State-owned television has always been the plaything of politicians, 50 years ago because of fears this permanent occupant of our living rooms might influence our opinions, later as a source of revenues - and all the while the public face of political argument about the medium was bound up in ethical, cultural, social and historical pomposities.
Publicly-funded television became possible with annual licence fee revenues, but politicians still made sure of their effective control. Later, when TVNZ (as it eventually became) was required to produce revenue returns to the government of the day - the licence fee having been abandoned - any real possibility of state-owned television having a "public service" obligation disappeared into the realms of wishful thinking.
This was the situation until the Labour government was elected in 1999 with firm views on the differences between commercial and public broadcasting. It produced a charter for TVNZ in 2003, and like most such efforts, it was a tattered camel rather than a thoroughbred horse.
Not only that, the camel had two humps: the company was required to still provide a return of revenue to the government, while at the same time fulfilling a charter obligation to screen content considered culturally, socially or historically important. The dual mandate was incompatible and soon was an obvious failure.
The Clark government had nine years to produce a functioning television broadcasting policy and in the assessment of most commentators - but possibly not the majority of viewers - it did not.
When the National Party took office in 2008, it promised to "sort out" public broadcasting policy. So it has come to pass and the predictable end is in sight.
National's policy hardly deserved the description, but the intent was clear. Any hopes that non-commercial programming would be restored to prominence soon vanished. There were two unambiguous directives: TVNZ would be freed from its charter, and the $15 million allotted to it specifically for its charter programming would go into the contestable New Zealand on Air fund for local programmes.
The second of these took place earlier this year, the first this week with the passage of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. A third intent, that of extinguishing funding for the one remaining non-commercial free channel 7, will take effect next year.
One obvious immediate effect of the change of government and the decision to abandon the charter obligations was the regrettable reduction or relegation of the already sparse complement of high-cost documentaries, history series, and arts programmes, screened to far smaller audiences at non-peak times.
There has been a greater emphasis on so-called lowest common denominator commercial programming, whereby audiences - especially younger audiences - are delivered to advertisers by way of low-cost, high-viewing number reality-type or youth programmes. The Government's argument that with a less stringent mandate more of the contestable funding would find its way on to our screens in the form of what might be described as quality local content may be accurate, but in what form, and at what viewing times?
The belief non-commercial television can be sustained without high public cost is groundless (more is the pity). This Government obviously believes the cost, in the absence of a licence fee, can never be justified. Its spending priorities lie in other areas. Its argument is strengthened by the fact that, today, those who own television sets also usually own at least a computer or mobile device.
If the fourth and predictable objective of the Government is the sale of all or part of TVNZ's channels, it may now be within reach should it be returned to office in November. Many would argue that makes far more sense today than perhaps even a decade ago.
Whereas continuing public ownership of TVNZ was justified 50 years ago when it was funded by public consent through licence fees, that consent would perhaps be more difficult to obtain, and keep, today in the face of the attractions of competing technology, including popular satellite subscriber television. Commercial models are correctly used to evaluate commercial performance: to what extent do viewers feel, or care, whether TVNZ, especially TV One, reflects their culture?
