The body would have the power to require apologies, c orrections, deletion of content, and a right of reply for complainants, but not to issue fines (unlike the BSA, which can also award costs in some circumstances). Membership could be
suspended or terminated “in the case of persistent or serious non-compliance
with the standards or with the decisions” of the regulatory
body.
Further recommendations deal with a proposed method for establishing the new body, a process that would precede any review of the regulation of the remaining, “entertainment” content that would fall outside the body’s jurisdiction. The Law Commission concludes its report by recommending that a separate review of the regulation of entertainment be carried out, examining both the Broadcasting Act 1989 and the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act
1993.
Comments on the proposal
The commentary below provides the Government’s views on the key aspects
of the Law Commission’s recommendations. There
are important
considerations to be weighed up in deciding whether major legislative or
institutional change is warranted.
The Law Commission’s recommendations provide an integrated
package of reforms specifically designed to address the issues
presented by
media convergence in the realm of news. All of the recommendations to do with
the news media fit together to create
a system for regulating news media in
the digital age. While some ideas within the Report could be
adapted as improvements
to current regimes, it is not possible to pick and
choose only some of these recommendations to progress as proposed.
The proposal provides a voluntary regime for the “currently unregulated news media” referred to in the terms of reference for the Law Commission’s review, such as bloggers and other online commentators. At the same tim e it would repeal the statutory basis for broadcasting standards. This regime would require extensive legislative change to implement, principally to Parts I and II of the Broadcasting Act 1989, secondarily to several Acts that include a definition of the media in order to confer rights and privileges. (These include the Privacy Act
1993, the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Electoral Act 19 93, the Human Rights Act
1993 and legislation relating to courts.)
Some currently unregulated elements of the media might still prefer not to belong to such a regime, and to forgo the legal privileges that membership would provide. The alternative, which the Law Commission considered but rejected, would be statutory compulsion. As the Law Commission acknowledges, w here media entities chose to remain outside the regime, the public would still have recourse to the general law, which establishes minimum standards. However, the general law may not provide the specific and timely remedies that could be provided under a regime designed specifically to regulate the news media. At present, “new media” entities can seek to come under the jurisdiction of the self-
regulating Online Media Standards Authority, which commenced operations on 1
July 2013.
The proposed system thus might not entirely address the problem , inherent in
the status quo, of “new media” players
potentially failing
to observe what are commonly held to be desirable standards and of public
doubt as to which entities are
subject to regulation. It might nevertheless be
worth establishing as a way of rationalising the current divided system in which
different types of news media using the same platforms are subject to different
standards (the Press Council and the Broadcasting
Standards Authority, for
example). The Government would need to be satisfied, however, that this model
of reform would be preferable
both to the status quo and to other
options.
A regime only for news?
First, it would need to be established whether a single regime that dealt
only with news and current affairs was superior to the status
quo, in which all
kinds of broadcast content at least (though not all content placed online by
broadcasters) are subject to the
same standards regime, and both the
printed and online content of newspapers and magazines are covered by
the jurisdiction
of the Press Council. Establishing a single regulatory body
for news would address technological convergence in relation to one
kind of
content, but it would do so at the cost of introducing a new division in the
regulation of content, between news and “entertainment”.
The split between the regulation of news media and of
“entertainment” raises important issues that may warrant
further investigation , as the lines defining these media are becoming more
fluid and questions of genre – what kind
of content is it? –
increasingly complex. If convergence, the use of the same technical
platforms by different
types of media, puts the existence of different
regulatory regimes in question, the solution in the longer term might be to
adopt
a single system for all content. In light of this, if any major statutory
or institutional changes were to occur, it would seem
prudent that the
regulation of all content was considered concurrently, so that the relative
advantages of regulating all as opposed
to parts of the total media output could
be compared . A single regime for all content would entail even more extensive
legislative
reform than the Law Commission’s proposal, as it would bring
into scope the range of content that comes under the Films, Videos,
and
Publications Classification Act 1993.
The Law Commission’s view in its report is that standards that tend to give rise to complaints in relation to entertainment content in broadcasting, film and other media, such as good taste and decency and children’s interests, should be the responsibility of the state, while news and current affairs should be regulated independently of the state. Where such standards are breached in news and current affairs, the Law Commission recommends that jurisdiction be shared between the proposed independent body and the BSA , with the different
standards being administered by the different bodies. This could, however,
be an awkward outcome, as it would introduce a new kind
of fragmentation
– by standard rather than by medium. As the Law Commission’s
report notes, the good taste and decency
standard was one of the three
standards, along with accuracy and fairness, most often cited in complaints to
the BSA about news
and current affairs during 2010/11, a typical
year.
The desirability of creating a permanent split between “news” and
“entertainment” needs to be considered before
a decision can be
reached on how to regulate news media.
A single regime for broadcast and print media news?
The expectations of the public would also need to be taken into
account in considering a major reform of content regulation
such as the Law
Commission has proposed. To detach the regulation of broadcast news from any
statutory basis would be a significant
step. Before taking such a
step it would be necessary to assess whether broadcasting retains a distinct
role in society,
compared with other media. For example, broadcasting has for
the most part traditionally played a non-partisan role in relation
to news and
commentary in New Zealand. This, as much as concerns about decency or
children’s interests, is an historical reason
for the existence of
statutory broadcasting standards, including the requirement of balance. This
non -partisan role may help to
explain the relatively high levels of public
trust enjoyed by broadcast news, as found by the Law Commission in a survey
conducted
as part of its review. The print media, while not as
politically partisan as in some other countries, has traditionally
regarded itself as freer to take an editorial stance and advocate for or against
particular policies and reforms.
Statutory regulation of broadcasting content remains the practice in comparable countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom or (for appeals) Canada. New Zealand’s approach, in which broadcasters deal with complaints in the first instance and collaborate with a statutory regulator to develop codes based on statutory standards, would generally be classified as co -regulatory and is in the mainstream of international practice. The Government would need to decide whether, and at what point, it wished to adopt a substantially different approach. As the Law Commission notes, many countries are assessing the impacts of convergence on regulatory frameworks. As suggested below, international trends in media regulation should be closely watched in this fast -changing area.
The issue of independence
In recommending that the proposed news regulator be a non -statutory body,
the Law Commission put forward the need for it to be independent
from Government
influence, real or perceived. The Government affirms that the maintenance of a
free and independent news media is
central to New Zealand’s democracy .
It is noted that Crown Entities established under the Crown Entities Act 2004
can exercise
a high degree of independence. The BSA is an Independent Crown
Entity, as are other agencies that play an investigatory or quasi-judicial
role.
In addition, as the Law Commission notes in its report, state-funded public
broadcasters in comparable countries possess statutory
independence; the s ame
is the case in New Zealand.
Therefore, it may still be possible for the news media itself to exercise a
high degree of independence even when regulated
by a body that is
established under statute. We acknowledge that, as it notes in its
report, the Law Commission
received media and academic submissions arguing
the contrary: that any state involvement in media regulation was antithetical
to the role of the news media in a democracy as a watchdog on the exercise of
public power. We also note that the office of the
Ombudsman has a clear and
entrenched statutory independence from Government. Statutorily
established independence is
already proven to be robust both in the
broadcasting sector and in other, quasi- judicial bodies.
Adopting a standard definition of “news media”
The Law Commission recommended a standardised definition of "news media" to
apply across the statute book. The proposed definition
would ensure that only
those news producers who are subject to a code of ethics and the new
independent complaints body
would be able to access the statutory privileges
currently available to the news media. This proposal requires legislative
reform
and would need to be considered against other competing
Government priorities.
Under the Law Commission’s proposal, news producers who do not wish to
sign up to a code of ethics and a nominated
complaints body could
lose legal privileges that they currently enjoy. For example, the Privacy Act
1993 currently confers privileges
on the “news media” regardless of
whether they are subject to a code of ethics and a complaints body.
Those
who did not sign -up to a complaints body would lose
these protections. The net effect of this recommendation
on press
freedom would need to be carefully considered.
Harmful digital communications
As noted, the Government is committed to advancing the “harmful digital communications” reforms proposed by the Law Commission. It intends to
introduce a Bill giving effect to these reforms later this year. It may be
desirable to allow the legislative changes arising from
the harmful digital
communications proposals to take effect before assessing any further
interventions, as ex perience with the
new law may offer lessons for the
regulation of new media in other contexts.
The sequence of reform
As noted, the Law Commission has recommended that the regulation of
“entertainment” also be reviewed. The Law Commission
also
notes inconsistencies in this field and a regime struggling to keep up with
technological change. At this stage, we are
not convinced that it is
desirable that such a review be carried out independently of, or
subsequent to, changes to the
regulation of news media. Establishing an
independent news regulator would leave the Broadcasting Standards Authority,
already
a compact, lean agency, with a greatly reduced workload. (Complaints
about news and current affairs, other factual programmes and
talk-back radio
typically make up more than two thirds of the total number it receives each
year.) Potential consolidation of roles
with another agency, such as the
Office of Film and Literature Classification, would need to be considered.
Prior decisions
would need to be made as to:
whether news should in fact be regulated separately,
and
whether broadcast news and/or other broadcast content
should cease to be regulated on a statutory basis and by a Crown agency.
The answers to these questions are fundamental to any reforms and
would produce different consequences for the regulation
of
entertainment.
Conclusion
The Law Commission has produced an excellent report that proposes an innovative solution to the universal challenges presented by media convergence. At the same time, as noted above, it may only offer a partial solution to the problem posed by unregulated “new media” entities. It is also arguable whether technological convergence in itself has dissolved the traditional roles and distinctions between the print and broadcast media. As noted, the Law Commission is not suggesting that the conduct of the print media has been such as to call into question the integrity of the Press Council’s self-regulatory approach to standards. The status quo does exhibit anomalies but does not present a pressing problem , and it might be difficult to achieve the commitment of all parts of the news media to the voluntary but independent regime proposed by the Law Commission.
The Government’s preference at this stage, therefore, is to keep the
Law Commission’s proposal in view as a highly
developed possible
model, but to continue to observe how issues of convergence are dealt with by
the news media in the interim.
The Government encourages the industry to
continue to develop its own solutions to the difficulties presented by
convergence.
We note the recent establishment by some industry members of
the Online Media Standards Authority, as a good example of the
industry taking
its responsibilities seriously. The Government would welcome industry continuing
to align standards and complaints
processes to the extent possible within
existing frameworks.
At this time, therefore, the Government prefers inter-agency
coordination over statutory and institutional change and has
requested that
officials actively monitor this continually evolving area and the
response of industry to the challenge
of convergence. In particular,
officials will observe the extent to which the news media adopts improvements
proposed in the body
of the report by the Law Commission in its critique of the
status quo. Some of these can be implemented without establishing the
full
regulatory model proposed by the Law Commission and have been favourably
received by the print media. In the interim
a discrete package of
reforms in response to current problems with harmful digital
communications will be progressed.
The Government will also continue to keep a watchful eye on international
developments in media regulation. It will also have an
ongoing dialogue with
industry.
We note that the Government had decided that certain recommendations from two previous Law Commission reports were best considered in the context of this Government response. It was decided that recommendations 38 and 39 of the Law Commission’s report on the Privacy Act and recommendation 74 of the Law Commission’s report on the Official Information Act should be considered as part of this Government response.1 These recommendations relate to defining “news medium” or “news media”. As we have decided not to progress the Law
Commission’s proposal in relation to the news media we have also
decided not to progress the above recommendations from the
reports on the
Privacy Act and Official Information
Act.
1 See Review of the Privacy Act 1993: Review of the Law of Privacy Stage 4 and The Public’s Right to
Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation .
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/lawreform/NZLCGovResp/2013/128.html