Marc My Words
By Marc Alexander
TVNZ management makes Astrology look good
Consultation is what happens when you talk through your problems with your employer. Gossip, recrimination and endless
public finger-pointing is what happens when your employment is funded by the taxpayer and your employer is TVNZ.
In diluting the "substance" (and I use the term loosely) of their product, TVNZ has not been well served by its masters.
That’s why salary disputes have been dragged into the court of public opinion rather than dealt with quietly by the
Board. TVNZ is a Crown entity but it is we, the public, who are the financial shareholders. We don't make the decisions
, we just pay for them.
Was Judy Bailey worth $800,000? Should her clothes have been auctioned off? Should anyone other than Judy care about
either? And what about Susan Wood? Was it fair for TVNZ to try to "prune" a $100,000 off her salary?
These are not the real questions we should really be asking. More importantly, should we have a taxpayer funded
television broadcaster at all? TVNZ competes on an equal footing for the mighty advertising dollar along with everyone
else. Why then the special protection provided by our tax money? Isn't that an unfair competative advantage against
Prime, SKY, and TV3?
While many commentators, (especially those in the media sharpening their claws in a frenzy of economic jealousy), have
sniggered and smirked their way to self-justification about their comparatively meagre incomes, the real point has been
lost. While most sensible people would regard a salary of $800,000 to be ridiculously excessive for reading an cue-card
or teleprompter, it wasn't Judy Bailey who should have been embarrassed but those idiots who made the decision on our
behalf.
The problem is that those same buffoons, who if they were in a private enterprise would be answerable to the
shareholders; they don't seem to be answerable at all because the taxpayers of this country are the shareholders.
Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of attending a shareholders meeting and demanding that heads must roll. Top of
the list of course is the head of the Broadcasting, the Minister who, as usual, is incapable of doing much about it.
Case in point: it was only last December that the Government refused to accept the offers of resignation of three TVNZ
directors over the Judy Bailey pay rise affair! Incredibly they refused accountability! The recent calls of an inquiry
by National's Katherine Rich will force the government to go through the motions and buy time to come up with a strategy
to bury the findings unless the terms of reference are wide enough, to question not only the Board's competence and the
impact of the Charter, but also how to cut the umbilical cord of the public purse. It is pertinent to point out here
that Labour could not prevent National from seeking the inquiry given the support they had from the other parties in the
finance and expenditure select committee. It will therefore become an ongoing credibility problem for Labour which
National will deftly exploit.
The TVNZ blunders have a long history. Remember the furore surrounding the loss of Paul Holmes to Prime and the very
public displays of spitefulness and acrimony? What about the outrageous payout to silence John Hawkesby? Then we saw
Richard back (but not for long), with an increased pay packet to assuage his grief at being pushed aside during that
debacle.
These people do not seem capable of learning from experience so now we have similar problems with the Susan Wood saga.
These would not concern us if we were not the ones obliged to pay the bill when they determine a particular salary. The
problem in comparing the relative value of one job with another is better left to the market to decide. Let consumers
vote freely with their wallets rather than having the costs shoved on us by those who know the least!
The inept decision-makers at TVNZ may claim that their negotiated salary packages are commercial decisions, but the
simple fact is TVNZ is not a commercial business. TVNZ is a government-sponsored enterprise. The shenanigans at TVNZ
have clearly demonstrated that governments should not be involved in running commercial businesses. This is especially
so when the public is exposed to the economic risks of such decisions without any choice in the matter. There seems to
be about as much interest in accountability as bald men have with their combs.
After all the problems with salaries, golden handshakes, and bad business decisions, you would think that government
would redouble its efforts to get things right. Wrong! In the last week two other examples have emerged: Lackadaisical
management at Housing NZ has revealed that thousands of tenants who owe cumulatively nearly $2 million in rent arrears
(increased by a whopping 56% in the last four years) are continuing to live in those tax payer subsidised properties
with scant regard for the consequence.
Similarly, CYF chief executive, Canadian import Paula Ryan, has decided to quit her job after less than eighteen months.
But here's the rub…her state sector contract did not provide for the repayment of relocation costs in the event of her
not completing the full term. Taxpayers have been slugged nearly $70,000 for very little value. If TVNZ wants to claim
its decision-making is ‘competitive’ (including the salary bands it feels it must offer), then let TVNZ really become
competitive.
Last year the Government gave TVNZ $14 million dollars to compete with TV3, Prime and SKY. So much for the free market
and competition! Why can't TVNZ be expected to earn its own keep?
These debacles prove that there is nothing easier than spending someone else’s money. As TVNZ is just another government
agency, could anyone have been surprised? I have one suggestion to put it all to good use: TVNZ could turn their
management problems into a reality show.
On second thoughts it probably would not rate: no-one would find it believeable!