Happy birthday to Paul Goldsmith promising ‘immediate action' to save NZ media
It was the beginning of July, 2024, and the National Party's Paul Goldsmith (of Ngāti Epsom fame) was staring down the barrel of a smoking gun. It had just taken the lives of TVNZ stalwarts Fair Go and Sunday, had already planned a fatal hit on Newshub and in the crossfire, managed to take out Goldsmith's colleague and former broadcasting minister Melissa Lee. In the face of this extinction-level event, there was only one thing Goldsmith could do: take 'immediate action to support New Zealand's media and content production sectors'.
That was the promise the minister made a year ago today, immortalised in a press release Goldsmith may or may not now be regretting. This time last year, the media and communications minister – who also holds the Treaty negotiations, justice and culture and heritage portfolios, and thus is not very busy at all – had big dreams for our media sector and, supposedly, the gumption to get it done. These 'short-term measures' would be in effect by the end of the year, Goldsmith boldly declared.
The first course of 'immediate action' was to 'progress' the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, an attempt to level the financial playing field between media organisations (including The Spinoff) and digital platforms (like Meta), by incentivising these tech companies to enter into bargaining talks with the newsmakers, then slapping a civil penalty on them if they didn't.
The bill passed its first reading nearly two months after Goldsmith's promise of 'immediate action', but it's also been collecting dust, having sat in abeyance since December, while New Zealand waits to see if the Australian government's approach – which would impose a tax on tech companies that fail to share revenue with local media companies – is the better immediate action. Similar legislation in Canada – the Digital Services Tax – was dropped by prime minister Mark Carney just days before it was supposed to come into effect on Monday, as the country resumes trade talks with the US and Donald Trump.
The next immediate action on Goldsmith's list was to remove 'outdated advertising restrictions' which have been 'stifling innovation' – in other words, letting TV and radio ads run on Sundays and public holidays between 6am and noon (yes, this is a real thing that doesn't happen). That change – the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill – had its first reading in December, and a report from the economic development, science and innovation select committee on the bill's submissions released in May returned the feedback that the a rise in advertising revenue would be nice, but the sector needed more immediate action from the government.
No bother, because in February this year, Goldsmith had more immediate actions to take. The ministry of culture and heritage released the media reform consultation document, which proposed ensuring Smart TVs have local apps preinstalled and displayed prominently, as well as another proposal that would require streaming platforms and TV broadcasters to invest in local content, and make this easily accessible to viewers.
But like Goldsmith's other media-saving actions, these proposals haven't gone very far, and may never. A summary of the submissions, released on Friday, included input from Netflix – which has fewer than 10 NZ-made productions on its platform – claiming there was 'no barrier' in place for viewers to enjoy locally made content. Meanwhile, Apple TV+ reckoned a requirement to host local productions (of which they currently have zero) would impede on their 'small number of high-quality productions' (such as Before or Invasion) being intended for global audiences.
That consultation document also included Goldsmith's vision for a merger between NZ On Air and the New Zealand Film Commission, which will supposedly still happen at some point maybe but not immediately. The point is to create one big screen funding body, and in NZ On Air's submission the Crown entity said it agreed that our broadcasting legislation is 'outdated' and that the case for change was of 'fundamental importance', but questions still remained over how NZ On Air's commitments to funding music and journalism would carry over to the merged entity.
To Goldsmith's credit, some concrete actions have been made, like stripping RNZ of 18% of its funding and committing $6.4m over four years to hiring regional journalists, a $577m boost to the international screen production rebate (a win that actually belongs to Nicola Willis as minister for economic growth) and briefly saving Shortland Street. It's enough effort for Labour's media spokesperson Reuben Davidson to commemorate the minister's efforts with a cake, though Goldsmith's reaction to said cake has not been immediate. 'I haven't [heard from Goldsmith], but the one thing he's proven he's good at is cutting things, so he'll probably cope fine with the chocolate cake,' Davidson told The Spinoff.
The road to action is not always paved with immediacy, but Goldsmith seems to have just about nailed it. Now, for the next 12 months of immediate action: immediately thinking about some bills, immediately encouraging the media sector to 'get out there and keep on hustling' and immediately ending the call when Shayne Currie rings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
16 minutes ago
- Scoop
From Kiwi Start-Up To Aussie Scale-up: How New Zealand Tech Firms Can Navigate Office Expansion Into Australia
Wellington, NZ – With New Zealand's tech sector continuing its impressive growth, more Kiwi start-ups and scale-ups are casting their gaze across the Tasman. Australia offers a lucrative, scalable market, enhanced investor appetite, and proximity that makes it a natural progression for many businesses. But while crossing the ditch may sound straightforward, navigating office setup, local compliance, and workspace design in Australia presents a unique set of challenges—and opportunities. For technology firms, particularly those embracing hybrid work, agile development teams, or rapid scaling, having a tailored and ergonomic physical office remains a cornerstone of operational efficiency. Whether it's setting up a satellite team in Sydney or moving headquarters to Melbourne, workspace planning in Australia deserves the same precision as your product development roadmap. Why Australia Is a Strategic Step for NZ Tech Firms Australia's tech landscape is buoyant, with strong governmental support, R&D incentives, and a growing ecosystem for SaaS, AI, and fintech ventures. Cities like Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane boast access to global talent, robust infrastructure, and a deepening pool of VC funds. For Kiwi companies looking to tap into new markets without significant timezone barriers, Australia is the obvious choice. Yet, local competition is fierce, and first impressions count—especially when courting enterprise clients or top-tier engineers. This is where office presentation and layout can influence more than just aesthetics; it can affect recruitment, client trust, and even productivity. How Workspace Design Influences Growth Trajectory In tech environments, your office is more than a location—it's a growth engine. A thoughtfully designed space can: Enhance focus for engineers and developers Support agile sprints and cross-functional collaboration Reflect your brand's innovation culture Integrate seamlessly with remote and hybrid work models Ensure compliance with Australian workplace health and safety regulations Unlike traditional fitouts, modern tech workspaces are dynamic. They require zones for deep work, virtual meetings, hardware testing, and collaborative sessions—all underpinned by ergonomic furniture and smart design. Common Pitfalls When Setting Up Offices in Australia While New Zealand and Australia share cultural and business parallels, many Kiwi founders underestimate regulatory, spatial, and functional differences when expanding. These include: Fit-Out Compliance: Australian building codes differ in areas like accessibility, fire safety, and mechanical ventilation. Ignoring these can delay approvals and increase costs. Underestimating Fitout Timelines: High-demand cities like Melbourne often require 8–12 weeks for quality commercial fitouts, excluding design and council approvals. Ergonomic Oversight: Tech teams working long hours need purpose-built furniture and layouts to avoid burnout and repetitive strain injuries. As such, businesses expanding from NZ to Australia must think beyond desks and walls. The office must function as a strategic extension of your team and product culture. Workspace Tech Trends in Aussie Fitouts In 2025, commercial office fitouts in Australia have evolved rapidly to accommodate the hybrid and digital-first workforce. Key tech and ergonomic trends include: IoT-enabled hot-desking with desk-booking apps and occupancy sensors Ergonomic sit-stand desks integrated with workflow timers and posture reminders Acoustic booths for Zoom calls and virtual demos Modular tech zones for testing devices or showcasing prototypes Climate-smart HVAC systems for air quality and energy savings These are not perks—they are competitive necessities for fast-moving tech teams. Office Fitouts with Regulatory Peace of Mind If you're expanding your tech firm into Australia, office fitouts in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane require local expertise. Spatial layouts must comply with the National Construction Code (NCC), and furniture must meet Australian ergonomic standards (e.g., AS/NZS 4443:1997 for office chairs). Moreover, designing for accessibility under AS 1428 is mandatory. Many NZ firms are surprised by the granularity of Australian regulations—but partnering with a team that understands these codes can eliminate delays and unlock smoother approvals. Offer: Free 3D Office Layout Rendering & Regulatory Consultation To support Kiwi tech businesses setting up in Australia, we offer complimentary 3D renderings of your proposed workspace. Send us your floorplan and a list of needs (headcount, collaboration zones, tech requirements), and we'll return a tailored workspace layout—compliant with Australian regulations and optimised for your business goals. Our team also provides advice on acoustic requirements, furniture selection, and zoning laws, ensuring you avoid common pitfalls. Whether it's retrofitting an existing suite in Sydney or a full-scale custom workspace fitout in Melbourne, our process is lean, transparent, and grounded in tech-first thinking. Why Local Experience Matters Having helped dozens of digital and hardware businesses transition from New Zealand into Australia, our team knows how to bridge the operational, legal, and cultural gaps. We work closely with building managers, architects, and local councils to ensure your fitout meets both compliance standards and cultural expectations. We've seen time and again how a well-executed workspace speeds up onboarding, boosts productivity, and leaves lasting impressions on clients. In markets like fintech or SaaS, these differences can influence investor confidence and deal velocity. Case Study: A NZ SaaS Firm Scales into Melbourne One Auckland-based SaaS provider, having closed a Series A round, set its sights on Melbourne. Their goals were clear: hire 12 engineers, impress enterprise clients, and maintain their NZ brand ethos. Within two months, their leased space was redesigned. Sit-stand desks replaced static benches. A biophilic break zone was introduced. Meeting rooms were acoustically treated, and a tech zone was created for real-time product demos. The result? Increased collaboration, reduced churn, and a favourable audit from a major investor. What to Include in Your Aussie Fit-Out Brief When working with a fit-out partner, your brief should include: Team size and projected growth over 12–24 months Technical zones required (servers, whiteboarding, prototyping) Preferred workstyles (agile, hybrid, remote-flex) Inclusion of wellness zones, green design, or quiet spaces Branding integration (logos, colour palette, digital displays) This isn't just a logistics process—it's a branding and leadership decision. Let your workspace speak your values before you even pitch a proposal. Final Word: Build Smart from the Start For New Zealand tech leaders making the leap to Australia, the physical office remains a critical asset. But it must be done right. It's not just about buying desks or renting floors—it's about creating a high-functioning environment where your team thrives and your company scales with confidence. By investing in smart, ergonomic, and compliant fitouts from day one, you reduce risk, improve retention, and signal to the market that you're not just expanding—you're here to lead. Want to get started? Send us your floorplan and we'll return a tailored 3D layout along with compliance tips—free of charge. Let your next chapter begin with a workspace that reflects your ambition.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Citizen's arrest changes unlikely to materially improve public safety
The changes were announced by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith in February. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The government's proposed citizen's arrest changes are unlikely to have much impact on public safety, according to the justice ministry's analysis. It says there are also risks people would be more likely to use unreasonable force, particularly on children who - being physically smaller - are easier to catch and restrain. In February, the justice minister unveiled proposals for changing up the citizen's arrest regime, after a Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) led by Sunny Kaushal came up with the recommendations. The changes would remove an old limitation on making citizens arrests at certain hours of the day, and clarify other aspects of the law including that restraints and reasonable force could be used, and requiring people to call police and follow their instructions as soon as practicable. They are set to be combined with a raft of changes to Crimes Act announced this week, including instant fines for shoplifters , higher penalties for assaulting first responders , and making a "coward punch" a specific offence . The ministry's Regulatory Impact Statement showed the approach taken by the government was more conservative than what the MAG initially proposed, but more ambitious than what the ministry would have wanted. It found the changes likely to improve how people understood the law, but unlikely to materially improve public safety. "The changes are coherent, and somewhat minimise the scope for unintended consequences. In of themselves, these proposals are not expected to reduce offending levels but will provide more clarity around how intervention can occur, what should be done following an arrest, and remove confusion as to what degree of force can be used to defend one's property," it said. It found clarifying the rules - that people making citizen's arrests can use restraints and should contact police as soon as practicable - was likely to "codify (but not change) the status quo". However, people could also be encouraged by the changes to use force and restraints to make such arrests, which "may lead to unreasonable use of force and unlawful detention". The ministry said this could be seen as inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, and the use of restraints "is inconsistent with laws regulating the use of force on children and young people". "Agencies believe that specifying the use of restraints (although already allowed under the law) may lead to unreasonable use of restraints, which is especially concerning in relation to alleged youth offenders (who may be more likely to be arrested given they are typically physically easier to restrain that alleged adult offenders). "Further, Māori are more likely to be disproportionately impacted by these changes (if more arrests occur)." Removing restrictions on hitting or doing bodily harm when making an arrest would also mean less confusion about the law and make it more workable and consistent - but again, with no material change to public safety. "No impact on public safety expected as the proposal does not allow for more than reasonable force and there is a minimal risk that retailers or the public will interpret this as allowing excessive force in applicable defence of property scenarios." A cost-benefit analysis suggested the changes would make retailers and security guards' rights and obligations clearer, but this could also come with "minimal" one-off costs and the changes would overall have a "low" level of impact. It also said police had raised concern about several aspects of the changes: The document said limited time, a narrow scope, few options to consider and a lack of broader consultation all limited the depth of the analysis, and said it would be difficult to assess how effective it was. "This data may be difficult to gather, even with an excess of time, as police are unlikely to record the occurrence of 'citizens' arrests', for example." While police would continue monitoring things like rates of shoplifting, "it will not be possible to determine whether any changes in offending rates are attributed to the changes proposed here, due to the many factors that give rise to offending behaviours". The government is also looking at making sentences for a "coward punch" - a single-strike surprise attack on the head or neck - more strict, with An Auckland law professor has previously warned it would be easy for people making citizen's arrests to stray into using unreasonable force - including, for example, a deadly punch. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Parliament must be final arbiter on Treaty
We are witnessing a tussle between the courts and Parliament as to who is in charge. Likewise we are seeing a struggle to establish whether Parliament is sovereign and whether we are all equal before the law. The Treaty Principles Bill was the first cab off the rank to address these issues. That has been relegated to history. Now we have before Parliament the Regulatory Standards Bill which is likely to become law. These two Bills have much in common. They have both been described by those who don't like them as likely to destroy all we hold dear in New Zealand. They both speak of principles and how they should be applied. They both speak to the idea that all in New Zealand should be treated equally by our laws. They also both attempt to put into legislation clarity about what the government intends, which reduces the opportunity and duty of the courts to interpret what was meant. The Regulatory Standards Bill comes with an explanatory note which describes its aim as to reduce the amount of poor and unnecessary regulation by increasing transparency and clarity about where legislation does not meet particular standards. It is also intended to bring the same discipline to regulatory management that we have for fiscal management. Whether it will achieve these things is arguable. However, some of the criticisms are not entirely fair. This Bill is criticised for not protecting public health, the environment or Māori rights. It would be a big ask indeed if this Bill, or indeed any Bill, were to attempt to provide such protections. It has been criticised for treating property rights as above social good in various areas. We have for many years had rules about how the government can legally take over people's property and when, and how proper compensation works. This Bill does not change that situation. The underlying role of the Regulatory Standards Bill is to give guidance as to what good legislation looks like, using principles which are for the most part unexceptional. The Bill does not stop the government of the day passing ill-thought-out, bad or otherwise not best practice legislation. It merely obliges reports which allow the public to understand that it is, or may be, poor legislation. Why this Bill causes concern to some is partly founded on the idea that the principles these reports would be based on include that all people should treated equally. This concerns those who consider the Treaty to require different laws for different New Zealanders. The other major concern is that providing clarity around whether the legislation is good legislation highlights the effect of producing legislation which is fluffy and unclear. This provides a gap which allows the courts to interpret legislation in whatever way they choose. For some, the idea of the courts determining what the law should be is preferable to parliament deciding. Both of these concerns are gathered together in criticism of this Bill being against the Treaty principles, which concerned people do not seem to want clarified by legislation. To confuse matters further, there has been a hold on the Treaty settlement between the Crown and Ngapuhi, on the basis that the Crown is not prepared to do a deal which contains the idea that Ngapuhi does not accept parliament as sovereign. How it makes sense to for either party to accept that one party does not have the power to commit to the settlement is confusing at best. The High Court has decided (in a case against the Marlborough District Council) that councils are not treaty partners from a legal standpoint: they are only obliged to follow the requirements of the Local Government Act. The councillors around the Dunedin City Council table have attempted to add value by telling the government what laws it should pass and why local bylaws should not be subject to being flagged if they are not objectively robust and well thought out. This is all unhelpful when the general basis of our laws in New Zealand is the government makes laws, courts make decisions about how to apply the laws, and if Parliament does not like the interpretation it clarifies what it meant by passing new laws. Sooner or later we have to get to a position where Parliament is the final arbiter on what the Treaty obliges government and local government to do. It would also be helpful if we accept that we are all entitled to be told if Parliament is proposing unclear and otherwise poor laws. Parliament has turned down the opportunity in the Treaty Principles Bill of having a referendum on how we all think the principles in the Treaty should be interpreted. But we still need to engage with the issue of who does decide, whether it be Māori, Parliament or the courts. Whatever we decide will be a change from the current arrangement where the courts are left to decide about issues around our Treaty privileges, obligations and duties. Leaving it to the courts to decide by Parliament making laws that are unclear is not the best answer. We do not all have access to the court systems, with or without state sponsored funding. We all do have a vote. • Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
