Paul Norris: We need to know what the future holds for TVNZ

Government money will stop flowing into Television NZ's Auckland headquarters next year. Photo / Herald on Sunday

Government intervention may have secured the future of our film industry. But where is the policy for television?

Will the Government support a plan for some degree of public broadcasting on television?

Are we likely to see an intervention to save the threatened non-commercial channels TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7?

These questions are timely as the funding for these channels is soon to run out. Also, the Government is about to remove the Charter from TVNZ, thus rendering it wholly commercial and possibly to be sold at some point.

If this were to happen, would some kind of public broadcasting limb be left behind?

For viewers who have yet to discover TVNZ's two digital-only channels - available on both Sky and Freeview - TVNZ 6 is a channel offering programmes for children during the day followed by family viewing in the evening. TVNZ 7 is a factual channel, with news on the hour, plus a range of documentaries, current affairs and arts programmes.

Both channels are largely repeats of programmes previously broadcast on TVNZ's mainstream channels, but there is some original programming - The Go Show, KidZone, Back Benches and Media 7.

The significance of these channels, and why their future is critical, is that they are the only part of the television landscape that can be seen as public broadcasting, a place that viewers can turn to where the content and the programme schedule are not driven by ratings and the demands of advertisers.

They are commercial-free.

What viewers may not know is that these channels are largely funded by the Government (a deal with Labour provided $79 million over five years), but that this funding runs out at the end of 2011.

For months now, the Government and TVNZ have been wrestling with the question: how can these channels continue when the Government seems unwilling to commit to any further funding? Whatever the views of the Minister of Broadcasting, Dr Jonathan Coleman, he is up against Cabinet heavyweights such as Finance Minister Bill English and Telecommunications Minister Steven Joyce, neither of whom have much love for public broadcasting.

A number of options have been explored. One is to reduce the public broadcasting commitment to one channel. TVNZ 6 could become a commercial channel targeting children and youth, or it might be aimed at those neglected older viewers.

Or it could even be a PLUS 1 channel, meaning TVOne or TV2 on one hour's delay. Whatever its new remit, TVNZ 6 would be sustained from its commercial revenue.

In this plan TVNZ 7 would no longer be simply a factual channel.

It would inherit some of the entertainment programming currently on TVNZ 6, thus broadening towards a full-service public broadcasting channel with programmes across a range of genres.

Here is an opportunity to create an embryo of genuine public broadcasting for television. But should such a revamped channel - let us rename it Public Broadcasting 7 or PB7 - be run by the wholly commercial TVNZ?

Surely it needs its own Charter or remit and an independent Board. That is why there has been talk of some kind of merger between public broadcasters, for example between a stand-alone PB7 and Radio New Zealand, perhaps including Maori Television.

If not a merger then at least collaboration. But this is a path strewn with obstacles, hence little progress has been made. Funding remains a major sticking point.

How much would such a channel cost? The answer is anywhere between $20 million and $150 million a year, depending on how much original content it had and the nature of the contract it would have to strike with TVNZ, for programming and especially for news content.

One possibility is that the Platinum Fund could be taken from NZ On Air and used for PB7. The Platinum Fund of some $15 million was the annual grant given to TVNZ by the Labour Government for Charter programmes, but then taken away from TVNZ and given to NZ On Air by the National Government as it prepared to remove the Charter.

But $15 million is hardly enough to lay the foundations for such a channel. There would also be considerable opposition to the move from the production community and NZ On Air.

If the Government is serious about such a plan, it will have to accept that public broadcasting requires public funding. Could it not look at making an investment from the millions of dollars trumpeted as the digital dividend from the switch from analogue to digital in 2013, said by the Minister of Broadcasting to be as much as $2.4 billion over 20 years?

Or a levy on the profits of commercial broadcasters above a certain level?

The minister, addressing the annual industry conference of the Screen Production and Development Association recently, offered no solutions.

He merely indicated that he would like to see the continuation of one public broadcasting channel "in some form".

He reiterated there would be no new money - the only possibility was a redistribution of the public money presently spent on broadcasting. Hence talk of the Platinum Fund.

But the Government can hardly dither much longer without a policy. Next year is election year, when the Government will have to signal any intention it may have to privatise state assets.

Are we not entitled to know whether TVNZ is to be sold, and if so what sort of channel may be left behind?

* Paul Norris is a senior staff member of the New Zealand Broadcasting School at the Christchurch Polytechnic. He is currently engaged with an evaluative study of NZ On Air 1989-2010.