Meeting a Minister, & a CEO

One evening in early May, members of the screen production industry were invited to meet the new Minister of Economic Development, Gerry Brownlee, at Park Road Post. No-one from our Wellington Branch was available to go, so since your editor happened to be in the capital for work, I went along. I was surprised that there seemed to be as many Northerners there as residents of the Capital, many having flown in for the occasion apparently. It was great catching up with some Wellington Guild members too.

The invitation had suggested that other Ministers might be there also - but the Minister for Arts, Culture & Heritage, Chris Finlayson, was caught up in the House. His CEO was also unavailable, but was represented by Ministry for Culture and Heritage’s “Acting Manager, Policy Group”, Kerry Harvey, and others.

Chair of Film NZ, producer Julian Grimmond, opened the evening by making some salient points:

• Large Budget Production Grant films thus far have used 93% local crew and 86% local cast;
• Kiwi crews are very environmentally aware and responsible;
• Without regular work, crew and contractors cannot up-skill, nor invest in new technology.

For Brownlee, the issues included:

• Access to (national) parks, which he said can be improved;
• Building consents, which could be made simpler for less permanent buildings such as film sets; along with insurance and safety concerns;
• Facilities - Yes, more are needed, but they need industry proposals as to what, where, and how.

Finally, the statement that we all pray he and his colleagues will honor: Brownlee promised that the present Government is as supportive of the screen industry, and will continue to be, as any previous government.

I was surprised that there was no reference to the promised review of the NZFC; but I was able to glean from the Ministry’s Kerry Harvey that they were keen to get going with the review and were still awaiting Government instructions… (See update on page 19)

The Techos Guild was next invited to attend a “Strategic Direction” meeting to be led by the new CEO of the Film Commission, Graeme Mason. So on Tuesday 16 May, EO Fritha Stalker and I rolled down into deepest Ponsonby, to join a decent-sized group representative of the many film organizations in Auckland, along with a good many producers.

(Another meeting was held the next day in Wellington.)

My first impression of the new man was good - his casual and comfortable dress matched his demeanor, and as he introduced himself, he immediately and continually made direct eye contact with many of the group, and continued to do so throughout the discussion. For what it’s worth, I liked his body language as well as his words, which seemed frank, direct, and open.

Graeme began with a promise of greater transparency, and another of inclusivity - “We’re all in this together, although we may not always agree…”

He spoke about welcoming communication and openness; and how he believes in viewing the industry “from the cradle to the grave” (as it were), rather than focusing on one aspect.

He freely acknowledged that “We (the NZFC) have pissed people off in the past. We need to sort out how not to piss people off unnecessarily!” At the same time, it’s clear that some people will continue to be pissed off - not least because there are three times as many proposals before the Board this year compared with last - and only the same amount of money in the pot. Out of this grew the idea, partly because so many Kiwi films budgeted around $4m to $5m have not made a bean, that they will in future fund more films at lower budgets…

As a model, Graeme likes the UK’s (Government-owned) Channel 4, where their Charter states they must make stuff that is not made elsewhere, but that they must make all their own money. He spoke of how we must make films primarily for the NZ audience - discussion ensued about the lack of audience in NZ for horror films.

Short films also got a mention: We make beautiful shorts, but so many! In future, budgets will be smaller - and, for example, most will be shot on HD.

Graeme discussed the changes resulting from the change of government - Labour’s notion of “Cultural Capital” is now gone, replaced by National’s mantra of “Value for money.” - and the implications: increased financial accountability, with an emphasis on the idea that it’s public money the NZFC gets to spend (25% comes directly from the Government, with nearly three times as much coming from Lottery profits).

In contrast to Brownlee’s assertion in May (see earlier), Graeme clearly expects budget cuts next year, resulting in more pain for us all. SPIF could disappear at any time; Lottery funds could be redirected elsewhere by the Government, also at any time…

In welcoming the Government’s review (with Peter Jackson since announced as leader), Graeme spoke of how the NZFC has been doing too much, too many things - but what to cull? Later he spoke of his plan to completely restructure the sales agency aspect - an area in which he is vastly experienced, on both sides. “Look what we’ll have done in three months time.”

Returning to transparency, he expanded: It’s demanded - and the NZFC must do it! In the past the funding gatekeepers have not been clear, open and honest enough - perhaps too polite! (A Kiwi trait, methinks? Perhaps it’s good we sent Screen Australia a Kiwi CEO and found ourselves an Aussie!)

At this point, John Barnett amused us with three assessments he’d received (from whom or where I cannot recall, I’m sorry) for Whale Rider - Niki Caro could never direct it, they’d never find a child able to play Paikea, and they could never train a whale!

Further to the theme of funding decisions, Graeme pointed out that although they expected a $0.5m drop in income this year, thanks to internal savings already created, there would be 10% more going into the funding pot. Film proposals would (continue to be) judged according to cultural aspects and industry needs as well as commerciality and creativity.

The one potentially sour note came later in the meeting, when in response to the idea of budgets being cut, some producers began to comment about crew costs in NZ being too high. One producer claimed that on equivalent drama jobs in the UK and NZ, the Kiwi crew were universally more expensive than the British (pound for dollar); another claimed that NZ crew rates have risen by 20% in three years. (In contrast, I’ve recently heard comments from some crew claiming they’ve not been able to raise their rates in over ten years…) It should also be noted that UK crew are employees, with all the financial and other benefits that go with such status.

Although some valid points were made (e.g., crew who have only ever worked on big-budget dramas sometimes do not understand that low budget films cannot always afford big-budget rates), I found myself irritated by a blanket assertion that Kiwi crew are universally too expensive - especially when it’s clear that some producers have no idea that most crew here do indeed recognize the impact of budget size, and have a sliding scale of rates accordingly. This is of course reflected in the AD’s recommended rates chart on the Guild website, to which I referred them. I suspect, however, that my anger at the knee-jerk response (admittedly not from all the producers in the room) may have made me less coherent in standing up for crew than I might have been. I’d not anticipated opening my mouth! A good result though, is the recognition that more dialogue between producers, directors, and crew needs to be encouraged, so that such misunderstandings may be reduced. How many of us do cut our rates for projects we really want to see made? (Second-Hand Wedding, anyone?) I’m happy to acknowledge that one producer mentioned how many short films are made here with crew working for free.

Overall, I felt it to be a very productive meeting; and we were indeed pleased to see representatives of various guilds and bodies there. Given that the Techos Guild has recently been frustrated by the Commission’s past regime refusing to give us some financial support, while funding many other film bodies, it was particularly pleasing to have been included in this discussion.

Our very grateful thanks to the Commission for inviting us