Editorial: Film industry needs to stand on own two feet

A still from the NZ film, Eternity.

Opinion

The Govt is keen on a more self-reliant model and is anxious to help - but it's important that those involved can survive on their own

From the moment in 2007 that this country offered a 15 per cent grant for major film and television production, it should have been clear this was a temporary incentive. The influx of overseas film-makers presented an opportunity for the local industry to thrive. But those who prospered should also have appreciated the need to create a framework that would allow them to stand on their own feet. That did not happen. Now, as is the way with subsidies, New Zealand is losing out to countries that are prepared to offer even greater incentives to lure film-makers to their shores.

That fate was clearly on the horizon when this country had not only to offer added incentives but to jettison part of its workplace law to ensure filming of The Hobbit remained here. Sir Peter Jackson talked of the films being shot in eastern Europe if Warner Bros did not get its way. Since then, the competition for international film productions has intensified, with rival destinations including Australia, South Africa, Canada and Britain raising their incentives. The latter's grant for TV productions is now 25 per cent, far in excess of this country's largesse.

As was bound to happen, many big foreign productions are now going elsewhere. The cost locally of not putting the industry on a more secure footing is hundreds of jobs and the departure overseas of many skilled and talented New Zealanders who learned their trade when times were good. This has not been an overnight collapse and two years ago the Government commissioned a review by the Treasury, the Ministry for Building, Innovation and Employment and the Film Commission. Its conclusion, released in July, was that the rebate should be left at 15 per cent.

Despite the subsequent uproar from the industry, this was the right call. There is no point trying to compete on incentives. Some country will always be prepared to offer a better deal. If the industry is to prosper again, it must present a compelling case to international film-makers based on the creativity, skills, scenery and facilities here. Those New Zealanders who have gone overseas will soon return if opportunities become available.

Some in the industry seem, finally, to appreciate this. If the boom blinded them to the need to create a stronger foundation, the bust has delivered clarity. They accept that the Government cannot continually match overseas incentives, and are more willing to contemplate steps that Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says will allow them to "transition" to a model less reliant on work for overseas producers and based more on ownership of productions and control over intellectual property.

The minister appears keen to involve the Auckland Council in this transformation. But that would involve supplementing taxpayer dollars with ratepayer funding. Despite this shortcoming, the Labour Party is also keen on that approach. It says that, in addition to a more favourable rebate, it would work with the council to improve the industry's infrastructure. The emphasis, however, should be on a more sophisticated incentive scheme, with rules for local employment and suchlike. New Zealand would then gain a better return on its investment.

Either way, it must be crystal clear that any such help is strictly short term. At some stage, the film industry will, like any other sector, have to survive without subsidies.