Film men upset commission plans

Press, 28 December 1977, Page 2

Film men upset commission plans

[ Wellington reporter A New Zealand Film Commission — to encourage the local film industry — is due to be set up next year. The interim body to establish the commission was formed this year, with a burst of publicity, and — after five years gestation — smiles all round. But what had seemed a straight forward exercise in planning by an interim body to establish a permanent commission now promises to take much longer, and be a great deal more messy, than anyone had anticipated. The interim commission is Messrs W. Sheat, past chairman of the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council; M. Corner, a businessman; R. Gascoigne, a solicitor; R. Moodabe, a cinema chain manager; and J. O’Shea, a film producer. When announced in November, the group was described as “small and expert, hard-headed and sensitive.” It has now openly divided over a central issue — the role of the National Film Unit.

The interim commission was given six tasks to lead up to legislation in 1978 establishing a full film commission:— (1) To advise the Minister of Internal Affairs on matters that should be included in legislation. (2) To establish guidelines to help the film industry preparatory to the permanent commission. (3) To consider and advise on private projects if requested. (4) To consult with the film production industry. Government agencies, and other bodies in the development of policies and information services. (5) To act as a central repository of information on film production. (6) To recommend the level of staff on short-tenn contract that would be required to provide expert advice. All this seems pretty straightforward, as its draf-

ten intended it to be. but the broad functions outlined assume that the commission will contain some organisation capable of the technical work involved. The only Government agency capable, of this is the National Film Unit, and it was intended that the N.F.U. become part of the commission.

However, two members of the interim commission are employed in the private film industry, and they are not at all sure that the N.F.U. should be part of the commission or even that the N.F.U. has any useful role to play at all. Without the N.F.U. the permanent commission could not undertake the technical activities foreseen for it, so something of an impasse has been reached. The matter is further complicated by the reluctance of the present administrator of the N.F.U. — the Tourist and Publicity Department — to see control pass to the commission or to any other agency.

Finally, overshadowing everything else, is the wish of the State Services Commission to see the Department of Internal Affairs established as a department servicing the other departments — including servicing by the National Film Unit.

Whether Internal Affairs controlled the N.F.U. directly, as a department section, or indirectly, through a film commission, might not worry the State Services Commission too much. However, the transfer of control may well be delayed longer than the State Services Commission would like if the whole existence of the N.F.U. as a Government agency is put up for review. The effects of all this speculation on the morale of N.F.U. staff is another problem. Over the years, and in many countries, those employed in the film industry have established a reputation for volatility of temperament.