Producer John Barnett: aiming for debate.
Feature
The TVNZ problem
by Gordon Campbell
The state broadcaster is hampered less by political interference than by self-intimidation, says a veteran producer of film and television.
Film director Niki Caro stands on a Wellington hotel plaza with her daughter Tui, cuddled against the wind, in her arms. No minders in sight, no Holly-wood flunkeys, no fans – just a mother and child rapt in each other, and blessedly anonymous. No wonder some of our success stories come back to live here, if they can.
Earlier, inside the hotel, the man who produced Caro’s hit film Whale Rider was trying to launch a constructive debate about the future of TVNZ. Veteran producer John Barnett used his keynote speech at the annual conference of the country’s screen producers and directors to diagnose many of the reasons for TVNZ’s recurring problems, before suggesting a solution to them.
As an initial step towards improving public broadcasting in this country, Barnett would double – to around $130 million – the annual budget of New Zealand On Air. “It is efficient,” he says, “it is transparent, and it acts with independence.”
The overriding aim, Barnett indicates, should be to foster public broadcasting across all free-to-air television outlets – and not simply to promote the fortunes of the current public broadcaster.
By the same token, Barnett strongly opposes selling off TVNZ – partly because the lengthy and costly sale process would be enormously disruptive to staff, advertisers, programme-makers and viewers, and would damage the value of the asset. Therefore, he concludes, TVNZ should merely be leased – for a period of between seven and 11 years, on condition that the operator must fulfil the government’s terms as a public broadcaster, which may well include elements of the TVNZ charter.
The fee for the lease, he suggests, would reflect those competitive constraints, but would be based on the government’s current need to earn at least a 9 percent return on its $270 million investment in TVNZ, or roughly $25 million a year. Who could bid? Anyone, he says, who doesn’t already own television channels in this country.
Count the alleged virtues: “Leasing the whole operation to an independent party will provide the independence the company needs,” Barnett told his audience. “It will enable it to plan for the future, free of artificial constraints, and it will enable knowledgeable, experienced and committed media players to grow and preserve the organisation.” What’s more, the government would still retain ownership of this strategic state asset.
Barnett’s electrifying speech – it is on the Onfilm website – dominated the conference. His aim? “Debate,” he said later over coffee.
“What I really wanted to do was to examine the past, because so often people forget it. There have been screw-ups, with no one ever held accountable. I wanted to put it all in context, open it up and let some air in.”
Of course, he added wryly, the government could choose to make no comment, and let the whole thing die. In his view, political interference with TVNZ is not of the overt, shoulder-tapping variety; rather, TVNZ’s structures foster a climate of self-intimidation, and procedures that make it difficult to maximise either the goals of public broadcasting or the economic wellbeing of the company.
Barnett’s long working relationship with TVNZ has made some of the problems readily apparent. Appointees to the board, for instance, serve only three-year terms. In his view, this has long inhibited their ability first to gain and then to deploy the levels of technological savvy and strategic smarts held by TVNZ’s competition. Those qualities are especially critical in the fragmenting media landscape TVNZ now inhabits.
Government, too, routinely changes its stance, Barnett says. “Since 1985, TVNZ has had three entirely different philosophies about what TVNZ should be. In that time, there have been at least six Ministers of Broadcasting, a number of whom have been allowed to let their own personal views influence the direction, style and content of the organisation. And in doing so, they’ve mostly diminished the value of the asset, and left it without the ability to plan long term, and meet the new competition, on either the technology or content fronts.”
One particular example stands out:during the 1990s, the sale by TVNZ of its 35 percent stake in Sky strikes Barnett as a classic instance of the organisation’s tactical vulnerability to its political masters. After paying $50 million for its stake in Sky, TVNZ sold it for $150 million in total, as the organisation was being prepped for sale. That same stake would be worth $850 million today – and its retention could have put TVNZ right in the driver’s seat for the digital challenges that lie ahead.
Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey admits, when asked, that selling the Sky shares was a total disaster. Even so, he treats that outcome as good reason to soldier on regardless. “It is clearly one of the reasons you wouldn’t want to lease [TVNZ] for example – in that you are building a brand around a national identity. If you are a New Zealander, this is your portal into a very diverse range of content.” How could you set about branding a leased-out TVNZ, Maharey asks rhetorically, as your digital gateway?
Page 1 2 
