Election Year Special - the Politicians and the SPI

Are political parties in touch with screen production industry (SPI) and its many needs? They should be – Film Auckland Chair Pete Rive revealed that the creative sector injects $1.7 billion into Auckland alone, and that Henderson Valley Studios alone has contributed $800 million to the economy.

So, are there major differences between political parties when it comes to the SPI and will the politicians own up to them? There was a chance to fi nd out at the Film Auckland Election Year Special held at AUT in July.

Chaired by Cameron Bennett, the Film Auckland Summit was attended by Judith Tizard from the Labour Party, Chris Finlayson from National, Dail Jones from NZ First, Jim Anderton from the Progressive Party, and interested members of the industry – including the NZ Film Commission and Film New Zealand.

First up was Judith Tizard, who spoke as the Associate Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage. She felt that Labour’s track record in funding organizations like the Film Commission and NZ On Air during its tenure in government spoke for itself. Judith mentioned initiatives introduced by the government, including the newly introduced New Zealand Screen Production Incentive Fund (SPIF). For the future, she’s working on the One Plan for Auckland – so that productions need only deal with one authority rather than the seven territorial councils they negotiate with at present.

As the National Party spokesperson for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson stressed National’s recognition of the screen production industry and the contribution it makes to the economy. He went on record to say National would not cut arts funding from current levels. He did say a National-led government would explore whether existing state-funded arts organizations could be more responsive to contemporary needs. As an example, he asked whether the Film Commission Act, a piece of legislation passed in the Muldoon era, needed to be updated. Finally, Chris said National wants to build a dialogue with the screen production industry. On a personal level, he spoke of his own personal involvement in the arts, including having served on the board of Creative NZ and the NZSO.

Jim Anderton was surprised to hear of National’s support for the screen production industry and pointed out that National has voted against almost every initiative relating to the SPI since the Labour-led coalition came to power – including the recent Screen Production Incentive Fund. While he welcomed National’s “Road to Damascus” conversion, Anderton suggested the industry might want more than a promise not to decrease funding – as funding levels will need to be increased over time if they’re to keep up with rising costs and inflation. On a practical level, he spoke of the need for better broadband to expand the industry, and of his own personal concern that young New Zealanders can’t see live rugby and cricket if they’re unable to afford pay–tv. Overseas, in Australia, the UK and Canada, iconic sports events are shown on free-to-air television. Anderton would like to see a similar situation here, where the right of New Zealanders to see their national sport live on free-to-air TV is protected.

NZ First’s Dail Jones was frank about his party’s SPI policy – it’s short, and they welcomed your input. Dail said NZ First would not sell TVNZ, would maintain current funding levels for the creative sector, and would make sure funding is fairly allocated and transparently applied.

In discussion time, Cameron Bennett asked National’s Chris Finlayson what he meant by a “review of the Film Commission Act”. Chris replied that we need to take an objective view of the statute. We’ve had it since 1978 – is it still serving the industry? Judith spoke of the Film Commission as a development and marketing agency, and is happy to see the act reviewed, but didn’t think this would be the answer to the problems of the industry.

A question came from the floor about the possibility of alternate funding sources, and whether incentives could be introduced to increase investment in local productions. Chris replied this was not a topic he’d discussed with Finance, and so was not prepared to make any announcement. Jim Anderton was wary of incentives. He used the example of forest planting, which had received incentives in the past with the result that trees were now growing in areas where they couldn’t be harvested. Judith agreed with Jim. In her view, tax breaks skew the system, so that it becomes about the tax break rather than the product. She felt giving people money was easier than leveraging off tax breaks.

The evening ended an hour and a half after it began, and we were all let out to enjoy drinks and nibbles. Wisely, the powers that be had decided to hold back the alcohol till after the questioning – and it did occur to me that this might be a very different report had things been otherwise!

Cheers,

Megan Ritchie

Executive Officer

Addendum:

I note with considerable disappointment the absence of representatives from ACT, the Greens, and the Maori Party. There might even be someone amongst us who’d like to hear what United Future might have to say, though I find it hard to imagine… But one or more of the other three could be in a very influential position post-election time, and this could seriously influence our voting. Don’t they realize that when they ignore us, we’re likely to ignore them when we’re in the ballot booth? Ed.