If you think the New Zealand Screen Industry is in good shape, you may as well stop reading now.
But for those dealing with job sustainability, fragmented representation, underfunded guilds, and the constant pressure to do more with less, all while struggling to earn a living, it’s painfully clear: the system is broken and there is no chance of it being fixed on the current trajectory.
We’ve got three separate funding bodies and more than twenty five industry organisations, all singing from different songbooks. Talk about an own goal. The old adage “divide and rule” comes to mind, except we’re doing it to ourselves.
Let’s stop pretending an arts-based funding model can build a commercially sustainable industry. It can’t. We need to flip the formula: create a commercially driven industry capable of supporting its arts sector, not the other way around.
For too long, the NZ Screen Industry has been overly politicised, and basically paralysed by siloed agendas. Most organisations are scrambling for limited funding, running separate initiatives, producing overlapping surveys, and duplicating advocacy efforts, all while fiercely protecting their own patch. The result is a disjointed ecosystem with no shared vision, no central coordination, and no meaningful accountability and this is what leads to the job sustainability problem that the industry is plagued with.
Maybe after 45 years, it’s time to step out from under the NZ Film Commission’s apron strings.
Let’s be honest: the NZFC functions more like a government department than an industry leader, and that’s okay. NZ On Air and Te Māngai Pāho fall into the same category. Their primary job should be funding productions, not shaping the industry’s future.
The problem is, the NZFC doesn’t just fund, it meddles in how the industry operates. And with every new CEO, which happens all too often, the plan changes again, without the mandate or the agility to make those changes work effectively. Folding it into NZ On Air could help streamline public funding. More importantly, it will free up the industry to take charge of its own direction, to evolve into something fit for the 21st century.
It’s time to move out of home.
We just can’t keep waiting for someone else to fix things, it’s up to us, the people within the industry, to lead the way.
However we need to act, not individually, but as a unified industry. A single representative body would deliver the leadership we’ve been missing. It would consolidate efforts, speak with one voice, and offer Government and private investors a clear point of contact with a shared vision.
This is not even our idea.
Who remembers the ‘town hall’ meeting at Mt Eden War Memorial Hall on 12 November 2013?
The industry was in freefall. International work had vanished. Hundreds of screen professionals were suddenly unemployed. Over 400 people turned up to voice their frustrations. It was a raw, honest night that exposed deep concerns around funding, governance, and the lack of a unified voice. The energy in the room showed the sector’s collective strength, but also highlighted a painful truth: we lacked the structure and leadership to turn that momentum into lasting change.
From that meeting, three resolutions were made:
Resolution one: A pan-screen industry structure will be formed that provides a unified voice on issues that strongly affect the industry (‘the Pan Screen Group’). The aim of this group is to actively support a healthy and vibrant industry that contributes positively to the New Zealand economy. Film Auckland Inc. will coordinate the first meeting of this group.
Resolution two: That the Pan Screen Group shall seek an urgent meeting with Government. The group will advise the Government that it is a pan industry group and therefore should be consulted on all key matters regarding the New Zealand screen industry – domestic or international.
Resolution three: The LBSPG and PDV Grant should be increased to a level which will restore New Zealand’s international competitiveness with immediate effect. The increased rate should apply for at least three years while a new strategy supporting ‘IP creation’ including its funding, investment, and infrastructure model is developed.
So what happened? No pan-sector group emerged, and no funding, investment, and infrastructure model was developed. But the meeting’s momentum did lead to conversations with the government, which delivered a quick fix and changes to the incentives.
Fast forward to 2020 and the Screen Sector Strategy 2030 once again said: “Identify and agree on a structure and establish a body for pan-sector representation.”
Still nothing. And now we’ve recently learned that SINZ (Screen Industry New Zealand), the last real attempt at a unifying organisation, has quietly folded.
We’re a billion dollar a year industry, hosting massive international productions and creating our own high‑end shows. We do work most people only dream about. And yet, we still can’t form one body to represent ourselves. Why?
Maybe the barrier isn’t complexity. Maybe it’s individual ego’s.
Too many people are holding on to their patch of influence, even if it means holding the rest of the industry back. And as long as we prioritise personal power over collective progress, we’ll keep getting the same busted results.
And we all know the saying: The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
The screen industry in Aotearoa has grown in fits and starts for decades. It’s diverse, dynamic, and globally recognised. But the infrastructure behind it? Well it’s fragile, fragmented, and increasingly outdated. And right now AI is bearing down on every part of the sector.
At ShowNews we often say you don’t have to look far for better models. And this comparison with Australia is stark. At this year’s Big Screen Symposium, a representative from the Australian Writers Guild shared that they have 17 full-time staff. The New Zealand Writers Guild, by comparison, has just one full-time employee and three part-timers.
Yes, Australia’s industry is bigger, but not seventeen times bigger. Something’s clearly out of whack here in NZ. The NZ Writers Guild is well underfunded, while SPADA sits on half a million in the bank. And SPADA’s money is gained from a production levy that ultimately comes from the funders.
If your argument is “we’re not Australia and they are so much bigger, blah blah,” then you’ve already quit. And if you’ve quit, step aside, because this industry needs fighters, not shiny bums, protecting their positions.
At this year’s Big Screen Symposium, I asked an award-winning producer who does major local productions if they were a member of SPADA. Their response? “No, they don’t do much for me.” I replied, “SPADA is only as strong as the members who tell it what to do.”
And that’s part of the problem. Too often in our industry, when we don’t like the direction an organisation is heading, or a decision that has been taken, we simply spit the dummy and walk away. Instead of engaging, we disengage. But what we actually need is robust debate, room to agree to disagree, and a commitment to the consensus once it’s reached, then move forward together to tackle the next issue.
We understand that a new standalone entity, ScreenNZ, has been established, modelled on Ausfilm but tailored to New Zealand. It is designed as a focused, commercially minded organisation that not only attracts international productions but also supports them once they arrive and working in partnership with the New Zealand Film Commission to strengthen and guide the country’s international screen-attraction strategy.
It’s a great initiative and membership fees would give industry stakeholders real skin in the game. It becomes their organisation, representing their interests, not just another government department with limited accountability.
But let’s not stop here, let’s piggyback with them and carry their new drive on!
Here’s an idea, just an idea. What about the creation of a new, independent body: the Aotearoa Academy of Film and Television Arts – or AAFTA.
If the name rings a bell, it should. It draws on inspiration from BAFTA, the British Screen Forum in the UK and AACTA in Australia, all trusted institutions that bring their industries together under one roof. They don’t replace existing organisations, but elevate and support them.
If we had an AAFTA, it could be a sector-wide hub, a place where strategy, funding, research, training, recognition, and advocacy come together. It could take charge of coordinating national initiatives, backing the guilds and organisations that should hold this industry together, and giving us what we’ve never had: a single, coherent voice to government, to funders, investors and the New Zealand public.
Instead of the 70+ scattered submissions sent to MCH earlier this year, what if we had seven or eight experienced, trusted industry leaders to create one strong, unified plan? Then the government would have something real to respond to, not a grab-bag of competing ideas that they can pick and choose from to suit their needs and not the industry’s wants.
We’ve seen what happens when too many voices try to shape a strategy: you get something like the Screen Sector Strategy 2030: broad, vague, and ultimately ineffective. What we need now is a small, smart, and answerable group tasked with creating a real, actionable plan.
And unlike some of our legacy models, AAFTA wouldn’t be bankrolled by membership dues or favours. Its funding could come from a small levy on public production investment and a flat contribution from international line productions accessing the rebate (all deducted at source), redirected funds from MCH’s current industry development spend, and corporate sponsorships, just like BAFTA, BSF and AACTA. This would create a steady, equitable funding base that doesn’t rely on who can shout the loudest and schmooze the best.
It’s not just about the money though, it’s about the structure. AAFTA should be governed by an independent board made up of respected industry figures, with sub committees receiving input from across the sector: Māori, Pacific, Asian voices, guilds, producers, crew, funders. It should be built to serve the full ecosystem, and not just a handful of insiders.
And what would AAFTA actually do?
It could provide stable, core funding for guilds and industry organisations. It could fund national screen awards. It could run meaningful events, offer training and equity initiatives, support mental health programs, and promote New Zealand work overseas. It could streamline research, one comprehensive, sector-wide annual survey instead of a dozen competing ones. It could guide the funding bodies and be a voice to the Government and the media.
And it could ensure we’re not just watching the rise of AI, but preparing for it across all roles in the industry.
The point would be to build something that centralises power, it’s to build something that strengthens the entire screen sector foundation.
We already know what we’re capable of. Look at Brokenwood Mysteries, After the Party, Tina, long-form productions led by Kiwi Writers, Directors and crews, delivering at the highest level. But we need solid consistency, not the odd win.
Let’s back ourselves. Starting by supporting our Writers, but not leave it to just the Writers Guild to fight for themselves. Because if the Writers win, we all do.
And yes, change makes people nervous. Especially those few who benefit from the current model. But it’s time to stop letting legacy systems and fragile egos hold the whole industry back.
This is just one plan, and not necessarily the best one, but at least it’s a plan! No doubt people will have others, and if someone has one, great, let’s hear it. The more plans we can pick and choose from, the better, but we can’t keep circling the drain, doing the same old shit and waiting for someone else to solve the problem.
So, what’s it to be? More of the same… or is it time to appoint a steering group of respected industry leaders with real governance experience to chart a course that works for everyone? If you’re on board, drop us a line here.
Please share this far and wide.
Oh and take our survey 🙂
