Editorial: Put an end to costly soap opera

Opinion

Without a doubt 2005 goes down as the worst year in a long line of bad years for TVNZ, ending as it did with the unseemly spectacle of bloodletting on the floor of a parliamentary select committee room. It was all too easy to compare the proceedings to one of the national broadcaster's popular soaps. Just like a good season of Shortland Street, it ended leaving a tantalising question unanswered: can it get worse?

The obvious answer is yes, but the signs are not altogether inauspicious. Already the Government has appointed a new chairman who looks promising. Sir John Anderson has the required mana and, after 30 years in the banking sector, plenty of financial nous.

Yet finance is not the big issue. What is needed at the top is a profound understanding of the industry and a coherent vision for what TVNZ might become. This can come only from the person appointed to succeed Ian Fraser as chief executive.

Whoever gets the job will need to have the tact of a diplomat to deal with simmering staff and salary issues and the insight of a technocrat to grapple with the advent of digital television.

Although salary rows caused most of the public bloodletting, the digital issue is far more important. Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey argues that the viability of local programming will be compromised if global media companies are left to dominate the digital airwaves. Just before Christmas he foreshadowed big changes to TVNZ - including increased funding as well as organisational reforms - to cope with the introduction of digital, free-to-air broadcasts.

This is all well and good, but unless any reorganisation addresses the deep problems in the way the network is run, it is unlikely that the air of crisis will dissipate and the network's new leaders will find the task just as intractable as their predecessors. This is because the tensions ultimately spring from the way the organisation is dominated by the Government despite its supposed independence. Not only is strategy shaped by political considerations but the big decisions are made by a board that lacks knowledge of what is a very special industry.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that TVNZ should be saddled with such contradictory goals as the charter on one hand and the need to make a profit on the other. The lack of a coherent strategy, with the unease this causes at all levels, puts it at a significant disadvantage against its commercial competitors.

It is hard to see how any reorganisation can work without addressing these fundamental problems. One obvious step would be to sell TVNZ but, realistically, the time for such a drastic move has passed. Not even the National Party would support it.

However, a novel idea from the head of South Pacific Pictures, John Barnett, suggests a way forward: lease the network to a private operator and, at the same time, boost funding to New Zealand On Air.

For TVNZ the big advantage would be that it could take on the competition unhampered by political considerations. And the Government's dual objective of profit and charter would be satisfied because it would continue to receive a dividend at the same time New Zealand On Air nurtured public service broadcasting on all channels.

A third way might be to lease TV2 to a private operator who would pay TV One. Although less sweeping than the Barnett proposal, it would still make a significant contribution to ironing out the problems.

For the viewers and taxpayers the ultimate goal must be an end to the self-destructive and costly soap opera that has become our national broadcaster.