I attended the opening night of Show Me Shorts the other night. As always, there was a lot of joy in the air with the latest batch of New Zealand and international shorts going up on screen, and many of the filmmakers, cast, crew, friends and family there to share the occasion.
All of the shorts incorporated humour in their own distinctive ways, shapes and forms. And in an industry beset by problems, it was a welcome relief to sit back and have a good laugh.
Unfortunately, there is considerably less to laugh about when it comes to the state of our industry.
The single most pressing issue facing DEGANZ and the other screen guilds and associations is the New Zealand Film Commission’s decision to cut core funding following their review around sector cohesion.
There were no clear terms of reference. There was confusion from the outset about what the review was actually intended to examine. And an embargoed media release was issued shortly before the fateful meeting, effectively pre-empting what was meant to be a discussion about sector cohesion.
It felt as though we had been hung, drawn and quartered before the process had properly begun.
Two of the many questions left hanging are simple ones: who actually made this decision, and why?
The answers we have received so far have been nebulous.
More puzzling still is the suggestion that this decision was driven by government concerns, particularly when the country may well have a different government in six weeks’ time.
But there is a more fundamental question here.
What is the NZFC for?
Core funding for guilds and associations has been contentious for as long as I have been in this role. The recurring question is: why should the NZFC support the organisations that represent and strengthen New Zealand’s small screen industry?
That is a perfectly legitimate question.
In fact, it should be asked periodically. Who needs support? Who doesn’t? What work delivers the greatest benefit to the sector? How much funding is appropriate? Are there better ways of delivering particular functions?
None of those questions is unreasonable.
But there is a significant difference between conducting a proper strategic review of those questions and making a funding decision through a process that appeared to lack clarity, transparency and a coherent strategic rationale.
And, importantly, the NZFC’s statutory responsibilities cannot simply be separated from this discussion.
The New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978 requires NZFC to encourage and promote cohesion within the New Zealand film industry. It specifically identifies the exchange of information between industry participants, the efficient use of available resources, and cooperation with other organisations to promote employment and productivity as part of that function. The Act also gives the Commission broad powers to provide financial assistance and other forms of support to the film industry.
That matters.
Because the organisations receiving core funding are not simply a collection of unrelated special-interest groups competing for a slice of the same pie.
The occupational guilds represent the people who perform the roles that make our industry work. The equity organisations represent individuals and communities whose voices and participation have historically been under-represented. Māori organisations have particular responsibilities arising from the Crown’s relationship with Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi. And organisations that deliver professional development have helped build the capability of generations of New Zealand screen practitioners.
These organisations do different things. They represent different constituencies. And, inevitably, they sometimes disagree.
But disagreement is not the same thing as fragmentation.
In fact, the organisations receiving core funding communicate with each other constantly. We work together in smaller groups and, at times, collectively. We share information, support each other’s initiatives and collaborate on issues affecting the wider sector.
Yes, our views sometimes diverge. That is inevitable when you represent different parts of an industry.
But for the most part, we are interdependent—and we behave that way.
Which makes the suggestion that sector cohesion is somehow undermined by the existence of these organisations particularly difficult to understand.
If anything, the opposite is true.
These organisations are part of the connective tissue of the New Zealand screen sector. Some of what we do is highly visible: events, workshops, professional development, networking and other activities. But much of the work is less visible and arguably just as important—advocacy, lobbying, policy development, industrial representation, strategic conversations, information sharing and maintaining relationships across the industry and with government.
It is the sort of work that can be difficult to quantify precisely because its value is cumulative and sector-wide.
So why would we weaken the New Zealand screen industry by threatening the existence of organisations that contribute to its cohesion, capability and representation?
That does not mean guilds and associations should be entitled to core funding indefinitely.
They aren’t.
Core funding should be reviewed from time to time. It is entirely reasonable for the NZFC to ask whether the organisations it supports remain strategically important, whether they are delivering value, whether their roles overlap, and whether public funding is the most effective way to achieve the desired outcomes.
But such a review should have clear strategic intent.
It should be transparent about what is being assessed and why. It should consider the needs of the industry as a whole, rather than simply the cost to support individual organisations. It should recognise the different roles played by different parts of the sector. And it should be tested against the NZFC’s statutory responsibilities—not least its explicit responsibility to encourage and promote cohesion within the New Zealand film industry.
Most importantly, the process should be capable of answering a basic question:
Will this decision make the New Zealand screen industry stronger or weaker?
I am not convinced that question has been adequately asked, let alone answered.
What has happened instead appears to be a funding decision in search of a sufficiently coherent rationale.
And that is the real problem.
The debate about whether core funding should exist is legitimate. The debate about how much organisations should receive is legitimate. The debate about how the sector should organise itself is absolutely legitimate.
But if the result of the process is to weaken the very organisations that represent practitioners, build capability, facilitate collaboration and advocate for the health of the industry, then the NZFC needs to explain how that outcome advances its statutory responsibility to promote cohesion, cooperation and productivity across the New Zealand film industry.
Because right now, the answer isn’t clear.
And so, despite the laughter, the joy and the brilliant work on display at Show Me Shorts the other night, there isn’t much funny about any of this.
For those of us working to build and sustain New Zealand’s screen industry, it’s no laughing matter.
Tui Ruwhiu
Executive Director
