Ructions over free-to-air television coverage of the Rugby World Cup raise major questions about the sustainability of New Zealand’s approach to public broadcasting

It had to happen sooner or later – and rugby is just the issue to get New Zealanders exercised about the $230 million worth of taxpayers’ funds being spent annually to provide us with public broadcasting services.

People are more than muttering about the rights and wrongs of two State-backed broadcasters competing with each other for the right to screen free-to-air coverage of Rugby World Cup 2011. So they should be.

TVNZ, the Maori Television Service, and tag-along TV3 may settle their differences this week and frame a new joint bid to share free-to-air coverage of the world’s most prestigious rugby contest. But the story will not end there.

The International Rugby Board has already rejected one joint bid from our free-to-air TV broadcasters. Maybe, they will be attracted by a higher price on another. That is for them to decide.

The important thing to recognize is that this is far from a done deal, and the way it has been handled so far raises serious questions about the joint abilities of our broadcasters, our public broadcasting services administrators, and our governing politicians to bring it off.

This is no one-off problem. A systemic flaw has developed in our current system of purchasing television programmes and services that the public want but commercially-driven broadcasters will not or cannot provide. Unless it is corrected, it will happen again and again.

The problem starts at the top. We currently have a melee of ministers, officials, and agencies with overlapping responsibilities, all trying to convert the Rugby World Cup into an international showcase event that will generate, perhaps, half a billion dollars worth of gain for New Zealand.

The list starts with Murray McCully, the Minister for Rugby World Cup 2011, his associate cup minister Gerry Brownlee, Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman, New Zealand broadcasting’s funding Minister Chris Finlayson, Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples, and his associate minister with special responsibility for Maori broadcasting, Georgina Te Heuheu.

It is simplistic to lay the blame for the mess solely on the politicians. They are supposed to be supported by officials – at Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, and the Ministry for Economic Development – who are responsible for advising on the development of public broadcasting policy and accountable for its implementation.

Between these officials and the broadcasters sit two agencies that are supposed to hold decision-making responsibilities for allocating government funds provided to purchase public broadcasting programmes and services – Te Mangai Paho and NZ On Air.

These frontline funding agencies were created for a very good reason – to ensure the decisions on which programmes or services will receive State support are made at arm’s length from the governing politicians of the day by a well-defined, rational, consistent and transparent process.

However, their activities are rarely coordinated. Politicians and broadcasters are often tempted cut the funding agencies out of the loop and short-circuit the funding process.

This is not the first time it has happened. Labour did it with the ill-fated TVNZ charter funding arrangement. National wrapped up the charter deal – but compounds another Labour error by continuing preferential direct funding of new TVNZ digital television services on the Freeview platform. The Minister of Maori Affairs also sidelined the normal Maori broadcasting funding process by brokering a special direct funding arrangement between his Ministry and the Maori Television Service.

When the IRB rejected the first joint bid from our major networks for the New Zealand free-to-air broadcasting rights to RWC 2011 in March, and when SKY won the global host broadcaster and Pay-TV rights a month later, it was evident that a special funding intervention could be required to secure free-to-air television coverage of a major international sports event that is already being heavily underwritten by New Zealand taxpayers.

It is no secret that our major free-to-air, advertiser-funded television broadcasters have been cash-strapped by the recession and the additional costs they confront by having to simulcast in three transmission modes during New Zealand’s transition to the new digital broadcasting technology.

The Maori Television Service and Te Puni Kokiri obviously read the signals and saw an opportunity. They deserve to be congratulated for their initiative and the creative thinking shown in their well-developed case.

By contrast, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage – which not only has responsibility for funding NZ On Air to purchase public broadcasting services, but also the specific task of encouraging cultural tourism around the Rugby World Cup – still seems to be asleep at the wheel.

It is time to wake up. We have no assurance that the issues jeopardizing our access to free-to-air coverage of the Rugby World Cup are resolved. We have yet to consider the implications of TVNZ’s decision to relinquish rights to cover the Commonwealth Games next year, or those of SKY’s success in securing rights to the Winter Olympics in Vancouver and the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.

Sport is an important dimension of New Zealand culture – but it is slipping steadily out of the public domain on television, because our system for funding public broadcasting services is not capable of dealing with entirely predictable market failures in the commercially-focused, free-to-air television environment that we have created.

We need to fix the systemic flaws exposed by the Rugby World Cup fiasco, instead of dismissing it as just another accident of sloppy political process.

Declaration of interest: David Beatson is a former chairman of NZ On Air, and currently hosts a programme on Stratos-Triangle Television that receives NZ On Air funding.

Comments (5)

by Graeme Edgeler on October 19, 2009
Graeme Edgeler

David Beatson ... currently hosts a programme on Stratos-Triangle Television that receives NZ On Air funding.

I want :-)

When's this coming to Freeview HD?

by David Beatson on October 19, 2009
David Beatson

Graeme: the Stratos-Triangle team tell me just staying on the conventional Freeview digital TV platform is a real financial strain - and getting up to Freeview High Definition practically doubles the cost. So, no time soon is your answer.

by Russell Brown on October 20, 2009
Russell Brown

David, I'm lost as to what you're actually saying here. You're simultaneously lamenting political interference and demanding political intervention. Cursing the Charter and the modest direct funding for the digital channels, but slating M&H as "asleep at the wheel" for not awarding contestable funding to commercial sports coverage.

I was personally happy to see TVNZ relinquish the Commonwealth Games -- it put $11 million back in the company's local production fund. You can do a lot with $11 million. It also seems fair to note that when TVNZ <i>did</i> attempt to direct public funding to into major sports coverage, in the case of the Olympics, it created a public storm that led to its Charter funding being placed under political watch. I just can't see that reality changing.

Obligatory declaration: I help make a TV show out of the direct funding of the digital channels and a radio show funded by NZ On Air, and I'm on the board of an internet project funded by NZ On Air.

by David Beatson on October 20, 2009
David Beatson

Russell - To put my point as succinctly as I can: the only political intervention I want to see is the injection of an adequate amount of funding into the "arms-lenth" distribution processes managed by NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho so that the funding major event coverage is not a matter of direct wheeling and dealing between individual broadcasters and Ministers behind closed doors. Advertising-driven free-to-air television operators are going to get increasingly disadvantaged in bidding for rights against Pay TV operators who raise their money direct from their subscriber-viewers. A Pay TV monopoly like SKY is in a great position to exploit this advantage when the advertising market is depressed and fragmenting. If we don't want major sports events to disappear from the free-to-air broadcasting domain - where it's accessible to the maximum number of viewers - then taxpayer funding will be required to stop it happening. I want to see a coherent, transparent arms-length process for distributing that funding instead of the murky melee we have seen over free-to-air Rugby World Cup coverage.  

by Claire Browning on October 21, 2009
Claire Browning

I liked your programme, David. Thanks.

The Beatson Interview, Tuesdays 8.30pm, Freeview 21.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.