Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Final research report
Organisation: Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and the Office of the Clerk Attention: Suzanne Morton (RNZ); Rafael Gonzalez-Montero (Office of the Clerk)
Date: 5 October 2017
Prepared by Colmar Brunton |
Table of Contents
Background and research method ...... 3 The research method ...... 5 The main themes: Executive summary ...... 7 The current state of engagement: There is a real detachment from Parliament and the democratic process ...... 7 Factors working against engagement with Parliament and the democratic process ...... 8 Building engagement ...... 11 Understanding the range of attitudes and behaviours ...... 13 The current landscape of keeping informed ...... 13 The drivers of engagement with the democratic and parliamentary process ...... 15 Segmenting the needs around informing and engaging with democracy ...... 16 Democracy: The current state ...... 19 Parliament: The current level of engagement and knowledge ...... 21 The official channels of engaging with Parliament ...... 23 Voting ...... 23 Approaching an MP ...... 24 Petitions ...... 27 Understanding of the petition process is low ...... 28 Making a submission ...... 29 The current barriers to engaging with Parliament ...... 31 The process is too complicated, disempowers, or sets people up for failure ...... 31 The focus is on personalities, not the issues ...... 31 The language is intimidating ...... 32 The level of information and the issues can be overwhelming ...... 32 People just don’t see the need to engage ...... 33 How can we make it easier for people to inform themselves and engage? ...... 34 Raise awareness gradually, don’t overwhelm ...... 34 Make information and the process accessible ...... 34 Humanise the people involved ...... 35 Take it to people where they gather ...... 35 Keep it constantly fresh ...... 36 Provide varied modes of communication ...... 36 Give confidence that your opinion will not be ridiculed ...... 37 Use trusted and unbiased presenters ...... 37
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 1
Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The channels for informing and engaging ...... 38 Engaging now is on an as-needed basis ...... 38 Channels for engaging with the issues and process of Parliament...... 38 Parliament TV ...... 40 The paradox of social media ...... 41 Social media is the platform for hearing about the issues, not necessarily engaging ...... 41 Conversation is the most accessible form of informing yourself ...... 41 Learning about Parliament in school ...... 41 Reliance on media may hinder deeper engagement ...... 42 Perceptions of Radio New Zealand ...... 43 A general sense of confusion about what RNZ is ...... 43 RNZ is often “stumbled on” rather than actively sought out ...... 44 The young person’s perspective ...... 45 RNZ is not ‘for me’ ...... 46 There is a core group of loyal RNZ followers ...... 46 RNZ presents well researched, interesting topics ...... 47 The RNZ website ...... 47 The role of RNZ helping people engage with Parliament more ...... 48 Parliamentary coverage on RNZ ...... 48 The RNZ charter ...... 50 It’s more than I thought… ...... 50 Representing the Māori voice ...... 51 There are questions over some charter points ...... 51 The charter is great in theory, but how is it executed? ...... 52 Pushing RNZ further...... 53 The issue is awareness ...... 53 Advertising vs. creating viral awareness ...... 53 Podcasts are an easily accessible entry point ...... 54 More platforms for the younger people ...... 54 RNZ: Concluding comments ...... 54 Appendix ...... 55 Appendix I: Topic guide ...... 56 Appendix II: Showcards ...... 64
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 2 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Background and research method
The Office of the Clerk The purpose of the Office of the Clerk is to champion representative Parliamentary democracy.
The Office of the Clerk supports the House of Representative and its committees by providing specialist legal, professional and administrative services. The Office is non-political and operates separately to both the Public Service and the Parliamentary Services. The Office is separate from the Government of the day; it is there to provide services to Parliament as a whole.
Its guiding principles include:
• belief in the independence of Parliament for the public good; • finding ways to make Parliament better; • making Parliament accessible for everyone to have a say; • believing that Parliament matters for everyone. The Parliamentary Service provides administrative and support services to members of Parliament, and administers members' funding entitlements. Among other things, their services include policy advice, research information services and ICT support.
While their work is largely determined by government in terms of what comes before Parliament, there is also the opportunity for the general public to bring issues before Parliament via the traditional right to petition the House.
Radio New Zealand (RNZ) Radio New Zealand (RNZ) has a Charter that sets out its principles. As one of its main purposes, the charter says “Freedom of thought and expression are foundations of democratic society and the public radio company as a public service broadcaster plays an essential role in exercising these freedoms.”
This compels RNZ to provide reliable and relevant information about the people and processes that shape the activities of Parliament.
The charter also says that RNZ should: “Foster critical thought, and informed and wide-ranging debate”. This requires RNZ to be thoughtful, accurate, and curious in their coverage and to ensure this stimulates debate and discussion.
The common ground The Office of the Clerk clearly has a quite different role underpinned by the proper functioning of the legislative branch of government – the House, select committees, passage of law, standing orders etc.
There is, however, much common ground. Both RNZ and the Office are committed to making information about the democratic process transparent, readily accessible, relevant, reliable, and useful to all New Zealanders.
Declining voter turnout and a loss of trust in institutions paradoxically makes these services more essential while also diluting their effectiveness.
RNZ and the Office currently successfully work together to a great extent through such things as on-air and online programming and AM transmission. This tends to be output driven – where they invest in content and services that they deliver to audiences.
There is an opportunity to look at these issues through another lens – that of the people who they are trying to inform.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 3 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
RNZ and the Office of the Clerk might improve the public value of these services if they were shaped around the needs and wants of audiences and potential audiences.
As such, RNZ and the Office of the Clerk have come together to commission a piece of qualitative research to provide detailed information about what sort of information, presentation-style, topics and delivery methods would be relevant to different audiences.
This research will allow RNZ and the Office of the Clerk to examine how people think about and value the democratic process, what they actually know and do not know about what is provided already, what they think of the services provided, what confusion might exist in their understanding of various services, and ultimately their preferred ways of being kept informed.
Objectives of the research The overall objective is to identify the ways in which Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and the Office of the Clerk may be able to combine their resources and efforts to have a positive impact on the engagement and understanding the general public has of Parliament and democratic participation.
• Understand the current state: ‒ Explore understanding/engagement with activities of Parliament/democratic process; ‒ Identify subgroups/segments and the factors that separate out the segments. • Understand the sparks of engagement: ‒ Understand the activities, topics, channels, actions that might have some positive impact. • Define the RNZ activities that will create value: ‒ Determine ideal changes to current services and activities to increase value/relevancy to New Zealanders; ‒ This might include information, presentation style, topics, and delivery methods. • Understand the perceptions that people have of the communication channels and messages used by Parliament: ‒ What is the level of awareness? ‒ Can people access and understand them? ‒ Do they address what people want and need to know? ‒ Are the communications and messages supporting or leading to more people engaging with Parliament? • Within the discussion of Parliament, define the activities that will create value: ‒ Determine ideal changes to current services and activities to increase value/relevancy to New Zealanders; ‒ Define the sparks for active participation in Parliament at the practical level, and how to make Parliament more accessible to New Zealanders. RNZ and the Office of the Clerk commissioned Colmar Brunton to undertake this research.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 4 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The research method Given the research objectives and the focus on understanding nuance and exploring beliefs, a qualitative approach provides the most effective approach to answering these objectives.
A series of depth interviews with individuals and couples were conducted from the 13th of July 2017 to the 5th of August 2017, with a second round of interviews conducted from the 6th to the 25th of September. Paired couple/friend interviews were conducted (in addition to individual interviews) as these provide for more interactive conversations and comparison of different viewpoints. The individual interviews and paired depths both collected very similar findings, paired depths simply allowed for more detail within the question areas. Each interview was around 90 minutes in length.
Participants were recruited based on a set of criteria to provide a wide view of demographic profiles. The sample achieved is outlined in the table below. The recruitment was focussed on providing a mix of ethnicity and age groups, with the age groups limited to those aged 16-70 years.
A total of 58 interviews were conducted, 36 of which were with individuals and 22 of which were with couples (either spouse or friend). This gives a sample size of n=80 people across all interviews.
Of the n=80 total:
Gender n Male 35 Female 45 Age n 16-19 years 7 20-29 years 21 30-39 years 14 40-49 years 16 50-59 years 18 60-70 years 4
Of the 58 interviews (including both paired and individual depths), the main person recruited fitted the following demographic profiles:
Knowledge of Parliament n Little to no understanding of Parliament 20 At least some understanding of Parliament 38 Voting behaviour n Vote always or almost always 38 Vote sometimes 6 Vote rarely or never 14 Household income n Under $50,000 p.a. 17 $50,000-$69,999 16 $70,000-$99,999 19 $100,000 or more 6
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 5 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Region Urban Provincial Rural Total Northland 5 7 12 Auckland 16 1 17 Hawke’s Bay 5 4 9 Wellington 5 5 Nelson 5 5 Christchurch 4 4 Dunedin 3 3 Otago 3 3 Total 28 15 15 58 Ethnicity n European 26 Māori 13 Pasifika 9 Asian 10 Family type n Family with children at home 27 Older couple or single 11 Younger couple or single 20 RNZ engagers (listen or use web/apps) n Engage with RNZ 18 Don’t engage with RNZ 40
Notes to reading this report Verbatim quotes from the interviews are used throughout this report. Where the quotes come from paired interviews these will be labelled by gender if it is obvious from the transcript who made the quote. Where this was not obvious the quote will be labelled as coming from a couple.
Participants recruited were either New Zealand Citizens or residents. Where New Zealanders are referred to throughout the report this encompasses both citizens and residents.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 6 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The main themes: Executive summary
This section outlines the core themes uncovered in the research.
The current state of engagement: There is a real detachment from Parliament and the democratic process While small pockets of the population inform themselves about the issues and the process of Parliament, the overwhelming theme from the interviews was one of detachment from parliamentary process and outcomes. People interviewed were often hard-pressed to think of ways in which Parliament or democracy affected their lives. Similarly, for the most part, people are not actively seeking out information on the parliamentary process or how to engage.
The knowledge that does exist around parliamentary process and outcomes has largely come from mainstream media reporting. It seems that this reporting is increasingly about the conflicts and personalities in Parliament, and the issues become easy to overlook. The current media reporting works to create frustration that Parliament is just a building full of squabbling politicians. This in turn fuels the detachment from Parliament and the democratic process.
New Zealanders find the concept of Parliament interesting, but often not enough to seek out information While there is a level of detachment, there is also a level of interest once some of the concepts are explained and people have a chance to ask questions and build their knowledge. Among those interviewed there is a desire to know more, but the idea of Parliament and democracy may not feel accessible, and there is a perception that there is a huge amount of knowledge required to fully understand how it all works. Building this level of knowledge is intimidating and not often a high priority.
Thus, while there is a desire to understand Parliament and what is happening, there is little action behind the desire. Breaking through this and informing people needs to happen gradually and in the places they already are – bringing the idea of Parliament into the consciousness through a lot of small points rather than trying to pick it up all at once.
For this group of more detached New Zealanders it is clear that engagement with Parliament just for its own sake is unlikely. Being involved or engaged with Parliament is more likely when there is an issue they feel passionately enough about. This is likely to be something that strongly influences them personally or their loved ones.
“I haven’t ever felt strongly enough about anything. It would have to be a big issue to make me engage. Something I am passionate about, and that will directly affect my loved ones and me. I must really want to change something to do it, but I don’t know if I would start something. I would be more likely to support the efforts of others, especially someone I know.” AUCKLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 22 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 7 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Parliament is a machine that feels intimidating and disempowering The general sense is that Parliament is a vast machine that sits above the everyday person and makes it hard to really get involved. The scale of Parliament and the issues they cover are beyond the reach of many spoken to. It is easier to get involved at a local level, and people feel actively discouraged to get involved at the parliamentary level.
Being engaged in the parliamentary machine requires the power of numbers – an individual does not create change (discussed later in this report). Added to that, big business and vocal minorities are seen as having more influence than they should. All of this creates a feeling of futility that it is not worth getting involved unless you have the commitment to go up against the machine.
“Central governments in any country will start to become less relevant to everyday life. Companies are operating outside of country boundaries, so the country’s ability to influence what’s really happening is impacted.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS.
Beyond this, there is a perception that Parliament may not wish for wider engagement – there’s enough work to do as it is. By making the process of engagement somewhat obscure, Parliament is able to keep out time-wasters.
“If we get more people to engage it would mean more work for them, so it’s in their favour to keep people down.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS.
“Parliament doesn’t want their time wasted. Is it actually a good idea to make Parliament more accessible?” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 33 YRS.
A minority are actively informing themselves and engaging There is a minority who are actively interested in informing themselves at the very least, and engaging with Parliament if necessary. Frequently this group were raised in homes with much discussion of current affairs, what was happening in Parliament, and at times, engagement with the parliamentary process. Others came to a more informed and engaged point of view through travel or living in other countries where there may have been more of a national conversation around politics. For example, those who had lived in the United States or United Kingdom seem more aware of democracy or parliamentary process.
For this group of New Zealanders there is a wide range of behaviours – from actively seeking out information to help understand the process of Parliament, through to high consumption of news from a variety of channels, and for some – contacting MPs or working with groups to effect change through Parliament.
Factors working against engagement with Parliament and the democratic process There are a number of justifications for not engaging with Parliament or the democratic process, or even informing yourself of the current issues under discussion in Parliament and their outcomes.
Lack of time and more important priorities Those interviewed are already overstretched – with work, children, study, other commitments, and the overwhelming amount of information pushed at them on a daily basis. While the idea of Parliament and democracy is seen as interesting, there is a sense of “I just don’t have time” and that all those other conflicting demands should take priority. Tied into this is the feeling that it is hard work to get involved with issues, that the democratic and parliamentary processes don’t really impact them as individuals, and that there is nothing they feel passionate enough about to get involved with.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 8 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Creating more proactive engagement will require people to prioritise democratic engagement over other demands on their time and energy.
“You just have to carry on. You can’t get too involved, there’s too much else to do. I’m a single mum, I’m limited. You can put your vote in, and then sit at home and shake your head about what they’re doing [in Parliament], but you just get up and go to work the next day.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“You can go out and do all this work, but there's no guarantee that at the end you're going to get what you want. I don't even know if there would be a guarantee that you'd be heard. I don't know how that process works. Do you just sort of submit and hope someone calls you? Because you could do these things and then nothing could happen, and then you wasted heaps of time.” WELLINGTON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 37 YRS.
“At the moment I focus on what’s directly impacting me – my work and stuff. I don’t have time for other stuff.” RURAL NORTHLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 50 YRS.
The issues in Parliament do not affect me The people interviewed do not have a strong sense that their lives are directly impacted by Parliament. Added to this – they may see the issues being discussed and decided on in Parliament as too removed from where they are at in their daily lives, or too big and complex to really get a good understanding of. The topics themselves may not feel relevant or accessible.
“Government’s talking about a bigger picture that I feel detached from and perhaps that’s a reason why I haven’t made an opinion to our MP. …The fact of it is that we are in a comfortable position at this age of life where, even though we are personally stressed with our own things going on, we accept that they are just our own internal things. ... If the retirement benefit suddenly fell or dropped off, that could be a little bit effectual [in getting us involved in Parliament], but the subjects that are being discussed [in Parliament] at the moment aren’t something that makes me wanna leap up.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 60s
Beyond this, there is a sense that the politicians are not in the real world either. Both the topics discussed, and the people discussing them are far too removed from the everyday to really have much of an impact.
“Politicians aren’t in the real world anymore. They don’t have experience in other professions. They’re making the rules but they don’t understand reality.” RURAL NORTHLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 50 YRS.
“Politicians are mostly businessmen and lawyers. Where are the people – the engineers, teachers, farmers? There’s not a broad enough spectrum of people in Parliament.” RURAL OTAGO, EURO, COUPLE IN 50s
Someone else will do it – deferment of responsibility There is a strong belief that the people who want to get involved are doing so, and that they are doing a good enough job. There is a level of deferment of responsibility – that ‘it is not up to me to get involved, there are people far more knowledgeable and motivated who will do it for me.’
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 9 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Working alongside this is the perception that if there are others working on an issue and change is not happening, then why waste the time getting involved? Underpinning that belief is the implication that one person does not have much impact.
Overall, there is a sense that so long as something is happening, why get involved – and even why get informed?
“Ordinary people don’t care so much about being kept informed, they just want it done.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, FEMALE, 28 YRS.
“People are passionate and they do amazing things. I'm just not one of those people. I sign the odd petition, and I volunteer some time, and that's about all I'm good for to be honest. Hats off to people who do, because I'm sure there's some sort of arduous process behind doing things, whether or not there is and it's just my perception of it, who knows.” WELLINGTON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 37 YRS.
New Zealanders don’t like to make a fuss The New Zealanders interviewed are acutely aware of the unwritten rule – ‘don’t make a fuss.’ For example, while there may be frustration that the Working for Families tax credit is strongly needed within your family but is just beyond your reach, you’d much rather learn to live with it than raise a fuss with your MP. Several of those interviewed gave examples where they (or people they know) are putting up with issues that could be improved if they had the right people in Parliament working to help them. However, there is a desire not to make a fuss or bother an MP with your issues.
“New Zealanders moan but we’re not dedicated enough to do something about it.” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 40s
Part of this is also about keeping yourself somewhat private. For the older generation this may be more about there being certain things it is not right to discuss in public. For the younger generation this may be more about not wanting to put yourself in a position for potential ridicule. Beyond this though, the belief from those interviewed is that New Zealanders tend to be a little more reserved than people from the United States (for example).
“I remember growing up and my parents would say there’s certain things that you don’t discuss - religion, politics, and rugby. It saves a lot of arguments.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 60s
If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it In addition, there is a sense that if everything is going well there is no point worrying about it. Almost an attitude of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” From those interviewed there is a general belief that we are doing okay. They may not agree with everything Parliament does, but overall the country is moving along well.
“Because things are good in New Zealand I don’t think about, don’t feel an impact. The laws that are in place are kind of fair with the people and so it doesn’t really harm or hinder.” AUCKLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 22 YRS.
“We tend not to look [for information on Parliament] proactively. Our government isn’t Trump. As New Zealanders we trust that MPs know what they’re doing.” DUNEDIN, EURO/ASIAN, COUPLE IN 20s
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 10 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The belief that individuals don’t create change Many of the other justifications include an element of this – that individuals do not create change, you require the power of a group to get any traction. Even when there is an issue that someone feels passionately about, this perceived lack of power can be a barrier to actually doing anything about it. This would also require increasing the perception that any efforts expended would be rewarded with outcomes.
There is an interesting juxtaposition here between the belief in individual power when it comes to parliamentary process and the belief in individual power as a consumer. As consumers, New Zealanders do feel powerful – they have the tools they need to feel engaged as a consumer. If something goes wrong, they have the power to let their social networks know about it or call others to action.
By contrast, when it comes to the democratic process, the belief is that in order to create change you need to be a part of a larger group. The belief is that it is only with the power of numbers that Parliament will actually listen and start to consider an issue.
“They don’t seem to listen to just one person anymore. [If I went to see an MP] I’d bring a few friends and we’d talk to them as a group. Then they know it’s not just me, I’m not the only person who thinks this.” RURAL NORTHLAND, EURO, COUPLE IN 20s
“I still think in order to have a voice you need to gather with a whole group of people who have the same opinions as you.” AUCKLAND, NIUEAN, COUPLE IN 30s
Building engagement Building engagement is largely about making a very formal and serious topic (Parliament and democracy) feel accessible – building up engagement gradually rather than overwhelming all at once.
Relate changes in legislation to local or personal action The legislation and changes made by Parliament feel quite far removed from the individuals and groups that pushed for change in the first place. The media reporting on changes may not always link them back to their origins. Ideally, the story of these changes would be linked to the individuals or groups who pushed for change, to remind people that it is a democratic process and people have power to create change.
This creates a reinforcement loop – seeing change makes people feel that change is possible. Seeing the mechanism of change makes it feel do-able and breaks down that barrier of ‘where do I start?’ In addition, highlighting the actions that brought about change will help people see those in their local communities who have been through the process and may be able to help them do so as well.
“The person who worked to get the caregiver pay rise. That took six years and it was one person that set a pathway for looking at the minimum wage. It means less stress for me financially.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“I don’t agree that any of [the four ways of engaging with Parliament] would make a change. I’ve never seen it happen. You need to see the little guy approaching an MP and creating change. When you become aware of an issue it’s already a big issue. You need to be made aware of the New Zealanders that raised the issue.” DUNEDIN, EURO/ASIAN, YOUNG COUPLE IN 20s
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 11 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Making it accessible A number of guidelines have emerged from the interviews that can be applied to the way the democratic process and Parliament is communicated. These guidelines summarise the factors that work to make the information and engagement feel accessible and manageable. These points are in addition to guidelines around accessibility that have been created elsewhere (and that Parliament may already be aware of and trying to work within). The points raised within this research include:
• Conversation: make it feel personal not formal; • Go to people where they gather – don’t expect them to seek out information unprompted; • Make the language relevant and engaging; • Drip-feed the knowledge, don’t overwhelm with too much all at once; • Tailor the content to the individual.
These points all centre on the idea of making the complex machine of Parliament feel more personal and empowering to the individual.
There needs to be an intermediate step For those who are more detached from the process of Parliament there is a belief that you can be either highly involved in Parliament or democracy or not involved at all. There is very little middle ground in engaging with Parliament or the democratic process. The processes of engagement (aside from voting) are serious – approaching an MP, making submissions, or creating petitions. The closest to an intermediate step is signing the petitions of others, but this is a point-in-time action, not ongoing engagement.
Being engaged in the process of Parliament now is likened to having a bouncer standing at the door – creating a barrier. There is a need for a more approachable step to engagement:
“[Engaging with Parliament should be] like having a conversation with a friend, rather than putting your best clothes on and watching your manners.” NELSON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 31 YRS.
Engaging young people Social media looms large in the world of the younger New Zealanders interviewed. It is clear that platforms like Facebook are no longer simply a social space. Rather, Facebook is now often the key place where young (and not so young) New Zealanders get most of their information and discover what is going on in the world around them.
The content they access through social media is not necessarily through following the official channels of information themselves. Often it is content that is shared by others in their social circle, and so their world-view is filtered by whatever is important to others.
When it comes to engaging younger New Zealanders, there is a sense that people of their generation are not listened to, and that the platforms they use (such as Facebook) are dismissed. Hence a social media strategy is required that understands the role of Facebook for these younger New Zealanders and enables them to inform themselves and engage using the platforms they are already on.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 12 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Understanding the range of attitudes and behaviours
There are some clear differences in the way New Zealanders inform themselves and engage in the world around them, and specific sets of beliefs that drives these behaviours. This section outlines some of the behaviours and attitudes around Parliament, democracy, and staying informed, and brings these together into a segmentation of New Zealanders.
The current landscape of keeping informed The landscape of keeping up to date with news and current affairs is fragmented – both across and within channels. Many New Zealanders interviewed rely on digital channels such as news media websites, Facebook, and specific interest sites to keep updated on what is happening in New Zealand and the world. In addition, there is still a level of reliance on traditional broadcast media – evening news and current affairs shows, and radio (largely for the headlines).
The main daily newspapers are still a significant source of news and current affairs amongst those interviewed (New Zealand Herald, Stuff, The Dominion Post, The Otago Daily Times, The Press, etc.) – though access is largely online or through apps. Many also follow these outlets on Facebook and social media, and pick up the headlines in this way rather than visiting the specific app or website of the news outlet.
Some are shifting away from traditional broadcast TV Interestingly, there seems to be a shift away from traditional television as both a news and entertainment source. Amongst those interviewed, there is an increasing number of those who do not have a traditional television with free-to-air or paid channels. This group is moving to streaming media and online content.
“I don’t watch the TV news as it is too filtered. I’d rather get realistic news about all parts of the world. TV is dying, and so is radio. We get everything on the internet.” RURAL NORTHLAND, EURO, MALE, 25 YRS.
“The odd time I do watch the news, I don’t like it. It’s always negative. There are so many good things they could report on, or more relevant things, but instead it’s so dark. I’m not ignorant that those things happen. There are just equally relevant things, like what people are doing to combat environment issues, or better equality.” CHRISTCHURCH, FEMALE, MĀORI, 28 YRS.
Different channels for different modes The radio for many under the age of 50 is about entertainment, not information, whereas the Internet (particularly news sites) is more about information (though also about entertainment).
Those who grew up in a world of printed newspapers may gravitate towards the major daily newspaper sites as their source of information as it’s a natural step from printed papers. However, younger people without a strong history of printed news can feel less bound to traditional news media sources, and more open to a variety of sources. This group may be more focussed on the topics, stories, and hooks that catch their attention rather than staying with traditional news outlets.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 13 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Social Media as the aggregator of news and current affairs Social media has become one of the core ways that many people receive their news. Many are following news and media outlets, or at the very least, they are seeing the news items their friends are sharing. The power of social media platforms such as Facebook as an aggregator of news, information, and entertainment needs to be considered.
The issue is in ensuring that the news and information that is delivered through social media can be filtered. As the conversations have shown – few are keen on blanket coverage of every issue and topic. People would like to be able to make choices about the types of topics that are of interest to them.
Frustration with news media There is a level of frustration for some New Zealanders around the way general news media presents the news and talks about the issues. The news tends to be sensationalised or heavily biased, or at the very least quite a filtered view of the issues and current events. For those who are frustrated they may or may not be seeking out alternative sources. Some have the motivation to do so, others are simply frustrated but put up with it.
“[NZ news media is] very poorly researched, very biased and very one-sided depending on what the topic of the day is. Particularly health related issues I find frustrating that they don’t interview the people that actually know what they’re talking about, they just sort of cherry pick to make it either sensationalised or scaremongering or very poorly presented.” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
The importance of source For some New Zealanders, the source of information is an important consideration – this group is looking for reputable sources who present an unbiased view, or at the very least, this group is triangulating between sources. Others are relatively source agnostic and the value in the channel is either about the topic or the format of delivery.
“Even the media itself isn’t that accurate, for example: Fox News. We try to get a balanced view. We’ll read Whale Oil and mainstream media [and compare].” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 30s
The range of behaviours around being informed There is a spectrum in terms of keeping up to date with what is going on in New Zealand:
• Those who are actively seeking out information from a wide range of sources and topics – from daily newspapers to niche blogs, and on a variety of topics. I want to understand the issues and seek multiple sources to make sure I have the full picture; • Those who have their tried and true few sources but a wide level of interest. They will keep up to date on many topics, but will keep it manageable by keeping the source list relatively small. I want broad knowledge, but I don’t want to spend hours gaining it; • Those who are just skimming the headlines on one or two sources, but not really getting into any one topic in depth. I want to know what’s going on, but I’m not really into the detail; • Those who are not actively following or looking for news and information, but who will check topics (and sources) out if they are shared or flagged by friends in social media. I get interested if it is important to people in my social circle, but I am more focussed on other stuff generally.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 14 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The drivers of engagement with the democratic and parliamentary process
Those interviewed have a very firm opinion of the types of people who engage with Parliament or the democratic process and those who choose to stay outside of these processes.
Those who are engaged are described as:
• Serious, driven, passionate, somewhat aggressive; • Hard-working; • Someone you wouldn’t mess around with; • Knowledgeable and able to communicate that knowledge well; • A talker, not a listener; • Likely to be older – has some life experience; • Somewhat black and white.
By contrast those who, while they might care deeply, don’t really engage with Parliament or the democratic process are described as:
• Relaxed, carefree, believes nothing can ever hurt me; • The fun one, doesn’t want to get too involved; • Someone who thinks around the issue in their mind but doesn’t get involved; • Wants change but doesn’t want the hassle of being involved; • Is scared to put their voice out there and have people get angry or feels that acting will make them too vulnerable; • Likely younger; • Caring, supportive, peaceful; • Someone who prioritises other things – fun, friends, family, travel, work, etc.; • Living day to day, not really thinking about the future; • Lacking information or knowledge.
While the engaged person is considered relatively consistent and somewhat one-dimensional, the person who is not engaged is far more complex. The points raised in this description speak to the different barriers to getting involved: feeling scared, feeling uninformed or not knowledgeable enough, prioritising other things, not seeing the democratic process as relevant – it does not touch my life, and being relatively shortsighted.
Bringing the unengaged into a more engaged space requires that they feel supported in the process – they are not left to their own devices to discover the next steps or work it out themselves. It is about having someone next to them at each step helping them through.
There is also a need to help the unengaged to find people who feel the same way they do about issues – and providing comfort from numbers. This is not just about having numbers to build action, but also validating their opinions and creating a safe space where they will not feel ridiculed or like they are standing out from the crowd.
Finally, building engagement with the unengaged is about listening to them and their perspective, and helping them to grow their level of knowledge at a pace that feels right for them.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 15 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Segmenting the needs around informing and engaging with democracy One of the objectives of this research is to understand the different segments within the population based on how people engage with, or inform themselves about, Parliament and the democratic process. Understanding the distinct groups within the population will enable Parliament to provide more targeted information or activity depending on their needs. As this research is qualitative only, these segments are indicative, and there is no sense of the size of the different groups within the population.
There are a number of different factors that could be used to segment the way people want to inform themselves or engage with democracy and Parliament. These include:
• Whether they are focussed on the group vs. the individual; • Whether they focus on the detail vs. digestible top-level information; • Whether they are outcome vs. process focussed; • The current level of knowledge (high vs. low); • Whether they prefer a filtered or unfiltered view of the world; • The level of involvement they have with the democratic process now (engaged vs. unengaged); • How they like their information presented (e.g. video vs. written vs. audio); • How and where they get their information – conversation, online, social media, etc.
From across the interviews two clear factors drive core differences in need when engaging with Parliament and the democratic process: whether the person is focussed on the group vs. the individual, and whether they focus on the detail or the digestible top level of information.
Focussed on the group vs. the individual A core differentiating factor is whether people feel they have the ability as an individual to engage with the democratic process or whether they believe they need to create a level of safety in numbers before having the power to effect change.
Those who believe in the power of the individual are more likely to feel comfortable with the four ways of engaging with Parliament (voting, approaching an MP, making a submission, or creating petitions), and feel that their individual action can have some impact.
Those who believe in the power of the group often feel that there is little impact from just one person trying to create change. There is also a sense of safety in numbers – that if other people feel the same way you do then your opinion is valid and therefore more likely to be heard. These people in a group often don’t want to be standing out from the crowd, and would be fearful of trying to create change as an individual as it may mean others ridicule them or pull apart their opinions and knowledge.
Focussed on the detail vs. focussed on digestible top-level information The second differentiating factor is about the way people prefer to take information in – detail or top-level.
Those focussed on the detail want to understand the intricacies on both sides of a debate. This group are often looking to triangulate information and compare differing sources. They may be focussed on ensuring expert information has been accessed, and that they are hearing the facts rather than just the opinion. The detail will allow them to understand the issue and the process. Those at this end of the spectrum prefer written information, detailed interviews (in any format), and multiple sources of information (e.g. various news sites, more detailed specialist sites, etc.)
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 16 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Those more focussed on digestible top-level information often feel overwhelmed by the detail. Once information starts to get too detailed they will likely switch off – they either do not have the time or do not prioritise an issue enough to want to get into the detail. Digestible top-level information is about giving this group enough to understand the issue and to talk about it to some extent. It is also about enabling them to have a shared understanding with their social group and not feel left behind from their friends and family. Those at this end of the spectrum prefer shorter snippets of information, from one or two main sources (e.g. the major daily online news sites or social media feed).
Four distinct segments People can be anywhere along these two dynamics (individual vs. group, and detail vs. digestible). This influences their needs for engaging with Parliament and the democratic process. Below is a model showing four distinct need spaces with clearly different ways to inform and engage people in the democratic process.
Individual Need space 1: Focus on individual and detail Need space 2: Focus on the individual and digestible • Looking to inform themselves and truly information understand the issues. • Looking for enough information to have an idea of • Value expert knowledge, objectivity of source, what’s going on, without being overwhelmed. complexity. • Value being able to have a conversation with • Feel that they have the ability to effect change. friends and family and feel they understand • Need to know: Where to start, what the process what’s going on. Value plain English, no use of is in full/ what to do when the system is not jargon. working in your favour. • Not necessarily looking to effect change, but like • Likely sources of news and information: to know that the option is there if they want to Government websites, specialist news media, get involved. general news media (multiple sources), expert • Need to know: what’s the most accessible or easy channels. Not much reliance on social media for way to have someone help you personally on news and information. issues that affect you or your family? • Likely sources of news and information: General I want to understand the issues in more than a news media and mass broadcast. May also follow superficial way. I want to know where to get news outlets on social media and read headlines involved if I need to – make information on the there. process easily discoverable. I want to feel informed but not overwhelmed. It is good to know help is there, but I’m unlikely to need it unless something really impacts me Digstible
personally.
(top
- Detail Detail
Need space 3: Focus on the group and the detail Need space 4: Focus on the group and digestible - level) • Looking to build movements or create change information
with groups. • Looking to feel a part of their social group with
• Value expert knowledge, objectivity of source, enough information to be able to be engaged in complexity. the conversation. • Feel that they can build the power with a group to • Value knowing what others are sharing and create change. seeing, and what is going on at a high level. • Need to know: how to pull together a group and • Need to know: What are the big issues, how do get them focussed on an issue, how to find they affect me and my friends/family? people who care about the issue or get people to • Likely sources of news and information: Social care about an issue, and the processes the group media, conversations with friends and family, is able to use to effect change. general mass media broadcast. • Likely sources of news and information: Government websites, specialist news media, I want to have a shared understanding with my general news media (multiple sources), expert friends and family so we can talk about the big channels. Some social media for headlines, will do issues. We don’t need to get involved, but we their own reading beyond this. can share our opinions. I want to build a community who cares and together create change. I want to understand the issue and share that understanding with others. Group
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 17 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Using these need spaces These need spaces provide Parliament with a way of understanding the different activities needed to reach different groups of the population. As an example:
Individual
Need space 1: Focus on individual and detail Need space 2: Focus on the individual and • Engaging these people will be about digestible information making it easy to find information on • This group needs information to be drip- processes such as submissions and fed, to build up a gradual picture of the petitions. Make it easy to find the expert issues or the process. Too much all at information they need to feel comfortable once will overwhelm. to engage (for example interviews with • Engaging this group in the process will be scientists or reports from people within hard unless there is an issue they feel the industry/sector). extremely passionately about. When they • These people will be actively looking for do come to that point, conversation is key objective news and current affairs. Ensure – making the MP feel easy to approach. (top Digestible there is enough focus on the issues and
where to find extra detail.
Detail -
Need space 3: Focus on the group and the detail Need space 4: Focus on the group and digestible level) • Helping this group engage is about helping information them connect with groups to create • Again, engaging this group in the process action. will be hard unless there is an issue they • Again, these people will be actively looking feel extremely passionately about. Helping for objective news and current affairs. them engage will be about helping them Ensure there is enough focus on the issues find groups that they can be a part of to and where to find extra detail. feel that they’re doing something. • Informing this group is about making easy to share information that they can share among their social group online.
Group
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 18 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Democracy: The current state
Democracy is a difficult concept for those interviewed to define. Many are able to come up with something along the lines of “everyone has a voice” or “we all have a chance to vote for the people to represent our interests”. However, this definition tends to come only after a moment of consideration. That initial hesitation indicates that it is not necessarily a concept at the front of mind.
“It probably should fit [in our lives], but I don’t think of it every day… only around elections.” HAWKE’S BAY RURAL, COUPLE IN 40s
“What democracy means to me… nothing really; just that when I think of it, it is just government. If I had to describe it I would have to look it up, like look it up in a dictionary.” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, FEMALE, 30 YRS.
In trying to define democracy in New Zealand there is a tendency to use examples from other countries (notably the United States). The point of reference for democracy is often other countries.
“[The democratic process] is not working as intended but it’s better than the USA. MMP is a very good thing and the Greens have a handful of seats.” RURAL OTAGO, EURO, COUPLE IN 50s
“By the people, for the people. Freedom to express your views and opinions. In some countries, you’re shot if you say the wrong thing. In New Zealand, we have the freedom to not be afraid and to say what you want without fear of being put in prison.” AUCKLAND, INDIAN, MALE, 38 YRS.
“Everyone has a say. We have an election to choose who we’d like to run our country. It’s not a dictatorship like North Korea.” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, MALE, 26 YRS.
The words and phrases that New Zealanders use to define democracy include:
• If you don’t vote you can’t complain; • People having their say; • Everyone’s opinions count; • The government is doing all they can for the people; • Freedom of choice in who you want to govern/the right to vote for whoever you want; • Everyone is invited to have an opinion, it is up to you whether you vote, but the option is there.
Inherent in this definition is the idea that democracy is about voting for representation, rather than having a say on all topics. Once the voting is over Parliament is seen by some as taking a step away from the voices of the people and operating under its own direction. The voice of the people has little to do with Parliament after this point, and agendas of the politicians, big business, and groups with the power of numbers becomes far more important.
“One person one vote. You get the chance to have your say once every three years but after that you have no say. Democracy is not the best but it’s the best we’ve got.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 19 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Ultimately, the way those interviewed describe democracy is close to the definition used by Parliament. It is a concept that is a part of our collective psyche, if not always front of mind.
“Democracy was supposed to be where you were able to stand up for your rights wasn’t it, and you were able to have some choices. I think there’s a lot of people today that they feel like they haven’t got any choices.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, FEMALE, 70 YRS.
Are we following the democratic process in New Zealand? The New Zealanders interviewed are somewhat polarised on whether we are truly following the democratic process in New Zealand.
For those who believe we are not fully following the democratic process the justifications behind this stance include:
• New Zealanders do have freedom of speech, it’s simply that many don’t feel passionate enough to want to put their voices out there; • A significant proportion don’t vote, which means we’re not actually representing the voices of all New Zealand; • The Government seems to be making a lot of rules (e.g. smacking children or smoking) and taking away our rights; • The people aren’t always listened to – for example with the flag debate and the process that happened around changing the flag; • The Government doesn’t represent me and the people in power care more about staying in power than representing the people; • The Government does not really listen to the little guy – its big business and lobbyists who push the issues in Parliament.
“The facilities are there for a democratic process but not everyone engages with it. The people that have their views more aligned with National are more likely to exercise their right to vote. Democracy as a word doesn’t have as big an impact in New Zealand as it does in the USA.” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 30s
“New Zealand has too much tail wagging the dog. There are people whose opinions shouldn’t be a news story. We just need to get on with it and have people make decisions for us. It seems the minorities are often the ones that are more fervent and extreme.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS.
“A bunch of guys that are out of touch with people and trying to steer the ship. They’re calling the shots in Wellington but they’re’ out of touch. How regularly do they come up to visit people in Northland?” NORTHLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 33 YRS.
“My experience of that is that you might have some really valid things to present or say to the government but my experience is that depending on who’s lobbying them and potentially what money is to be made in that particular field, it’s highly unlikely that you will be heard or that any action will come from that.” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
“Voting just feels passive. Like you are responding to what the parties have decided are the issues. You have to find someone who is the most like you. It feels like you are a passenger, not driving the agenda” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, FEMALE, 30 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 20 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Parliament: The current level of engagement and knowledge
There is a low level of understanding of the difference between Government and Parliament amongst those interviewed. The two words tend to be interchangeable. Even when the terms are defined, it is still not clear what the distinction really is. The unprompted distinction between Parliament and Government includes:
Parliament Government • All the people who are in charge of discussing • Government departments like police, DHBs, and debating how things should be done to run Inland Revenue the country • Sits above Parliament • A group of politicians debating and making rules • “I thought the Government was Parliament?” and regulations; the law makers • Ministries, e.g. the Minister for police, • Elected individuals who are supposed to agriculture, etc. represent the people • Important people, but a whole lot of drama • Game-playing and politicking – all about who has the power • Arguments • Ministers in a building in Wellington • The Beehive • Necessary but not overly positive • Making decisions in consultation with the people • Portfolios (e.g. tourism/education)
Parliament: Fine in theory, not so great in practice? The concepts of both Parliament and government are fine in theory, but in practice Parliament is perceived as somewhat different to the academic definition. For some there is a perception that once people get into Parliament, the focus is more about staying in power than representing the people who voted them in. Salaries and benefits for politicians may be a reason why those in power are so focussed on staying there at all cost.
“Once politicians get there, they do what they want.” HASTINGS, EURO, FEMALE, 46 YRS.
“There can be a lot of anger towards MPs and the salaries they get for the work they do. It creates an us and them feeling. When MPs are approachable it breaks down those barriers.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 33 YRS.
“They [politicians] say what they want you to hear. That’s why I don’t take a lot of interest. They don’t do what they say. They don’t follow through. Some are actually just there for the money and the status… they don’t really care.” PROVINCIAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 51 YRS.
“Parliament is far away. Like geographically in Wellington – but also it feels distant. Detached. The way they behave (MPs in Parliament) further detaches it from us. Takes it away from seeing them as relatable people who have my interests at heart” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 29 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 21 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Some of the other issues that those interviewed see with Parliament centre on the influence of MMP in the way Parliament operates. This includes the belief that there are too many people in Parliament, minority parties have too much power, and it is hard to reach decisions with these minority parties in Parliament.
For those who are not fans of MMP there is the belief that MMP allows minority parties to hold the Government to ransom. This might then mean that the democratic process is not fully followed, as the voice of the minority parties (representing a smaller number of votes) have disproportionate power. However, on the other side are those who appreciate that MMP brings the smaller voice to the table and allows them to be represented in Parliament.
What role does Parliament play in daily life? The overwhelming theme from the research is that Parliament, and even the democratic process, does not have much direct impact on daily life. Many New Zealanders struggle to articulate direct or indirect influences. There is little consideration of the laws created by Parliament and how these influence daily life.
“Parliament doesn’t have much relevance at all. I think of all the times they’ve stuffed up. Sue Bradford came into class at university and talked about what they do. It makes you realise what they’ve actually done, but we generally don’t have that connection to what Parliament does.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 29 YRS.
Where people can verbalise a direct impact of Parliament often comes down to a specific (and often relatively recent) piece of legislation. For example, the recent caregivers’ pay rise, or the working for families tax credit.
“Caregivers just got a pay-rise and that makes my life so much easier. It took six years to make it happen. PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“Yes, we are impacted through the working for families tax credit scheme. We’re not entitled to it all because we’re homeowners. They expected us to sell our home. It makes you realise the system doesn’t work.” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 40s
In terms of indirect effects, Parliament can be seen as an umbrella that provides a sense of safety and fairness for daily life:
“It makes our country safe, a good place to grow up, laws are fair, and people are treated fairly.” HASTINGS, EUROPEAN, FEMALE, 46 YRS.
The level of experience with Parliament and the democratic process It is worthwhile noting that when New Zealanders talked about how they engage with Parliament and the democratic process, there is often a confusion with the layers of local government, regional boards, and national level politics. There is not a clear distinction between what happens at a national, regional, or local level.
Given that democracy is defined as “having a voice,” it is perhaps unsurprising that when New Zealanders talk about their experience there are so many layers of democracy involved. For some, the idea of engaging with Parliament or democracy might reference Mayors, local or international petitions, local boards, and regional development organisations to name a few.
When considering their experiences of engaging with Parliament at a national level, most of those interviewed only mention voting and seeing Parliamentary debates or snippets of them on TV. This might be on the nightly news, or they may be flicking through the channels and come across Parliament TV. The debates are often seen as childish and somewhat disturbing; they are not always focussed on issues and can get quite personal at times.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 22 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“What a pack of idiots… all they can do to put each other down, rip each other’s nighties… its personal things rather than being about our country.” PROVINCIAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
The official channels of engaging with Parliament
Voting is the official channel that feels the most accessible for New Zealanders to engage with Parliament. Beyond that, approaching an MP might be the next step – and is acceptable for some of those interviewed. Creating petitions and submissions simply feel beyond the reach of many interviewed, and are seen as intimidating and requiring a lot of effort and knowledge (often for not much payoff).
Voting Voting is the democratic process in action. Having a voice may only mean having the freedom to vote for whomever you prefer (from those running). Once politicians are elected, the voices of the individuals may be less important.
Barriers to voting tend to be more about understanding the political parties and candidates, and being able to make an informed choice rather than a lack of procedural knowledge.
“It is kind of scary because you are placing a vote based on what you hear from each party and what they present as being their values or their approach and their manifesto, what they put in that. But, often the things that might really matter to a voting person aren’t in that manifesto or they don’t have a specific policy on it. So it is really difficult to try and make a choice about who is going to lead the country and represent general society. It is difficult.” WELLINGTON, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 30 YRS.
The electoral roll campaigns are top of mind for many interviewed, and these have worked to make voting feel natural and accessible. There is a high level of awareness of what an individual needs to do to vote, though there is less awareness of how Parliament is created once the votes are cast. It should be noted that this research was conducted in an election year, this may have some influence on responses.
As mentioned, there is some question around the representativeness of Parliament under MMP. The idea that minority parties can have out-sized power relative to their votes may call into question how democratic Parliament really is. However, this is not a question that the majority are necessarily struggling with.
Voting falls prey to the same issue that any engagement in the democratic process has: the perceived lack of power of the individual. This may be a barrier for some to engage in voting, although the general perception is that ‘if you don’t vote, you can’t complain.’
“You’re outnumbered. It doesn’t always go your way. I still do it though.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“I don’t vote any more. Having a vote is like having a bucket of M&M’s. Your vote is one M&M’s and what difference that make? The last time I voted was when I had faith in the Maori party. Now I see that they have no influence and have to rely on others for power that dilutes their agenda.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 58 YRS.
“I meant to vote but I didn’t get around to it. I find it hard to find the time. If there’s nothing that’s affecting me and my quality of life I won’t go out of my way to vote. Maybe I’d care if they were decreasing the minimum wage or something.” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, MALE, 26 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 23 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“It [Democracy] is fair. Everyone has the opportunity to have their say, to vote. And if they don’t vote then tough luck. There’s a lot of people who still don’t vote. I think about somewhere… in some country – I’m not sure – but if you don’t vote you get fined. I am not sure where that is or if it is here – but that is also why we vote. We don’t want to get a fine. So you might as well just vote. And it doesn’t take a lot of time. And you know – your parents influence your vote. Mum has always just been like “Vote Labour” and – I don’t know. But my husband and I don’t really talk about it.” AUCKLAND, NIUEAN, COUPLE IN 30s
“I missed voting in the last two elections but I voted in this one because of the housing issue and I wanted change.” NORTHLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 33 YRS.
Approaching an MP For many of those interviewed approaching an MP feels like an achievable way of getting action on an issue (and thereby engaging with Parliament). However, the general tone of discussion around approaching an MP suggests that this may not be seen as engaging with Parliament as such, rather it is more about getting action on an issue that affects an individual personally. At the very least, the MP can direct people about the processes they can undertake to get action on an issue, and at best they can take the issue on themselves.
“There’s a drive there if there’s someone that you know, that you love, involved. Affected.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 20s
The reason that approaching an MP feels comfortable (relative to petitions and submissions) is that it is a conversation. Being able to sit next to someone and have a conversation with a person is often seen as easier than trying to gather your thoughts and produce a written document.
“I would contact an MP, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Face to face is better because it can be an exchange of questions and answers to make it clear. Written is not so clear or people read what they want to between the lines.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS.
Finding the local MP (or a portfolio MP) seems relatively easy – most interviewed would simply Google and expect to be able to find an address, email address, or phone number.
The role of the MP Going to the MP is seen as a more efficient way of effecting change than submitting to Parliament or creating petitions. Approaching an MP makes it easier and faster to have your voice heard, and it seems to redirect the responsibility to the MP. There is almost a sense of getting it off your plate and onto that of the MP. This assumption was more likely to come from those who have not approached an MP, but does point to a need to educate people on the process the MP needs to go through to effect change.
“It’s easier to just have a conversation with someone. They’d take your point into consideration, and keep you updated on progress.” RURAL NORTHLAND, YOUNG COUPLE IN 20s
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 24 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“I think that talking to someone would be best. I would want to talk it through, verify my point of view was something that could be addressed. Obviously I would do my own research first – but rather start there. Get clarification that it was a real issue, and then after that… go on from there.” AUCKLAND, EURO, FEMALE, 22 YRS. Make it clear what the role of the MP is and the issues they can consider
There are varied expectations of the role that MPs will take to help people deal with issues. These range from guiding people through the process (not necessarily doing the work), through to acting as a mouthpiece or advocate in Parliament or with government agencies.
Of concern is the implication from some that the MP is like a genie – you go to the MP with an issue (whether big or small) and they can make things happen for you. This might mean having them go up against Work and Income for extra benefits or helping out with an immigration issue. The reason this is concerning is that it illustrates a lack of understanding of how the MP might be able to help and the processes they need to go through to effect change.
“There is a [local MP], I thought about going to see her – she does heaps of advertising that, if you’ve got a problem with something [you can call her]. I [was] struggling financially. She works with Work and Income. It was only temporary, but at that time we were struggling.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, 43 YRS.
“I got a letter from immigration, because I was born in Australia, saying that if I didn't organise my citizenship before I left the country, they had the right to deny me re-entry. So I wrote to Winston Peters and he fixed it.” WELLINGTON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 37 YRS.
In particular, some may need to direct people to MPs in the course of their work. One participant who worked in mental health did so occasionally, though this person is not entirely sure what issues MPs can help with or what the process is that they will go through. More information for referring parties would be useful.
“I will direct people to MPs as a part of my job if I think they have an issue that the MP could help with. It would be good to have information on how the MPs are able to help and their processes. We need to know what they can do and how they can help.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 29 YRS.
The barriers to approaching an MP There are a number of potential barriers to approaching an MP, these include:
• The belief that you will require a large amount of knowledge and research to back up any conversation; • The belief that MPs are already busy, and the issue may be too small or the MP won’t have time to help; • The concern that they may be brushed-off or ignored; • MPs will only push an issue if they see it is relevant to them.
“I wouldn’t go and see Winston, he’d be too hard-nosed.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“We could go and see the local MP and explain our situation and that these systems [working for families tax credit] exclude people. I don’t see why he’d be motivated to actually change systems with the amount of work involved.” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 40s
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 25 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“I would be glad that they’re taking interest but whether they would actually listen or do anything about it is another matter. It would depend on whether it aligns with what [other] people want and whether they’d get votes.” AUCKLAND, EURO, FEMALE, 16 YRS.
“We can send letters to our MP and that MP hopefully sees it as a subject that’s worthy of taking forward. But I am aware a little bit about the complexities around presenting a bill and how many levels it seems to be to get anywhere. However, I think the MP must first say, “I’m speaking on behalf of my constituency... and this is what the people are saying.” And so if I came out with one opinion I guess that MP needs to think this is actually a majority opinion. We’ve had lots of people talk about this issue and it’s worthy of me taking it upstairs.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, OLDER COUPLE
Negative experiences of approaching MPs Some have approached MPs for various issues in the past, but with varying results. Several of those who had approached an MP feel they did not get any action. They went to the MP, outlined their issue, and then there was no follow-up.
“[I knew the MP’s assistant and she said] I should ring and make an appointment with the MP… that I should write about my strong view, go through it with her and then we could approach everyone. So, I made an appointment, sat down with her and she wrote down what I was annoyed with. She said she had given my letter to the MP… then nothing. I didn’t get a response. I don’t know if it went anywhere… I just waited and waited… and it kind of fell off the radar.” HAWKE’S BAY RURAL, MĀORI, FEMALE, 46 YRS.
The person in the above example did not chase the issue because “I felt I’d said what I’d wanted to say”. However, others who heard nothing back assumed that the MP was too busy or their issue was too small for the MP to deal with.
Examples like this make people feel less able to engage in the democratic process and have their voice heard. This experience implies that one person does not actually have much say, and confirms the view that group action is required to get any traction.
Making MPs feel accessible – being open to conversation and being real For others, their local MP feels accessible and approaching them would be relatively easy. For example, Nick Smith in Nelson has a caravan at the local markets on a regular basis. This creates a sense that anyone can stop in and chat. Having a chat feels more informal – it does not require a lot of preparation (the thought of having to prepare and be knowledgeable can be a barrier to engaging).
In Hawke’s Bay, one of the local MPs invites people to come down to the local pub and have a beer. Again, this sets up a more comfortable environment that makes the MP feel accessible, and the context does not feel intimidating.
It does not always have to be in-person. Marama Fox in Hawke’s Bay keeps a strong presence on Facebook and feels accessible and real through her posts:
“She’s [Marama Fox] really active on Facebook. She’s constantly putting things up. You can interact with her online. She’s a real person I can interact with… I can tell it’s her and not a PA monitoring it [Facebook page].” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, MĀORI, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 26 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“Maybe MPs should be getting out and about a bit more after the election and letting you know they’re there.” NORTHLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 33 YRS.
Petitions While few are creating petitions, many are engaging with petitions. The perception among those spoken to is that there has been an increasing number of petitions shared on social media over the last few years. If it is an issue an individual cares about, they will click through and sign.
“I know through community groups like Action Station there has been a lot of petitioning around issues of social justice and the importance to New Zealand where large numbers of people have been surveyed by their grass roots on the ground – no funding organisations, and the people aren’t happy and so a petition will go to the relevant Minister or their representative of Parliament and that will get it into conversation within Parliament, whereas it wouldn’t have been before.” WELLINGTON, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 30 YRS.
“I have signed a petition before. I cannot remember what it was. I think it was something like Healthy Eating New Zealand. It was an online petition that just popped up online. Sometimes they pop up on the news.” AUCKLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 22 YRS.
This shift to online makes petitions feel a lot more accessible for younger New Zealanders interviewed (and some not-so-young New Zealanders), though hard copy petitions do have a part to play. Online petitions make it easy to support an issue, but there is a certain distance created by this. Action is very easy, and may mean that people do not engage in the issue as much as they may have done previously.
Hard copy petitions might help people feel a little more connected to the cause – especially for older New Zealanders. In addition, some older New Zealanders may not have the ability or access to sign online petitions, as the quote below illustrates:
“I had to help my nana with a petition for Dunedin Hospital. There was a campaign to keep the hospital and she had been given a flyer with all the details on how to submit your petition. I had to help my nana with the email, she doesn’t know how to do it. They should’ve had a paper copy.” PROVINCIAL OTAGO, MĀORI, FEMALE, 26 YRS.
“We went down the mall once and there was a petition to sign there. I can’t even remember what it was about but we both signed it. I can’t remember. Oh, it was the gold card… no, it wasn’t that it was something else. I remember there’s a petition. We both signed it. We both agreed with it. So, we have been involved with a petition.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, OLDER COUPLE
Join an existing petition rather than create your own There is a feeling that it is far easier to join a group or petition that is already geared to pushing a certain issue rather than starting a movement or petition on your own. The general sense is that increasing engagement might actually mean making it easier for people to connect with groups who care about the particular issues. Once that connection is made, then engagement with Parliament and democracy may not feel so daunting. The power in numbers is about comfort as much as it is about majority opinion.
In particular, this is a focus for the segments on the group rather than individual end of the spectrum. Those who are focussed on the detail and the group (need space 3) might build a community to create a petition. By contrast, those
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 27 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process in need space four (group and digestible information) feel far more comfortable joining a petition that has already been created.
“Maybe if it was a particular issue and there were other people within the community working on it I’d probably support them. … If I already knew, for example, the GE Free in Hawke’s Bay, there’s a lot of amazing work going on within that. So, for me as a little person I’d probably choose to support them in terms of maybe donations or at least signing their petitions knowing that they were doing the bigger picture.” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
“If I wanted to get involved I’d contact an organisation that was already working on the issue. That would be more credible. There would be more collaboration, you’d be working smarter.” AUCKLAND, INDIAN, MALE, 38 YRS.
“I’d look for other people who’ve started stuff up and join them and see what they think we should do.” RURAL OTAGO, MĀORI, FEMALE, 26 YRS.
Creating a petition may feel personally confronting A recurring theme was the concern that “I’m not sure I’d have enough friends to get a worthy petition.” Because the perception is that petitions require numbers, there is a real potential barrier in ‘what if I don’t get enough numbers?’ The implication behind this is ‘what does that say about me and my relationships?’
“There’s potential for me to be hurt if others are not picking up my cause.” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, MĀORI, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
“I don’t have enough of an audience on social media to push something to Parliament.” RURAL NORTHLAND, EURO, MALE, 25 YRS.
Understanding of the petition process is low While signing petitions has become easier, there does not seem to be much understanding about where the petition will go (e.g. local government, national government, or something else), or what the process is once the petition is complete. In fact, the role of the petition is a little unclear; people may see signing as simply supporting a cause, without thought to how that might be used to create change.
Do petitions actually create change? There seems to be little readily available proof that petitions actually work. Often the petitions are so distant from the changes that are made that people may not see the link between the petition and the change.
“I signed a petition but didn’t really understand how a petition worked. I just signed that I support it.” HAWKE’S BAY RURAL, MĀORI, MALE, 44 YRS.
“I signed the petition against the TPPA and went to a talk. There’s not much I can do. Everyone was protesting but Parliament still passed it anyway. The voices of the people are not as important as other interests.” RURAL OTAGO, MĀORI, FEMALE, 26 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 28 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Few seem to be following up with petitions they have signed, or even following progress on the issue after they have signed a petition.
The belief is that a petition needs the weight of numbers to be successful It is generally surprising to those interviewed that you only need one person to create a petition to government. The popular belief is that you require a large number of signatures and the power of people behind a petition to get Parliament to listen to an issue or take it seriously. All segments are of the same opinion concerning petitions requiring the power of numbers, though those in need space one were more likely to look to individual engagement such as submissions (thus they believe one person can effect change, but are just not aware that this can occur through a petition). Even when made aware that it actually only takes one person, the immediate assumption is that a petition this small would have no power.
“In my experience, they don’t listen to petitions… they have hundreds of thousands of signatures but nothing changes. I think it’s good people have the right, but I can’t remember a petition changing anything.” HASTINGS, EURO, FEMALE, 46 YRS.
“Don’t you have to have 1000 signatures?” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 40s
“The government can write [petitions] off because of the perception that there’s no scientific representation, no proper rigour about where people go to get them signed.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 48 YRS.
Making a submission Submissions (alongside creating petitions) feel like the least accessible way to engage with Parliament. Few know what a submission is and what it is used for. Even after reading the material on submissions there is still a level of mystery around what’s involved, why you would do it, and what role it has.
Submissions are assumed to require good communication skills, and many spoken to doubt that they have the requisite skills. They worry that they may not be properly understood when creating a submission. That is why approaching an MP may feel more comfortable. At least talking to an MP will allow for back-and-forth and clarification.
One of the key barriers to engaging with submissions is the belief that you would need a lot of knowledge, or at the very least do a lot of research prior to making a submission. This makes submissions feel like something more for the experts and people who are really involved, not for the everyday general public.
“It’s a lot of work, you’d only do that if worst came to worst or if it really affected me and I had the energy, the time, and a good group of people.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“Would that mean going to Wellington? Does it have to be at Parliament?” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 40s
“If a big topic came up and someone said, “If we all just write a submission,” just what does that require? Where do I go? What does it look like? What do I say? Or is it something that’s quite simple? Is it just a matter of me saying, “I don’t agree with this”?” HAWKE’S BAY RURAL, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 29 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“With a submission how would you find the committee? How would you find out what was going on? Would you advertise it? The average Joe wouldn’t know about it.” NORTHLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 33 YRS. The expectation is that if you wanted to understand the process and create a submission, Google is the first step to get an idea of what is involved and how to start the process. Some might seek advice from Citizens Advice Bureau or an expert such as a lawyer or MP. Government websites might be consulted, but this requires knowing where to start – so Google tends to be the window into the process.
“With Google, you get a quick answer and you can kind of tell if it’s a legit website… it has the government logo, or .govt.nz address.” NELSON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 31 YRS.
For the small group who do know something about submissions there is a sense that making a submission helps to bring the human element into the decision-making process for Parliament. This may be one of the key messages for helping people to see that making a submission is a valuable form of engagement.
“[People who create submissions] bring their own stories and you can’t argue with a story. And it is easy to make sweeping laws or rules when you are sitting in the ivory tower. But when you hear the stories of people and how it affects people on a daily basis, that can make a change or it can sway thoughts so that is really important.” WELLINGTON, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 30 YRS.
Submissions feel like something you might do in a professional capacity rather than as an individual. Some interviewed have made submissions for work before, they agree that as an individual it would have felt intimidating.
“I have presented at select committees for work. I was intimidated but it is much easier once you start. Ordinary people are less likely to make a submission. It would have to affect them personally. I called Parliament to have a chat about making a submission and I used the information on their website. It was very good at explaining what to do.” AUCKLAND, INDIAN, MALE, 38 YRS.
“I would do this as a business, but not as an individual.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS.
Questions about submissions: • Can you submit without turning up? • Who selects the panel/committee? • Whether committees have actually already made a decision and they are just going through the process? • What do you need to include? What will make them listen? How do you get taken seriously?
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 30 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The current barriers to engaging with Parliament
Beyond the general personal justifications for low engagement (I am too busy, someone else will do it, I don’t like to make a fuss), there are Parliament-specific issues that hinder engagement.
The process is too complicated, disempowers, or sets people up for failure The process of Parliament is dull or overly complicated, and something that few New Zealanders interviewed feel they want to get involved with. People do not necessarily see the reason for the complexity. There is a lack of understanding of the reasons for multiple readings, select committees, and drawn-out discussions.
This complexity is a barrier to engagement, and creates a belief that you have to be really committed to seeing something through to even begin. The machinations of Parliament are not for the “average Joe” and probably only the politicians are able to really make sense of these processes.
“It takes so many processes to get to one decision.” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 50s
“There are a lot of levels of authority. That might have worked 100 years ago but it doesn’t work now. They could cut out a lot of this.” RURAL NORTHLAND, EURO, MALE, 25 YRS.
“People give up on Parliament because of the time it takes and the hoops you have to go through.” WHANGAREI, EURO, COUPLE IN 50s
“I wouldn’t create a petition. I’m a private person and I don’t want to cause problems for myself. If it’s controversial you’re fighting the government and big companies and they might cause issues for you.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 33 YRS.
However, the outcomes from parliamentary process are far more interesting and this is what people say they want to hear about.
The focus is on personalities, not the issues There is a need to separate the information and issues from the debate and personalities, and to focus more on the positives rather than the negatives of debate and parliamentary process. Top-of-mind impressions of Parliament often include some description of childish politicians arguing and getting personal with insults. Added to this, the media often focuses on the interpersonal conflict at the expense of reporting more fully on the issues.
“We’re being bombarded with Jacinda, but what’s being debated in the chamber right now? The news is sensationalist.” DUNEDIN, EURO/ASIAN, YOUNG COUPLE IN 20s
There must be good examples of individuals and parties working together to create positive outcomes – these stories need to be told more to humanise the politicians and the process.
“They always bring up the negative stuff and the conflicts in the news. They need to talk about the similarities and the issues, not the conflict.” WHANGAREI, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 19 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 31 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
You need knowledge to engage with Parliament
One of the perceived barriers to engaging with Parliament is that it requires a lot of understanding and knowledge in order to be taken seriously. People who were not engaging with Parliament believe there is a need to arm themselves with research and knowledge before they get involved in things like submitting to select committees, creating petitions, or going to see MPs. Even voting requires knowledge – you need to understand the parties, the policies, and form an opinion based on this.
Gaining the right level of knowledge is a huge time and energy commitment, thus it is limited to those issues where people feel passionately enough to spend the time and energy.
“[People who engage are likely to] care very deeply about something. They would have to be moved to want to make a change. It would be something they believe would have a big effect. They would be a well- informed and well-educated person. They would be able to execute research and understand the issues and players. They would have support – for example a team of people to work with them and put in effort. Spread the word and raise more support and awareness. Bring more people aboard. They would have networks in the community.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 58 YRS.
The language is intimidating The language and jargon used can make the idea of engaging with Parliament somewhat intimidating. The concepts of Parliament are complicated enough without adding a layer of complexity that comes with the jargon of Parliament. Younger people in particular found the language intimidating and a real barrier to learning more.
“They need to talk about Parliament in a way where you don’t have to use smart words.” WHANGAREI, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 19 YRS.
The level of information and the issues can be overwhelming For some there is a sense of inadequacy when it comes to informing themselves on the issues or on parliamentary process. The feeling is that if they were to turn on the tap of caring about the issues and understanding what is really going on they would feel powerless to help. It may simply be easier to not engage with the issues rather than dealing with that feeling of powerlessness.
Local body politics feel far more relevant and with a higher ability to influence. The issues covered in Parliament feel too big for the average person. This raises the question of what needs to be done to bring the issues at Parliament down to a manageable size?
“It all gets too much. There’s too much to take in, I’d rather talk about sports. I don’t want to know too much, it gets overwhelming. You see the country the way it is and you think ‘why, who’s to blame, why aren’t politicians helping?’ It’s better just to get up and go to work and try to make life better for yourself.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, 43 YRS.
“Local body politics affects you more and gets people up in arms. Local is more relevant to me, big issues aren’t that relevant.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 32 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
People just don’t see the need to engage For many interviewed there just isn’t reason to engage – things seem to be on a pretty even keel, or there are more important things to worry about or pay attention to. Added to this, some see Parliament and the issues as not relevant to their lives.
“I feel like Parliament is actually accessible, but people don’t know. People in the PI community don’t know what is there. Maybe interest is just limited. There’s too many things competing for their attention – you won’t see it on TV there are too many options if you aren’t necessarily looking for it. I feel like we have a situation where people don’t look to Parliament as a viable solution to solve their problems.” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, FEMALE, 30
“I can see that it should be relevant and important in my life. Yes, it is important and it makes a difference. But… Because things are ‘good’ I don’t feel an impact. The laws here are good, they don’t hinder me. It favours people. Overall I would say that in NZ things are fair and in the favour of the people. So I am not impacted because things are good.” AUCKLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 22
“It is not about accessibility. My generation – we assume we can get information if we want it. There are lots of ways to get information. Like I see it says Facebook here (SHOW CARD). I am on Facebook and I have liked the party pages. But why would I follow Parliament on Facebook? It sounds boring. It is not about accessibility. It is a systemic problem. A problem of disillusionment with democracy. And disengagement from Parliament. People don’t feel involved. They are not. Parliament is just not relatable.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 29 YRS.
Engaging may mean opening yourself to ridicule
Related to the desire to ‘not make a fuss’ is the concern that if you were to get involved, you would be opening yourself to ridicule. Standing up for something and taking it to Parliament may mean that the media picks up the story and that you may be unfairly represented or have your words twisted. It may also mean ridicule on social media. This ‘putting yourself out there’ is a barrier for people who value their privacy.
“Nothing bothers me enough to want to do it. I want to live a quiet life, I want privacy. I don’t want to lose my privacy and end up on the news.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS.
“I would feel comfortable only if it’s obscure and I knew it wouldn’t end up in the media. You open yourself up to public ridicule. If I really loved this sort of thing I would’ve become a politician.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 33 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 33 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
How can we make it easier for people to inform themselves and engage?
There are a number of general principles that together might help structure any communications plan aimed at helping people to inform themselves and engage with the democratic process and Parliament.
Raise awareness gradually, don’t overwhelm A common theme is there is so much to know and learn about Parliament or democracy, and this can feel overwhelming. There is a desire to build the level of knowledge gradually – drip feed it into the consciousness of the nation rather than turn the tap on full blast.
Some of the small ways that could start to enable this raising of consciousness include:
• Placing links to Parliament or information about the issues in news coverage. This is seen as similar to stories on domestic violence or suicide – where the media will always include links to helplines or places to look for further information. • On public transport and places where people are largely passive and open to reading information. Posters on buses and trains with small snippets (and links for more information). • Something similar to the ads by the Broadcasting Standards Authority – if you want to get involved then these are the channels to start with. • When Parliamentary decisions and outcomes of committees are reported, include information on the small actions and individuals that raised the issue. Link the outcomes to individual actions. • Raising awareness early via the school curriculum.
Make information and the process accessible While few of those interviewed have actually engaged with information from Parliament, the perception is that it is likely to be wordy, filled with jargon, largely text-based, and dull. Making information accessible is about ensuring people can find snippets of information in plain English, and build up knowledge gradually. In addition, the processes themselves need to make sense, and each step needs to have a clear explanation of purpose and process.
“They need to show the process, what you need to do, what will happen next, what your involvement will be throughout, how it’s handled, who looks at it, who makes decisions. Basically just the start to finish and what happens in the middle. They could just have a flowchart on the government website.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS.
Suggestions to make information accessible include:
• Videos - 30 seconds to 2 minutes maximum; • Text and video – so people are able to use the mode that best suits them; • Plain English, no jargon; • Make it visual – great diagrams and infographics that make it easy to pick up concepts; • Relatable and ‘everyday’ presenters; • Make it easily digestible, for example ‘Policy in a Minute’; • Make the information hierarchy really clear and easy to navigate (less wordy, clearer headings, visual information structure, etc.); • Make the information easily discoverable – search engine optimisation on natural language searches (e.g. “how do I make a submission to Parliament”), image searches that show the flow of processes, video searches, etc.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 34 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“If I want to know something I will go to YouTube. I’ll find a YouTube video. And I’ll pick the shortest one. … I look for the one with the least steps. You get one that might say ‘do it in 10 steps’ or you have one that is 3 minutes long and one might be 10 minutes long… so usually I just click the fastest one.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 20s
Creating accessibility and ease of discovery
The focus may be more about making information easily found rather than proactively pushing communication to New Zealanders. Easily found means easily found on Google – optimising search engines for the questions that people are asking. These questions might be “how do I start a petition” or “who is my MP” – take note that these are plain English searches rather than jargon-filled searches.
“I like to think it would be easy, you’d just Google it. Hopefully you’d find a one sheet step-by-step guide generated by Parliament. I don’t know if it would be easy to actually do though. You’d have to be really committed and you’d have to communicate well.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS.
The information that people are open to having pushed at them is more around showing how the democratic process has worked on particular issues, thus raising the belief that individuals create change. Once that basic understanding has been created, then it might be appropriate to push communication about the process of engagement, but at this stage the more critical point is making people realise that engaging is worthwhile.
Humanise the people involved It is easy to demonise politicians and lump them all into one mass of “power-hungry politicians”. Where there is more respect for politicians and what they do is when people had real and human experiences with individual politicians, or they had the veil lifted to see the inner workings of their jobs.
Humanising the politicians might help move past the “they’re not like us” feeling, and help people want to understand what is going on and who is involved. As an example, a recent documentary on Parliament by Nigel Latta prompted the following comment:
“It’s just seeing them not so polished … behind closed doors it’s a roundtable discussion. They’re going, “Right guys, today this issue will come up. We just need to make sure that these are the points we raise.” … It seemed a lot more human as opposed to robotic I guess. And they interviewed a couple of the members which you got to know a little bit of their background, why they got into government and why they got into this area of their lives … you’re learning more about the person.” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
Take it to people where they gather A common theme in making information and engagement more accessible is about making it less formal. Some of this comes down to the places people engage with the information and conversation. There may be value in having people at events like local markets and festivals to introduce some of the concepts of Parliament and democracy and talk about how to get involved. For example, pop-up tents with people who are accessible, friendly, and interesting, and who can talk about Parliament in plain English.
“They should go to events like having a pop-up tent at the Tikipunga markets. Have lots of pictures and not ‘smart words’ – use words we’ll understand. Show us where else we can go for more information.” WHANGAREI, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 19 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 35 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“They should have fun activities like setting up a tent at festivals. Have young and cool people there to talk to who are not so political and don’t use big words. Go to the nationals for Kapahaka or Fritter Fest, or the provincial rugby games.” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, FEMALE, 16 YRS.
“Find people where they spend most of their time. Perhaps physically but definitely online. It must be interesting, short and brief and colourful and every bit as targeted as an ad campaign. Advertisers segment their audience – so should Parliament.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 29 YRS.
There is also a potential role for community groups, churches, and the like to build up awareness and engagement.
“Our church encourages us to vote and voice what we feel strongly about. It’s not in the church text, but they say be proactive, don’t just sit back and do nothing.” HAWKE’S BAY RURAL, MĀORI, FEMALE, 46 YRS.
This is about making it easier for people to access help. Not everyone has easy access to the internet or the ability to afford a lot of data. While New Zealand has good broadband saturation, there are some in lower socio-economic areas that rely on mobile data and may find it hard to afford data.
“You need finances to get anywhere. Like you’d need finances to see an MP for example. Petrol. Bus fare. Data on your phone.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 30s
Keep it constantly fresh People are used to the format of social media and news media – with constantly updating, fresh information. There are lessons to be learned here in how Parliament can communicate with New Zealanders. Take the expectations that have been created by modern media and apply it to communicating about Parliament and its activity. This does not mean just updating via social media, but taking some of the paradigms from how social media presents information and applying it to Parliamentary communication platforms.
Provide varied modes of communication Some people prefer to bring their thoughts together in a written form, others prefer direct conversation, while others prefer to hear, think, and then respond. Regardless, each way of engaging with Parliament needs to allow for these modes of communication.
“I would definitely talk. I’m not a writer. I don’t feel comfortable writing. I can’t express myself through writing.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, FEMALE, 28 YRS.
“I wouldn’t be comfortable doing it. Going in front of a whole bunch of people puts me off. It would be uncomfortable, quite daunting, intimidating. Email would be better even though the passion might not be visible.” AUCKLAND, PASIFIKA, COUPLE IN 30s
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 36 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Give confidence that your opinion will not be ridiculed In a world of social media there is a real fear of being ridiculed or trolled. Added to this is the belief that you need a lot of knowledge to be able to engage beyond voting. There is a fear that opinions shared will be pulled apart by others and held up as foolish or uninformed. The process needs to allow for anonymity if that is desired. This might be as simple as making sure that people know that their information does not have to be shared or attributed to them, they are able to submit under their name but they can be protected beyond that point.
“I think you are more likely to engage if something affects you. If you are in a bad situation. I just think that going out there, like going to the MP, would be a last resort because like if you are a private person you might end up in the media. I wouldn’t want our stuff all over the TV.” AUCKLAND, NIUEAN, COUPLE IN 30s
Use trusted and unbiased presenters The presenter has quite a significant influence on how people will approach the information around the democratic process and Parliament. Ideally, the presenter would have cachet in their own right as a trusted and unbiased person, or someone who does not have a vested interest in pulling the wool over people’s eyes. Nigel Latta and Lucy Lawless were both mentioned as options, although there would need to be consideration around who would appeal to different segments of the audience.
“That recent Nigel Latta documentary that I found really interesting when he went through and kind of got behind the scenes of the government. … If someone was helping to educate me personally on how I could get involved more or at least understand the processes, then that’s who I would probably listen to. … People trust him...” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 37 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The channels for informing and engaging
Beyond the general principles, there are more specific points on the channels where New Zealanders are more open to informing themselves and engaging with information from Parliament.
Engaging now is on an as-needed basis From the research it appears that few New Zealanders are actively engaging with Parliament now, and they really only see Parliamentary engagement as a last resort when all other avenues of effecting change have been exhausted.
There is not a strong desire amongst those interviewed to engage with Parliament unless there was a particular issue that they felt very passionate about or that had strong impacts on them and their family. As an example, the comment below illustrates that some may believe engaging with Parliament means that Parliament has not done their job properly or planned ahead:
“It’s a negative if you have to get involved – like didn’t we look forward and plan, why has it come to this?” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“Contacting an MP is the final resort to get advocacy for personal circumstances, or you can go to them for environmental issues if the council won’t help you.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 33 YRS.
Some of the issues that people could feel passionate enough about to drive engagement include:
• Euthanasia; • Poverty; • Homelessness; • Housing; • Road and traffic; • Revamping Study Link; • Benefits – accessibility or issues with rules around benefits; • Equality. This raises the question of how to communicate the official channels for engaging with Parliament aside from voting (approaching an MP, submissions, and petitions).
Channels for engaging with the issues and process of Parliament Those interviewed were shown a list of ways to engage with Parliament (Showcard F and Showcard G in the appendix). Many of the current channels for hearing about what is going on in Parliament or informing yourself on parliamentary process are seen as relevant and useful, but they are not necessarily the type of thing you would seek out without good reason. There needs to be a reason to prompt people to want to engage with the channels and with Parliament.
Several channels in particular are seen as valuable:
• Talking to friends and family is the most accessible way of being engaged in the democratic process. However the issue with this is if friends and family are equally unengaged or uninformed; • Social media such as Facebook is a great channel for accessing people who avoid mainstream news media, but also for general New Zealanders. Facebook is no longer purely social, and for many it is a core way of keeping up to date with current affairs; • Podcasts are good for many – they can be listened to whenever suits, and you can edit out the parts that are uninteresting;
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 38 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
• Kiosks in libraries may be good for those with limited internet access. The belief is that these would only be used if people were already in the library for something else, they wouldn’t necessarily drive people to the library to seek them out; • Following particular politicians on their social media. This enables people to stay up to date on the issues and helps to humanise the people involved in Parliament.
“I follow Winston Peters on his Facebook page.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS.
“They should do what Shortland Street does. The actors go live on Facebook and answer questions. Could you do that with MPs? You could ask ‘what’s the process of coming to you if you’ve been declined by WINZ?’” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, FEMALE, 23 YRS.
Several channels may have less value or only niche value:
• Twitter is seen as relatively niche – for a certain type of person rather than general broadcast; • Radio news – many are listening to mainstream commercial channels. The news on these channels is often cursory and hardly in-depth. Radio news is about getting a sense of the headlines, but not a place to understand the issues; • Wireless website – “sounds like it’s for old people”; • Live coverage and the AM network are far less appealing for younger people. Government and Parliament websites sit in a slightly different position. These sites are valuable because they are a trusted source, but the usability may be lacking and the sites are seen as overly text heavy. Many interviewed say they would conduct a Google search to find the information, but would look for .govt.nz sites within the results of the Google search.
Few interviewed go directly to a Parliament or Government site unless they have a very specific question that they want answered (and that they know the site is structured to answer). However, the Parliament and Government sites do form an important part of research.
“[Government websites are] often in a hard to understand format. For example looking up the rights and obligations as a hairdresser [her field of study].” RURAL NORTHLAND, EURO, FEMALE, 21 YRS.
“If I was searching online I’d look for .govt.nz extensions [in a Google search] to know I was getting the right information. Once I got to the government sites I’d expect concise and specific instructions of what to do.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 33 YRS.
“Parliament websites are boring and not user-friendly. There’s lots of words, who wants to sit there and read everything?” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, COUPLE 30-40 YRS.
“The bulk of high school students have probably never seen this. How can one website engage different sorts of people? Have websites that might be youth-friendly. One-size fits all doesn’t work.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 48 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 39 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Channel use by segment
Channel use differs by segment, or rather, by the continuum of whether they prefer detailed or digestible information.
People in need spaces one and three (those who prefer detailed information) prefer the following channels:
• Government and Parliament websites. • Live or on demand Parliament TV. • Podcasts. • Radio programmes. • Videos on how Parliament works. • Talking to local representatives.
By contrast, those in need spaces two and four (who prefer digestible information) prefer the following channels:
• Major news outlets. • Talking with friends, family, colleagues, etc. • Information kiosks. • Social media. • Talking to other people or services (e.g. Citizen’s Advice).
Parliament TV Parliament TV is generally seen as either boring or a bit ridiculous. In the words of one person “I use it as a punishment for my children when they’re naughty”. People talk about the politicians arguing and insulting each other, and liken it to watching children. Few are actually watching long enough to get a sense of what is going on. Often Parliament TV is seen while flicking through the channels, there is little to keep many people engaged if they stumble into a debate mid-argument.
“What gets under my skin is when they’re Māori that are running one another down – makes me feel bad.” HAWKE’S BAY RURAL, MĀORI, FEMALE, 46 YRS.
“I see them having an argument, speaking over each other, all bluster, and shouty… it does my head in.” NELSON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 41 YRS.
“I’m not interested in watching or listening to Parliament. I dislike the schoolyard nature of the bickering. Who do they think they’re fooling?” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS.
“Big kids. It reminds me of debates in high school, lots of words, lots of things spoken but not really a lot said. There seems to be just a bunch of big kids arguing to be honest. It just seems really argumentative and quite immature most of it. Lots of name calling.” WELLINGTON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 37 YRS.
If there is an issue of particular personal relevance then people will go out of their way to either find it on Parliament TV or find the podcast relating to that issue later on.
“When they were debating about student loans I watched that online because I wanted to know the outcome. The government today is very family oriented, there’s not much in it for me. So when there is something for me I’ll watch it.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 33 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 40 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The paradox of social media There is a love/hate relationship with Facebook. It is the platform that everyone is on, and is the place that many interviewed hear about news and what is happening in the world. However, it is also a public space where putting your opinion out there is fraught.
Younger people especially talk about not wanting to engage with bigger issues on social media for fear of being called out, trolled, or getting it wrong and being ridiculed. The point this raises is that using social media to help people engage with the issues or with Parliament needs to be considered to avoid negative consequences for individuals.
“One of my friends on Facebook goes to meetings and stuff and is posting about Parliament. She’s in ‘Empowering Youth.’ I’m really interested in learning but I don’t know what they’re talking about.” WHANGAREI, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 19 YRS. Social media is the platform for hearing about the issues, not necessarily engaging Because of this issue with potentially being trolled or ridiculed on social media, it seems that something like Facebook is the place to create awareness, but action is created elsewhere. For example, friends will share information on an issue and link to the place to find out more information, or they might post a petition that links to something like change.org for people to take part in.
“The people who are interested will go to the proper platform like change.org, and this gets shared and talked about on social media.” RURAL NORTHLAND, YOUNG COUPLE IN 20s
“I would follow Parliament on social media if the content was interesting and quick. Facebook is not for in- depth though. I use Facebook a lot, if they create interesting content then maybe I’d follow, but I don’t engage a lot of Facebook. Also the Facebook algorithm shapes a lot of what you see.” RURAL OTAGO, MĀORI, FEMALE, 26 YRS.
Conversation is the most accessible form of informing yourself For many people when they looked at the list of ways to engage with Parliament or inform themselves, the most acceptable was conversation with friends and family. This feels like an easy way to start to think through the issues, and in-person conversation with people you know is not as intimidating as other options. The issue is making sure that friends and family are informed themselves. Many spoken to could name someone in their acquaintance who was a little more knowledgeable on the issues and this would generally be the place to start.
“I don’t really get involved in Internet comments, but I have had conversations with friends who have changed my views. I’m more likely to listen to opinions if it’s in a casual conversation, not formal speeches on TV.” RURAL OTAGO, MĀORI, FEMALE, 26 YRS.
Learning about Parliament in school Some younger New Zealanders recall learning about Parliament while in school – and they actually retain quite a few facts even into their 20s from this early teaching. However, studying Parliament tends to be at younger ages (years 8 and 9), before subjects get too specific, and therefore may not be as useful once students reach the age of voting. While it may be valuable, it may be difficult to include education on Parliament in an already full secondary school curriculum.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 41 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Making sure the Parliamentary and democratic process is covered in school is important, as this is where the interest could be created. Several younger people interviewed commented that their early school introduction was actually interesting, and remembered details 7-8 years later. If there is nothing in schools it feels too hard to pick up and understand later. At the very least, ensuring that teachers have a good understanding of Parliament and processes of engagement is important so that these can be discussed if questions come up outside of the standard curriculum.
“I dropped out of school and started work at 16, and before that I switched schools three times. I don’t know enough to comment.” WHANGAREI, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 19 YRS.
“They taught us in school. We pretended we were in Parliament and we’d have debates. It was pretty cool. They dumbed it down for us and made it easy to understand how it works.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 16 YRS.
“At school we used to learn bits and pieces. Like types of governance. And maybe a bit of Waitangi. But it was not relevant, you didn’t get taught why it matters, how it all comes together. That is what should be taught. How it shapes the laws we have today.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, FEMALE, 22 YRS.
“There would be benefits in educating people at high school, before they turn 18. At 18 you tend to not care because you don’t know what it’s all about. [You need to] educate people why it’s important, what it’s all about, and the process – how to get involved.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, FEMALE, 28 YRS.
Similarly, parents learn from their children studying Parliament in schools and admit that this is actually a way for them to increase their knowledge as well as help their child learn. By covering these topics in schools the information that comes home with children (as homework for example) tends to be more digestible and in plain English.
“It would be good if the kids came home from school and told me – if they were learning about it at school. Or if at work [local supermarket] they put information out in the staff room if there’s something important happening in Parliament.” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, FEMALE, 23 YRS.
Reliance on media may hinder deeper engagement One of the reasons that people may not be actively seeking more information on Parliament and the issues debated is they feel commercial media is providing enough. Some people interviewed feel the summaries of debates and issues that are reported through mainstream media are sufficient for the level of interest of many.
“Maybe the media does too good a job at summarising already… you don’t need to go back to the original source.” HASTINGS, EURO, FEMALE, 46 YRS.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 42 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Perceptions of Radio New Zealand
Before reading this section, it is useful to note that of the 45 interviews only 18 people currently engage with RNZ. By that we mean they listen to an RNZ station or use an RNZ website or use RNZ apps. Sample quotas were put in place within recruitment that meant a low number of people engaging with RNZ were recruited.
When asked for their unprompted impressions of Radio New Zealand, for those who do not engage with RNZ now there is a level of confusion of what RNZ actually is (Radio Live, Newstalk ZB) and some guesswork as to what RNZ does and who it is for. For these people the initial impression is that RNZ is for older people late at night or to keep them company. Because the word ‘radio’ is still within the name, for those who do not engage with RNZ, it may be at times perceived as old-fashioned. This impression is then mentally applied across everything that RNZ does (not just radio), and there isn’t always the awareness of the different channels that content is served through (including online or the app).
For this group of unengaged, the belief is that RNZ is something young people would not be into as it does not have enough music (on radio) and that younger people do not necessarily care about the topics that are covered (on radio or elsewhere). RNZ is seen as being for a certain segment of the population (aside from older people): wealthy, educated, well-informed, and who have already lived a bit of life.
For those who do engage with RNZ content the initial impression is far more favourable. The unprompted response is around interesting topics and being a source of independent and fascinating information.
A general sense of confusion about what RNZ is Some of the words and phrases people use (unprompted) to describe RNZ are detailed below.
• For old people; • A bit dull/boring; • Current affairs; • Talkback; • Willie Jackson; • “For nutters” – related to talkback; • It’s not “for me;” • Aimed at professionals; • I would listen if I had time…; • Interviews, discussions about politics, news, etc.; • All New Zealand radio stations. What is interesting to note is that a number of these are not actually a part of RNZ (e.g. talkback and Willie Jackson). These serve to highlight the level of confusion around RNZ vs. stations like Radio Live and Newstalk ZB.
In particular, the idea of talkback is a recurring theme among those interviewed. There may also be confusion about which channels are under the RNZ banner. Some people are listening to RNZ channels (Concert or ‘National Radio’ for example) but they do not always associate those channels with Radio New Zealand. As an example – one younger Concert listener was not aware that Concert was an RNZ channel until informed at the interview.
There is a certain amount of awareness that RNZ places its content on other channels – in particular, Stuff.co.nz was mentioned by several people unprompted. There was little detail behind this – simply that they had noticed the RNZ logo or by-line on content they were reading or viewing on Stuff.
Among those who know about RNZ or have had experience of it there was a blend of language used to describe the different channels and programmes. Some referred to RNZ, others to National, National Radio, or Concert. Some were more focussed on the presenters and talked about “Kim Hill’s show” or “Guyon’s segment.” The core theme is that there was no one consistent way of talking about channels and programmes.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 43 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
RNZ is often “stumbled on” rather than actively sought out RNZ is a radio station or site that people may stumble on – either scrolling through the channels or clicking around links online. This is especially the case for younger listeners. What makes these people stay is the interesting and informative articles and news, the quirky stories, and the fascinating topics that are not covered elsewhere.
Even so, for these people there is still something of a sense that they are not the target audience. They happen to like RNZ, but they feel like more the exception than the rule. As the comment below highlights, some of those younger people may be listening, enjoying the content, but still not identifying with RNZ or feeling that it is a station or website for them:
“I’ve only stumbled across it because it was just pre-tuned in our new car. That was just one of the stations that I scrolled through and couldn’t be bothered listening to music that day. And, in fact, actually most of the time they have some really interesting speakers on there and I’ve actually learnt quite a lot about different topics I would never have known about - pest control. There’s been a few, yeah. They have a few arty cultural interviews, a bit of music. It feels quite informative and intelligent actually. Most of the speakers I find ask really intelligent questions. I quite liked it.” RURAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
“I stumbled onto RNZ by accident. The person I stayed with listened to it. At first it was quite foreign to me but then I got used to it.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
“I have listened to it – by chance flicking through channels, but not sought out. It has no role, no relevance [for me], I might listen a bit but probably not.” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, FEMALE, 30 YRS., NON RNZ
“RNZ is a recent thing for me. I noticed some interesting stories on the TV and went online to get more detail.” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, COUPLE 30-40 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 44 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The young person’s perspective Few younger New Zealanders interviewed are engaging with RNZ, or even knew that much about RNZ and what they have to offer. The initial impressions include:
• It pops up in ads on Facebook • Is it Radio Live? • Seems like a news channel? • It is for older people – they understand the issues better as they get older.
“I don’t actively listen, but I do listen if it’s on in my step-dad’s car. It’s the least biased news. They talk about the problem, what’s happening, and how it affects you.” RURAL NORTHLAND, EURO, MALE, 25 YRS., OCCASIONAL RNZ, NATIONAL
“We just listen to Flava, they need to advertise on Flava. Or on Facebook – give me something that grabs my attention.” WHANGAREI, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 19 YRS., NON RNZ
“I feel like RNZ is less relevant. It is something that we are not really interested in. I’m not sure if RNZ enables all age groups to engage. I feel like there is not a lot they can do – because of the platform they are on – radio – and the information they are showing. It is just not something young people are interested in.” AUCKLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 22 YRS., NON RNZ
“They just talk about current affairs. The older generation care about that stuff. Younger people just want to listen to music.” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, MALE, 26 YRS., NON-RNZ
“They need to rebrand. The name is bad, it’s not about radio anymore. And RNZ is too close to the Royal New Zealand Ballet.” DUNEDIN, EURO/ASIAN, YOUNG COUPLE IN 20s, NON RNZ
Making RNZ relevant for younger New Zealanders is a lot about the presenter. The person presenting shows or podcasts needs to be someone the younger generation can relate to. They need to talk in their language, take away the jargon, and make it interesting for younger people.
“I like the real feel of campus radio. It feels real. Even when they interview very important people. It isn’t full of professional people who studied radio. RNZ should allow more people access to contribute content. Interview their own people and submit their local stories.” AUCKLAND, EURO, FEMALE, 22 YRS., NON RNZ
“The presenter is really important in radio. RNZ presenters feel older, boring, and plain. They need someone who is cool but can still talk about important issues. …Videos are good if they’re presented in a young way. For example, get ZM or The Edge to present them – make boring things new.” RURAL OTAGO, MĀORI, FEMALE, 26 YRS., OCCASIONAL RNZ, NATIONAL
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 45 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
RNZ is not ‘for me’ Several of those spoken to mentioned RNZ being for older people or for people with more education or in more affluent households. The sense was that RNZ is not ‘for me’ – that you have to be relatively educated to appreciate what they had to offer, and that the style of presentation and delivery was aimed more at the elderly and well- informed.
“This (RNZ) is not the kind of thing I would listen to whatsoever. The Radio is just there for a bit of sound, company in the car, I don’t even really pay much attention other than if I catch a song I like – then I might turn it up.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 30s, NON RNZ
“RNZ is for older and better educated people who want to be more informed. It’s not for the average New Zealander.” RURAL OTAGO, EURO, COUPLE IN 50s, REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
“RNZ sounds old like something that my grandparents would listen to. ‘NZ’ in the name signals seriousness.” RURAL OTAGO, MĀORI, FEMALE, 26 YRS., OCCASIONAL RNZ, NATIONAL
“Do people actually listen to it? It’s for academics, not teenagers. The older, more mature generation that cares about all these things. And conspiracy theorists.” DUNEDIN, EURO/ASIAN, YOUNG COUPLE IN 20s, NON RNZ
“The image needs to change; they need a make-over. They need to quell the perception of being a vanilla station that informs public. Everybody informs. The [way RNZ presents itself] should be a bit more appealing. The audible sound should be more appealing.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 49 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
There is a core group of loyal RNZ followers It may be disheartening to see the level of confusion around what RNZ is and hear the theme “it’s not for me,” but there is a core group of loyal RNZ followers. For this group, they appreciate the objectiveness that RNZ brings to reportage and the refreshing absence of sensationalist articles. Added to this is the delight in exploring quirky or relatively unknown worlds within New Zealand via RNZ interviews and articles focussed on interesting people and niches unexplored by mass media.
“I like to listen to it. I know it's interesting. There's lots of topics. … if I want to read an article, I want to read an article on what's happened, not [the opinion of] the person who is writing it, because they're very different things.” WELLINGTON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 37 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
“It’s really awesome to listen to National as often as I can. I think they talk about some really interesting topics. You’re not visually watching it so you’ve actually gotta think about what they’re saying and form your own opinions.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, FEMALE, 70 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
“I think the thing why I’m attracted to radio is that I feel like they’re talking to me, whereas the TV there’s too much to distract you.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, MALE, 55 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 46 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“I like that RNZ is ad free and less sensationalist. They don’t promote personalities. They’re more serious and intellectual, they get you thinking. It’d be a loss if we didn’t have RNZ, there’s nothing else like it.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
RNZ presents well researched, interesting topics For those that have listened at least occasionally there is real appreciation for the topics that are covered, the depth of research and thinking that goes into those topics, and the impartiality of presentation. This is something that is missing from mainstream media that people really value from RNZ.
“Kim Hill …we know she really researches it. Some of their interviewing people do that and that’s pretty cool too. But on the lighter side of it, [we] are very interested in other subjects […for example] a farming segment or something like that and we hear about innovations, or they talk about bugs or they talk about mental health and stuff like that. Now, every other channel that might be out there don’t cover those subjects unless maybe in a talkback environment, but otherwise it’s very commercial.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 60s, REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
“RNZ brings up topics that I wouldn’t think to look up myself, like agricultural news or people talking about their university theses.” RURAL OTAGO, EURO, MALE, 50 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
One thing that many regular engagers appreciate is that RNZ topics are often quite positive and build a level of knowledge, rather than focussing on sensationalist journalism. The focus is often on telling the positive stories of New Zealanders and their lives, and giving a glimpse into the detail of quirky niches. This type of content keeps them coming back for more.
“For example, on the Wireless they are following half a dozen barbers in Wellington. Personal interest stories showing people doing something positive.” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, COUPLE 30-40 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
“One of the issues with commercial radio especially talkback, the people who tune in make the work seem miserable. RNZ does not do that. These people are genuine and even though politicians disagree, they are trying to do the best. The tone of argument more measured and reasonable on RNZ than on commercial radio.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 48 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
The RNZ website People who regularly engage with RNZ are using the website and digital content and appreciate that everything is there for them to access at a time that suits them (rather than only via radio programmes). This gives people a way to share content with others – something that is critical to getting further reach for RNZ.
“RNZ have a decent website with stories not featured in the mainstream.” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, COUPLE 30-40 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
One or two RNZ regulars talked about having a more intuitive website. This means making it easier to find content based on topics rather than by presenters or shows, for example:
“It's not very intuitive. If you go on their website, you can either go to presenters or you go to shows, and then you can look through there, but unless you know the name of the person being interviewed, or the time slot that you're looking for, it can be a bit like needles in a haystack.” WELLINGTON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 37 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 47 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“I thought maybe I could go to the RNZ news site for all my news but I probably expected it to be better than what it is based on the audio content. I haven’t fully embraced the website for news. It’s not my first port of call. The radio is there – I listen to the radio on my phone.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
“I go to the RNZ website for podcasts. It’s a good website but I wouldn’t go there if I want news.” AUCKLAND, INDIAN, MALE, 38 YRS., OCCASIONAL RNZ, NATIONAL
“I can’t see what RNZ online would give me over what I already have from places like NZ Herald. I’m only scanning the headlines. Maybe it could be a place to look for extra info on interesting headlines?” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
The role of RNZ helping people engage with Parliament more Those interviewed were asked what role RNZ could (or should) take in helping people engage with Parliament. The role of RNZ is seen as creating awareness and to provide a balanced view of what happens in Parliament. The expectation is that RNZ will focus more on the issues under consideration in Parliament – making them accessible and understandable. Specifically, this means not just talking about the issues but also the potential outcomes, what the consequences of those outcomes might be for New Zealanders, and what people can do if they want to get involved.
In order to do this RNZ needs to come across as conversational and accessible, not too cerebral. In addition, RNZ could provide a safe space for people to ask questions without fear of ridicule or trolling.
Not all believe that RNZ has a role to play in informing people on how to engage with Parliament. For these people, the belief is that this information should be sought elsewhere.
“RNZ doesn’t really have a role to play informing people on parliamentary process. The process is more specialised and most people won’t actually need it in their lives, and if they do they’ll be motivated to seek out that information.” NORTHLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 52 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
Parliamentary coverage on RNZ When it comes to both RNZ in general and Parliamentary coverage specifically, the fear is that once you open the gates the level of information will become overwhelming. There is a desire to be able to pick and choose the niches and issues that are of interest and to tailor the stream of information.
That being said, many RNZ engagers loved the fact that they heard or read about topics that generally would not be in their list of interests, but they found fascinating.
The critical point is to ensure that people are able to filter the topics or issues they hear or see, but still allow an element of discovery. One of the examples that was used for how to enable this filtering alongside discovery is the profile created by companies like Netflix. Netflix profiles consider your preferences, but there is still discovery in the content you are served. Ultimately people would like to be able to have some control over what they see from or about Parliament, not just have everything blasted at them.
“I’ve liked but don’t follow Parliament on Facebook. I don’t want everything up in my feed. If you turn on the tap you have to turn it on the whole way, but there’s a lot I don’t want to know about.” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, MALE, 35 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
“I don’t have five kids, or own two properties… I don’t have shares or investments… that is all so, so beyond me [so there’s a lot that’s not relevant to me].” PROVINCIAL NELSON, EURO, FEMALE, 27 YRS., NON RNZ
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 48 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
When it comes to coverage of democracy as a concept, there may be value in telling the stories of how democracy has been created in New Zealand – relating history to present day. Similarly, relating stories of individuals and their actions within the democratic process to the outcomes that we enjoy as New Zealanders today may have value.
“I want to hear stories about how democracy made New Zealand what it is today. Starting from Waitangi. It is not that far back it is recent history. To understand where democracy succeeded and failed to make the country how it is and that will make it relevant to us.” AUCKLAND, EURO, FEMALE, 22 YRS., NON RNZ
In addition, those RNZ interviews that are already happening with politicians and representatives are valuable. These help to bring the representatives to life, humanise them, and help people get informed on the issues and policies. The current formats of discussions with the Prime Minister or balanced interviews with representatives from both sides work well. The issue is to ensure people are aware of these – even regular listeners may not be aware if the interviews happen at a time they would not regularly be listening. Is enough being done to drive people to on- demand content on the website?
“I know in the morning show, ‘cause I listen to that on my way to work, Guyon… talks directly to the Prime Minister in the way that TV morning shows do and everything. [Also] in the middle of the day they have a section where there’s a member of the left and a member of the right and they discuss politics.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, MALE, 55 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 49 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
The RNZ charter
Those interviewed were given Showcard E (in the appendix) with an outline of the RNZ charter and delivery points. They were asked to read this and then the discussion focussed on impressions of the charter and how this should be met.
The charter and delivery points sound great to many, but there are questions over how well RNZ is able to deliver on the promises it makes. To some it was a long list, and that raises the question of how they might achieve all of those objectives and still appeal to a wide base of New Zealanders. Ultimately – is RNZ stretching itself too thin?
“If they can do all that, that’s amazing! …but that’s a lot for them to do.” PROVINCIAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS., NON RNZ
“Do you know what, they’ve got a heck of a broad spectrum, a large scope haven’t they to cross over there. But I would like to state that I think they manage to cover all those points.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, COUPLE in 60s, REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
“Is there some stuff they have to compromise on to get all this done? Is it achievable?” WHANGAREI, MĀORI, COUPLE 30-40 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
What resonates?
• Objective and reliable; • Critical thought; • Impartial and comprehensive; • Fair news, unbiased. The issues not the opinion; • Intellectual; • Distinctly NZ: For many this meant representing the Māori voice – but even among Māori there was differing expectations of what that meant (see later in this report for more in this area).
It is more than I thought… Once people have a chance to look at what RNZ does, the details on the charter and delivery points, the general opinion is that RNZ is so much more than people thought, and actually quite an attractive proposition.
“It sounds like a wealth of knowledge… what a cool resource… but I’m not using it.” PROVINCIAL NELSON, EURO, FEMALE, 27 YRS., NON RNZ
“If there was a radio station that did all this I would listen. But some of the important things for me would be those informed and wide-ranging debates, something that did challenge me to think about an issue and be more informed on it but also gave me some light relief in terms of music or cultural expression. And culture is something that is very important to me, so expressing that or hearing more about that – NZ is now multi-cultural so it is hard to cover everyone, but it would be great if everyone felt like they were represented.” WELLINGTON, PASIFIKA, FEMALE, 30 YRS., NON RNZ
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 50 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“We didn’t know that they have this impartial role to play and so we don’t know that we can trust it. They need to raise awareness of what they do and what they stand for. You need to know what RNZ does and why so you can browse their information and make the connection that the article is good because of what RNZ stands for not just because it’s a single good article.” DUNEDIN, EURO/ASIAN, COUPLE IN 20s, NON RNZ
Representing the Māori voice Representing the Māori voice on RNZ is about giving people a place to hear the stories of Māori who are successful or doing interesting things, to hear from them in their own words. It also means having respect for Te Reo and letting people know what is going on in their local areas so they can connect and feel a part of the community.
“I’d like to see them pushing Te Reo and telling us what events there are out there for Māori. Tell stories of successful Māori. Interviews, where they’ve come from, what they’ve done.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 43 YRS., NON RNZ
“As a Māori, I am pleased, but maybe not surprised, but pleased to see inclusion of Māori language included in the list.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 30s, NON RNZ
“I like the fact that they pronounce Te Reo Māori properly, there's no bastardising on that show. People bastardise it so badly, and I think all that does is devalues the whole country, because it's not a Māori thing or a Pakeha thing, it's actually about the indigenous language, it's important.” WELLINGTON, MĀORI, FEMALE, 37 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
“I listen to a local Māori radio station. It reflects local Māori issues. They talk to kaumata and kuia to get the stories from them. They get the elders to tell the stories.” NORTHLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 33 YRS., NON RNZ
“I like the idea of special interest programmes, I’d like to know and understand more about the emphasis of Māori, NZ and Pacific Island [and what it] really means in terms of the actual content. Are there people like me who talk like me broadcasting on this?” AUCKLAND, SAMOAN, FEMALE, 30 YRS., NON RNZ
“Cultural diversity – that would make us feel cool to be Māori. We’re known as Horis. I like Stan Walker – he just put a song out showing Māori as amazing people.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, FEMALE, 16 YRS., NON RNZ
“Māori are the leading indigenous people of the world and this should be celebrated. Look at all the good stuff that’s happening and put it out there. Reconnect us with our cultural identity.” AUCKLAND, MĀORI, MALE, 29 YRS., NON-RNZ
There are questions over some charter points Spiritual development is one of the points that some find hard to get their heads around. Specifically, how is that delivered by a radio station, or even wider by a content provider?
In addition, some are concerned about the idea of critical thought and question whether that is the role of a media outlet (especially a publicly funded one). Some did value the idea of critical thought, but others thought this might be overstepping the mark. There is also a question as to how far programmers can actually take this – the belief is that may take a deliberately conservative approach.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 51 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
“They do encourage debate, but only within certain parameters. It has the appearance of open, honest, critical thinking… but only certain world views or mind-sets.” HASTINGS, EURO, FEMALE, 46 YRS., NON RNZ
“I can provide my own critical thought. I don’t want people filtering my news.” WHANGAREI, EURO, MALE, 54 YRS., NON RNZ
“Especially compared with talkback and Face Book, where people can genuinely say what they want to.” HASTINGS, EURO, FEMALE, 46 YRS., NON RNZ
The charter is great in theory, but how is it executed? The charter and delivery points sound great, and could be interesting. However, there is a lingering perception that the actual execution lacks something, in particular when it comes to content delivered by radio (rather than digital content). Some talked about RNZ radio-based delivery as somewhat dull, boring, or slow-paced. If RNZ is looking to deliver the charter to a wider range of New Zealanders, then the execution of radio content must be considered.
The execution – or rather, the perceived execution – is a barrier to engaging for younger people. There was a lot of discussion about the importance of having engaging presenters or presentation styles. The belief from these younger people is that RNZ does not have presenters that are engaging enough for them.
There is also a question that the charter is great in theory – but is it trying to do too much? There are a lot of points of delivery for the charter, and attempting to do everything may be stretching RNZ too thin.
“I agree with it all [the charter] but is it trying to be all things to all people? We need a public broadcaster with no vested interest from any outside parties.” AUCKLAND, EUROPEAN, MALE, 50 YRS., REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 52 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Pushing RNZ further
Among those interviewed, we discussed what it would take to get RNZ out to a wider audience and what would make them want to engage further with RNZ content.
The issue is awareness Without having engaged with RNZ in many cases, the perceived issue is one of awareness rather than execution. The belief is that RNZ simply needs to let more people know who they are and what they are about. This sounds easy, but in reality it is likely to require a strong viral campaign. The go-to point for how to spread the word about RNZ is social media. Many said that if a friend shared a link and the hook was interesting, they would click through and maybe check out the rest of the content that RNZ has to offer.
The critical point is in making something that is compelling enough to share and click through, but that does not take RNZ down the track of click-bait like so many other commercial news outlets.
“They need to be capturing the audience and advertising. When you see something like this on Facebook you don’t think ‘is it reputable or not reputable’, if it’s interesting you’ll look at it.” PROVINCIAL NORTHLAND, MĀORI, 43 YRS., NON RNZ
“Now I know RNZ does all those things, I might listen to it.” PROVINCIAL HAWKE’S BAY, EURO, FEMALE, 41 YRS., NON RNZ
As a great example of this lack of awareness, one of the people interviewed took the time to check out the RNZ site after the interview and emailed in a response:
“Thanks for taking the time to interview us tonight, we had a lot of fun! After you left we went onto the Radio NZ website... and I feel so embarrassed, it has all the things that we were saying we wanted, apps, great podcasts, interesting videos and talks, good news and good international news... you must have been biting your tongue not to say anything!! So, I'm glad we have now found it all, I wish I had seen it sooner, I'll now be a regular to the website and I have 'liked' the Facebook.” PROVINCIAL NELSON, EURO, FEMALE, 27 YRS., NON RNZ
Advertising vs. creating viral awareness Traditional web advertising may be an issue due to ad blockers. Creating content that people want to share is perceived to be the most valuable way to get the RNZ content and message out there. People implied they do not trust ads as much as shared content from people in their social circle.
When asked how RNZ might raise awareness of, and engagement with, the content they create, many simply came back to the idea of Facebook as a channel. This is not necessarily about RNZ posting on Facebook, but rather it is ensuring the content is interesting enough that people want to share it on Facebook, and thus prompt people to visit the RNZ site through shared links.
“If they want to capture the attention of younger people social media is critical.” AUCKLAND, ASIAN, FEMALE, 22 YRS., NON RNZ
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 53 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Podcasts are an easily accessible entry point Podcasts and video material stand out as resonating with many New Zealanders interviewed. TED Talks are often used as the reference point for podcasts. They are associated with highly interesting, niche, and digestible content. Utilising some of the learnings from TED Talks structure will make RNZ podcasts attractive (if people know about them).
In addition, many appreciate shorter videos – 30 seconds up to several minutes is ideal. This enables people to get the main points but does not feel like too much of a time commitment. Ideally, video content would sit alongside written content so that different styles of taking in information are catered for.
The podcasts and on-demand information is valuable because it allows people to consume content when it suits them, or to refer back to interesting shows they have missed or want to hear again.
HUSBAND: “Sometimes we’ll sit here on a Saturday morning and we’ll go through.” WIFE: “And we’ll just listen to them because…” HUSBAND: “While having breakfast or even after breakfast we’ll sit and talk about that don’t we?” WIFE: “We do.” CHRISTCHURCH, MĀORI, COUPLE IN 60s, REGULAR RNZ, NATIONAL AND ONLINE
“I’ll listen to podcasts if I hear about interviews on other media. I’ll listen to Marcus Lush and John Campbell every now and then.” AUCKLAND, INDIAN, MALE, 38 YRS., OCCASIONAL RNZ
More platforms for the younger people Many of the younger people interviewed were moving away from traditional channels of TV and radio to online content. Some talked about having RNZ content on Netflix or Spotify – the channels that they are already using.
“I don’t want to listen to talking on the radio, I want something like Spotify on-demand.” DUNEDIN, EURO/ASIAN, COUPLE IN 20s, NON RNZ
RNZ: Concluding comments In summary, for RNZ a key theme is that unprompted, RNZ has an issue with awareness. When people understand what RNZ has to offer and what they are trying to achieve, this really resonates with them. The barriers to engaging is that people are not aware of what RNZ is trying to achieve and that there is a perception of RNZ delivery as somewhat dull. Increasing engagement will be about disabusing people of those more traditional perceptions, showing them that RNZ is more than ‘a radio station,’ and letting people know what RNZ is all about.
Digital content (website and apps) are the types of content that most resonate with younger New Zealanders. Pushing these formats and letting people know that they are able to access the great content whenever suits will be important. Creating digital content that people want to share will be a core way of increasing engagement – this is an important source of discovery for many across the age groups. The interviews conducted did not cover many people who were engaging with The Wireless, so it is hard to state whether The Wireless is achieving this aim of creating content that people want to share.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 54 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Appendix
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 55 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Appendix I: Topic guide [Note: This document is designed as a guide for discussion, it allows for considerable freedom within the topics. The order in which items are covered will vary according to the natural flow of conversation and questions are indicative only of subject matter to be covered and are not word for word descriptions of researchers’ questions]. 1. Introduction
Purpose: To introduce the research process. [5 minutes]
▪ Explain process
• Topic – talk about what every-day New Zealanders think about some of the processes behind the way our country is run, in particular we’re interested in your thoughts about Parliament and democracy in New Zealand. • No right or wrong answers • Confidentiality/use of audio equipment • 1.5 hour duration • Researcher neutrality/honesty of responses RESEARCHERS TO MODIFY LANGUAGE/TERMS TO MATCH PARTICIPANTS.
2. Warm up and contextualisation
Purpose: To warm up participants and set the context for discussion. [5 minutes]
To give me an idea of where you’re coming from, tell me a little about yourself.
▪ What kind of work/study do you do?
▪ What do you get up to when you’re not working?
▪ Who lives in your house with you?
▪ What TV channels / radio / newspapers / websites do you watch/read/listen to?
Great! Just a reminder, the focus of our discussion today is about Parliament and the democratic process.
It is NOT about your political leanings or who you vote for.
3a. Current behaviour and understanding
Purpose: To explore the top of mind perceptions and behaviour with regard to engaging with Parliament. [15 minutes]
Firstly, when you think about ‘democracy’ or the ‘democratic process’, what words/associations come to mind?
▪ What does it mean to you?
- How would you explain it to someone who wasn’t familiar with it?
▪ What words would you use to describe or define the democratic process in New Zealand?
- What does it mean in the context of New Zealand?
READ OUT SHOWCARD A: Definition of democratic process
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 56 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
▪ What about ‘Parliament’, what comes to mind?
- What does it mean to you?
- What do you know about or understand about Parliament?”
- What is your experience of Parliament, or what have you heard about it?
- Is Parliament something that you’ve engaged with before?
- How does Parliament fit into your life?
- How would you describe Parliament to someone who wasn’t familiar with it?
BRAINSTORM WORDS AND THEN PROBE FOR MEANING/ASSOCIATIONS
- Probe: associations/images/positives/negatives
- Probe: If politicians come up – what perceptions do they hold? How does this translate to Parliament? Difference between Parliament vs. government?
IF NECESSARY, READ OUT SHOWCARD B: Definition of government and Parliament
▪ What would you imagine, the relationship between the democratic process and Parliament is?
- Probe: Role of Parliament?
▪ How do you think Parliament fits into the democratic process?
- Who is in charge of Parliament?
- What’s it’s role / purpose?
- What does Parliament really stand for?
- What’s the image you have of Parliament and what it means to New Zealanders?
▪ How relevant is the concept of Parliament and the democratic process to you in your life?
- What ways does it touch your life or have an influence on your life now?
- What does it add to your life and your community?
- What does it detract from your life and your community?
▪ Can you think of any examples where members of the general public, can be involved with or engage with Parliament/the democratic process? An easy example for many people is voting!
RESEARCHER NOTE: THIS MAY INCLUDE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ENGAGING WITH MP’S, INITIATING PETITIONS, MAKING SUBMISSIONS TO SELECT COMMITTEES.
- Have you personally been involved with or engaged with Parliament? Tell me about that.
▪ What was going on at the time? What was the trigger to make contact/engage?
▪ Who was involved? What did you do? Where did you look to for information?
▪ What was the process / outcome?
▪ How would you describe the experience? Positives/negatives?
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 57 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
- IF NOT: If you wanted to be involved or engaged with Parliament, how would you work out how you can get involved?
▪ Where would you go/look, who would you talk to?
▪ What would be your preferred way of accessing this information? (E.g. Parliament website, social media, video, infographic, etc.)
▪ What would prompt you to want to get involved with Parliament or the democratic process?
▪ How well do you think Parliament explains for people how and why they can get involved?
▪ What would you change about the way Parliament communicates with you?
IF NECESSARY, PROVIDE SHOWCARD C: What Parliament currently does, so that people are able to answer the above two questions with something to use as a frame of reference.
ASK: Looking at this outline of the ways Parliament is communicating now, what more would they need to do, or what should they be doing differently to make it something you’d be interested in or would want to hear about? 3b. Engaging with Parliament Purpose: To understand initial reaction to methods of involvement with Parliament and what would build comfort with each activity (10 minutes) There are four main ways that people can engage with Parliament in New Zealand.
READ OUT SHOWCARD D: Ways to engage with Parliament
▪ How do you feel about each of these as activities?
- What would you be comfortable doing? What makes these more comfortable for you?
- What would we be less comfortable doing? What makes these less comfortable for you?
▪ What would need to happen or be going on for you to think about engaging each of these activities?
- What would you need to know to feel comfortable?
- What kinds of topics do you think would prompt you to want to get involved in each of these activities?
- What would you need to help you engage in activities like this for a topic you card about:
▪ From Parliament?
▪ From the community and people you know?
▪ In terms of assistance?
4. Motivations (Photosort/Projection)
Purpose: To explore motivations, barriers and beliefs around engaging with Parliament. [10 minutes]
Let’s have a bit of fun and use our imaginations a little.
INTRODUCE PHOTOSORT / USER IMAGERY
We’ve got some pictures here of a range of different people. As we look at them, we can get a sense for what kind of people they’d be like – especially if we look at their eyes and their mouth. Take a moment to get familiar with
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 58 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process them. As we look through them, we’ll see that they all have slightly different personalities, and would have different attitudes and priorities.
All of these people have opinions about the democratic process in New Zealand.
Firstly, let’s choose the person who feels strongly about engaging with Parliament, feels it’s really important to do and actively seeks out opportunities to do so.
Now, let’s choose a person who, although feels strongly about democracy, doesn’t really get involved or engage with Parliament.
Let’s create a story around each of them… REPEAT FOR EACH PHOTO
Probe:
▪ Give them a name
▪ What’s going on in their lives – work, family, hobbies?
▪ What are they like? How would their friends describe them? Personality words?
▪ What is it about being involved/engaging (or not) with Parliament/democratic process that really resonates with [photo]?
• What does it mean to them? • How do they engage? ▪ What are some of the ways they’re aware of?
• What do they hope to get out of it? • What do they imagine the impact will be?
▪ If [photo 2] was being completely honest, what is getting in the way of them from getting more involved]?
• Fully explore barriers • How could they get around this?
Let’s imagine [photo 1] met [photo 2]. What kind of conversation would they have about engaging with Parliament?
▪ What would they say, to convince the other of their viewpoint?
▪ What could [photo 1] say to [photo 2] to convince them that getting involved/engaging is a valuable thing to do?
▪ What would need to happen for [photo 2] to be more like [photo 1]?
▪ Which photo do you think you’re most similar to? How come?
- What would need to be different for you to be more engaged?
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 59 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
5. Radio New Zealand
Purpose: To explore understanding and perceived role of RNZ. [20 minutes]
I’d like to move on to a slightly different topic and we’ll bring it back to Parliament a little later. I’d like to chat about Radio New Zealand, also known as RNZ:
▪ What do you know about or understand about Radio New Zealand or RNZ?
▪ What is your experience of RNZ, or what have you heard about it?
▪ Is RNZ something that you’ve listened to or engage with before?
▪ How does RNZ fit into your life?
▪ When / what do you listen to?
▪ When / what do you access from the RNZ websites and apps?
▪ Do you access RNZ content anywhere else?
- RNZ Facebook or RNZ Twitter?
- Elsewhere on other media outlets?
- IF NECESSARY: For example RNZ will sometimes provide content to other media outlets and organisations. You might see their content on MSN News, Stuff, Spotify, YouTube, AudioBoom among other places.
▪ How would you describe RNZ to someone who wasn’t familiar with it?
- Who ‘owns’ it?
- What’s it’s role / purpose?
- What do they really stand for?
- What’s the image you have of them and what they mean to New Zealanders?
- Who do you think RNZ is for? (who is it aimed at - what type of people)
- IF THERE IS TIME: Have a look at the photos we looked at before – which people from these photos do you think RNZ is aimed at? What makes us chose these people?
READ OUT SHOWCARD E: Radio New Zealand Charter
▪ If you look at these points together, what are the points that really stand out for you?
- What makes them stand out?
- Good or bad? What makes you say this?
- Is this something that is relevant to you personally? What makes you say this?
- Is this something that you see as relevant for New Zealand today? In what ways (relevant or not)?
- What is the value of something like this for New Zealand?
- How important is it for New Zealand to have a public broadcaster? What makes you say this?
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 60 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
- What would you change about this to make it more relevant or valuable to New Zealand?
- If Radio New Zealand was really going to bring this to life in what they do, what could this look like?
▪ What kinds of stories would they be telling? What topics? What information would they be giving us?
▪ How would they be telling these stories? – what kinds of delivery methods (TV, radio, print, online) and presentation styles (short or long articles, stories, documentaries, fiction, etc.)?
▪ What do they do now that brings this to life?
▪ What more could they do to bring this to life?
- What would that mean for the people who engage with RNZ?
- How much would you trust RNZ to deliver on something like this?
▪ What makes you say that?
▪ What is getting in the way of trusting RNZ more?
▪ What builds the trust you have now?
6. Bringing it all together
Purpose: To explore how the objectives of The Office and RNZ might naturally cross over, and how to prompt further engagement with Parliament and the democratic process (15 minutes)
▪ If you think about the earlier discussion around Parliament and democracy, alongside what we’ve discussed on RNZ – are there any natural points where the two of these meet?
- What are those natural points where Parliament and Democracy meet RNZ and what they’re trying to achieve?
▪ How should something like RNZ be helping New Zealanders feel closer to, or engage more, with Parliament and the democratic process, especially if it’s something they care about?
NOTE TO RESEARCHERS: FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS ARE CRITICAL TO ANSWER
- How could RNZ help to make Parliament feel more accessible for New Zealanders?
- How can Parliament make Parliament feel more accessible for New Zealanders?
▪ If we go back to those four ways that people can get involved with Parliament (vote, make a submission, start a petition, contact an MP), how can we make these feel more like something that people can do or be involved with when it comes to something they care about?
- How do we make these activities meaningful and achievable for people?
- Let’s look at the two people you chose earlier:
▪ The person who feels strongly about engaging with Parliament, feels it’s really important to do and actively seeks out opportunities to do so.
▪ The person who, although feels strongly about democracy, doesn’t really get involved or engage with Parliament.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 61 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
- What kinds of knowledge, support, and beliefs does the first person have that would help them engage with each of those four ways of getting involved with Parliament?
- What do they do differently, or how do they feel about getting involved when compared to the second person?
- How would we start to help that second person feel like they could get more involved – feeling that the four ways of engaging with Parliament were actually manageable for them?
▪ Other people have come up with a few ideas of how we might get people to feel more engaged with Parliament and the democratic process, especially on topics they really care about.
SHOW SHOWCARD F: Ideas on how we might get people to feel more engaged with Parliament and the democratic process
FOR EACH:
- How would you feel about something like this?
- What kind of people would this appeal to? What makes it appealing to them?
- How would this impact or change the way people feel about Parliament or the democratic process?
- What would need to happen or how should this look to make it really work for people like you?
▪ What else would you add to that list?
- What are some of the ways that you feel you engage with Parliament or the democratic process (if at all)?
▪ What are some of the ways that you would generally source news or coverage of events in Parliament (if at all)?
PROBE FOR:
- Listening to radio news coverage about events that have happened in Parliament
- Viewing TV news coverage of events in Parliament
- Reading news coverage of events in Parliament (e.g. in newspapers, online)
▪ PROBE FOR: RNZ and Parliament websites
If these are used:
▪ What are you getting from these sites that you don’t get elsewhere?
▪ How could these sites be improved to give you more of what you need?
If these are not used:
▪ Are you aware of these sites?
▪ What prevents you using them/using more often?
▪ What would you need to know or hear about these sites to make you want to use them?
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 62 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
- Talking to other people (friends, family, co-workers etc) for news coverage
- What else?
▪ There are a few different channels that are available for people to keep in touch with what’s happening in Parliament.
SHOW SHOWCARD G: Differentl channels that are available for people to keep in touch with what’s happening in Parliament
- Which of these are you aware of?
- Which have you used before? When/where/how often?
8. Summary
Purpose: To summarise thoughts around engagement with the democratic process. [5 minutes]
Great! Let’s do a quick summary. Thinking about everything we’ve spoken about today, let’s imagine it’s your job to convince someone like you, to actively be more involved with Parliament/the democratic process.
▪ What would you say?
▪ What are they key words/terms/benefits that you feel would really have an impact?
Finally, out of all of this, what would be the ONE thing that would really resonate with you?
Any final comments?
Thank and close
Gift
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 63 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Appendix II: Showcards
SHOWCARD A: Definition of democratic process For the purposes of this discussion, we will be defining the democratic process as ‘everyone gets to have a say and has a right to have their voice heard.’
New Zealand is a democracy, which means people have ultimate power over the way they are governed. Though we get to vote for Parliament once every 3 years there is a lot more to democracy than elections. A democracy should give citizens many opportunities to participate in decision-making, and provide things like checks and balances so that people with power cannot abuse it, a free press, access to official information, protection for individual rights.
SHOWCARD B: Definition of government and Parliament Government is the group of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, who have the authority to govern New Zealand.
Parliament makes laws and holds the Government to account over its policies, actions and spending. Parliament consists of the House of Representatives and the Sovereign (represented by the Governor General). The House of Representatives exists to represent the people. It includes all the MPs (Members of Parliament) from all political parties, those in government and those in opposition. People vote for (elect) members of Parliament.
SHOWCARD C: What Parliament currently does Parliament tries to ensure people are informed about what’s happening about Parliament and how they can get involved through things like making submissions to select committees, creating or signing petitions, or contacting their MPs.
Some examples of what Parliament is currently doing to help the public be informed about what’s happening at Parliament and how they can be involved include:
• A website that focuses on providing information about what happens at Parliament and how people can be involved • Providing information on a number of channels to get information to people who need it (Twitter, Facebook, website, Parliament TV, YouTube) • Web pages that explain in plain English what a bill is about and who could be affected by it (https://www.Parliament.nz/en/get-involved/topics/) • Videos that show what people can expect when they come to visit Parliament, for example if they’re appearing before a select committee • Daily videos from the Speaker of the House that explain what’s going to happen that day in Parliament (available on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the Parliament website).
SHOWCARD D: Ways to engage with Parliament Voting - Any New Zealand citizen and permanent resident who is 18 or over and whose name is on either the Māori or general electoral roll before Election Day can vote in a general election. Each voter has two votes to cast — a party vote and an electorate vote. This is how New Zealand citizens choose who represents them in Parliament. This electoral system is called mixed-member proportional representation or MMP.
Contacting an MP - Members of Parliament are your representatives in Parliament. You can contact them at their offices in the Parliamentary complex or at their out-of-Parliament or electorate offices.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 64 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
Making a submission - A submission is your chance to present your opinions, observations, and recommendations on a matter before a select committee. Submissions are written, but you may also ask to talk to the committee in person. This way, committee members can ask you more detailed questions about your recommendations.
Creating a petition - A petition is a document addressed to the House of Representatives and signed by at least one person. It asks the House to act on a matter of public policy or law, or to put right a local or private concern. Anyone of any age can petition the House including corporations and unincorporated bodies with sufficient identity as organisations.
SHOWCARD E: Radio New Zealand Charter RNZ is paid for by the New Zealand tax-payer, and is expected to follow the principles set down in a Charter. The Charter says RNZ’s purpose as a public service broadcaster is to serve the public interest. In this role, among other things, RNZ is expected to make information about the NZ democratic process available, and in a way that is objective, relevant, reliable and useful for New Zealanders.
RNZ broadcasts over three nationwide networks; RNZ National, RNZ Concert and the AM network which relays Parliamentary proceedings. RNZ also has websites and apps which provide news, and programme information, and where people can listen and watch programmes previously broadcast.
Some of the points that form a part of the delivery on that include:
In achieving its purpose, the public radio company must endeavour to provide services of the highest quality, which: - are predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand
- inform, entertain, and enlighten the people of New Zealand
- are challenging, innovative, and engaging
- foster critical thought, and informed and wide-ranging debate
- stimulate, support, and reflect the diversity of cultural expression, including drama, comedy, literature, and the performing arts
- stimulate, support, and reflect a wide range of music, including New Zealand composition and performance
- reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, including Māori language and culture
- provide awareness of the world and of New Zealand’s place in it
- provide comprehensive, independent, accurate, impartial, and balanced regional, national, and international news and current affairs
- provide programmes which balance special interest with those of wide appeal, recognising the interests of all age groups
- contribute towards intellectual and spiritual development
- include an international service to the South Pacific in both English and Pacific languages
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 65 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
SHOWCARD F: Ideas on how we might get help people become aware of how to engage with Parliament and the democratic process if they wanted to
Personally visiting Parliament to observe how it works - for example, joining a Parliamentary tour, joining a Talking to friends or family about Parliament and things Parliamentary study group, observing from the public like how I can vote etc. gallery
Listening live on radio to Parliament while it is sitting Talking with people at school/uni/work
Talking to other people or services (e.g. Citizen’s Advice Listening live online to Parliament sitting community service)
Watching live on TV to Parliament while it is sitting Talking to local party representatives
Listening later to sittings of Parliament (e.g. using Impartial but trained volunteers coming to talk to me at podcasts) home
Viewing later the sittings in Parliament (e.g. on-demand) Information/kiosks in libraries
Reading website articles about what is happening at Reading about sittings of Parliament (e.g. online) Parliament
Listening to radio programmes for stories about issues Reading website articles the explain how Parliament raised in Parliament works
Viewing videos about how Parliament works, e.g. how a Following Parliament on social media (Facebook, Twitter, person can make submissions to a select committee YouTube)
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 66 Exploring New Zealanders’ understanding of, and engagement with, Parliament and the democratic process
SHOWCARD G: Different channels that are available for people to keep in touch with what’s happening in Parliament • Parliament’s website: www.parliament.nz • Parliament TV on Freeview channel 31 • Parliament TV On-Demand on the Parliament website • Parliament TV On-Demand on YouTube • Parliament on Twitter • RNZ on Twitter • Parliament on Facebook • RNZ on Facebook • Hansard - the written record of everything MPs say at Parliament • RNZ’s AM network radio service for live coverage of Parliament • RNZ’s live-streaming audio service for Parliamentary coverage • Question Time audio on www.rnz.co.nz website • ‘The House’ - an RNZ programme/podcast • The wireless website: www.thewireless.co.nz • Virtual House app.
Prepared by Colmar Brunton | Page | 67