Speaker by Various Artists

Gordon Dryden asks "if the silly season has ever been sillier?" And concludes that even National Radio has produced its most mundane summer season in memory.

 

Heading up to his 75th birthday in June, the former talkshow host is still a voracious voracious non-fiction reader. And, amidst the death of news-media offerings, he gives his favourite new books of 2006 - on topics likely to remain in the news:

Two on "the Google revolution: The Google Story, by David A Wise (McMillan) and The Search, by John Battelle (Nicholas Brealey. Wise's book is the simple introduction. But Battelle's is the definitive guide to how Internet search is about to transform all our lives, businesses and culture. There's an interview with Batelle on the CNN website.

On evolution v "intelligent design": The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins (a Phoenix paperback), subtitled (correctly) "a pilgrimage to the dawn of life". Incredibly researched, brilliantly written.

On genetic research: the paperback versions of Matt Ridley's Genome (Fourth Estate) and Nurture Via Nature (Harper). Among other things, the last one overturns a hundred years of ludicrous 'educational psychology' theories and knits the best into one. See the Guardian review.

On the health-v-sickness debate: The Truth About the Drug Companies (How they deceive us and what to do about it), by Marcia Angell, MD (Scribe). See: The New York Review of Books. Not just the usual conspiracy theorist: the former editor in chief of The New England Medical Journal piles fact on to fact to provide a tremendous contribution to public-policy debate. And to add to the same debate, the update of Barbara Griggs' classic, Green Pharmacy (Healing Arts Press). It's subtitled 'The history and evolution of western herbal medicine'. But this new version is much, much more than that. The extra chapters provide excellent alternatives, from Germany in particular, to western synthetic-drug-based health programs.

But the non-fiction book of the year, to me: Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation (Fourth Estate, London). It's long: 1366 pages. For casual history-readers, it's possibly too detailed. But it's the definitive history of the destruction of the Middle East - and its lessons for all of us. But it's much more than a mere history. This is incredibly powerful journalism from an international correspondent without peer - and a 30-year background of live reportage in the Middle East. Who else, in any era, has combined so much history, so much incisive on-the-spot coverage, and such moving writing? A 'must' for every journalist and school of journalism.

Some samples:

From a chapter on "The Plague" - the soaring rate of child-cancer in Iraq by the mid-1990s:

There was one final scourge to be visited upon the Iraqi people, however: a foul cocktail in which both our gunfire and our sanctions played an intimate, horrific role, one that would contaminate Iraqis for years to come, perhaps for generations. In historical terms, it may one day be identified as our most callous crime against the Middle East, against Arabs, against children. It manifested itself in abscesses, in massive tumours, in gangrene, bleeding and child mastectomies, and shrunken heads and deformities and thousands of tiny graves.

I first heard that Iraqis might be suffering from a strange new cancer 'epidemic' while visiting the Syrian capital of Damascus in the summer of 1997. An Iraqi opposition leader, a Shiite cleric who made his way to Iran after the failed Shiite uprising of 1991 and had then travelled to Syria, told me that Iraqi ex-soldiers seeking refuge in camps in southern Iran were being diagnosed with an unusual number of cancers; most had fought in the 1991 tank battles south-west of Basra, their armour struck repeatedly by American depleted-uranium shells. The cleric spoke of Iraqi children in the Iranian camps who had fallen ill.

When I arrived in Baghdad in early 1998, I was confronted almost at once by unexpected cases of cancer ... It took several days before I grasped what this meant: that something terrible might have happened towards the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Some Iraqis blamed the oil fires which had burned during and after the war, releasing curtains of smoke that hung over the country for weeks, producing a carcinogenic smog over Baghdad and other large cities. Others suspected that Saddam's bomb-blasted chemical weapons factories might be to blame. But increasingly we found that those most at risk came from areas where allied aircraft - and, in the far south, tanks - had used large quantities of depleted-uranium munitions. DU shells are made from the waste produced of the nuclear industry.

This was not an easy story to investigate . . . Cancer wards are shocking; child cancer wards more so, places that should not - if life and youth have meaning - exist on this earth. But child cancer wards for those who die from the diseases of war are an abomination. For what slowly became evident was that an unknown chemical plague was spreading across southern Mesopotamia, a nightmare trail of leukaemia and stomach cancer that was claiming the lives of thousands of Iraqi children as well as adults living near the war zones of the 1991 conflict.

Reporting from a hospital in Baghdad, during the opening American bombardment in 2003:

"It was a scene from the Crimean War, a hospital of screaming wounded and floors running with blood. I stepped in the stuff, it stuck to my shoes, to the clothes of all the doctors in the packed emergency room, it swamped the passageways and the blankets and sheets. The Iraqi civilians and soldiers brought to the Adnan Khairallah Martyr Hospital in the last hours of Saddam's regime - sometimes still clinging to severed limbs - are the dark side of victory and defeat, final proof, like the dead who are buried within hours, that was is indeed about the total failure of the human spirit.

As I wandered amid the beds and groaning men and women on them ... the same old questions recurred: Was this for September 11th? For human rights? For weapons of mass destruction?"

On the destruction of Iraq's national treasures:

Never, in all my dreams of destruction, could I have imagined the day I would enter the Iraqi National Archaeological Museum to find its treasures defiled. They lay across the floor in tens of thousands of pieces, the priceless antiquities of Iraq's history. The looters had gone from shelf to shelf, systematically pulling down the statues and pots and amphorae of the Assyrians and The Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Medes, the Persians and the Greeks, and hurling them on to the concrete floor. My feet crunches on the wreckage of 5,000-year-old marble plinths and stone statuary and pots that had endured every siege of Baghdad, every invasion of Iraq throughout history - only to be destroyed when America came to 'liberate' the. The Iraqis did it. They did it to their own history, physically destroyed the evidence of their own nation's thousands of years of civilisation.

And what did the new liberators do to stop this:

After days of arson and pillage, I compiled a short but revealing scorecard. US troops had sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the ministries of Planning Education, Irrigation, Trade, Industry, Foreign Affairs, Culture and Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, nor from looting three hospitals. However, the Americans put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remained untouched - and untouchable - with tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvee keeps surrounding both institutions. So which particular ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of the interior, of course - with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq - and the Ministry of Oil.

And back to a Baghdad hospital for a final quotation on what US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield has called "as targeted an air campaign as ever existed":

Then there was Safa Karim, eleven years old and dying. An American bomb fragment stuck in her stomach and she is bleeding internally, writhing on the bed with a massive bandage on her stomach and a tube down her nose and - somehow most terrible of all - a series of four cheap and dirty scarves that tie each of her wrists and ankles to the bed. She moans and thrashes where she lies, fighting pain and imprisonment at the same time. A relative - her black-shrouded mother sits by the bed in silence - says that she is too ill to understand her fate. 'She has been given ten bottles of drugs and she had vomited them all up,' he says. Through the mask that the drip tube makes of her face, Safa moves her eyes towards her mother, then the doctor, then the journalist back to her mother.

The man opens the palms of his hands, the way Arabs do when they want to express impotence: 'What can we do?' they always say, but the man is silent and I'm glad. How, after all, could I ever tell him that Safa Karim must die for September 11th, for George W Bush's and Tony Blair's religious certainty, Paul Wolfowitz's dream of 'liberation', and for the 'democracy that we are blasting these people's lives to create?

Zmag has a recent interview with Robert Fisk on his new book.

When Fisk's book first appeared overseas, in October last year, the New Zealand Herald ran two, often conflicting, reviews

For detailed links to Fisk's background and works, try Wikipedia.

And finally, as background to the current alarm over Iran's nuclear program: Seymour M. Hersh's book, Chain of Command, now updated as a Penguin Paperback. A summary of Hersh's great reportage, in The New Yorker, on the American invasion of Iraq — but with interesting comparisons between the American Government's conflicting attitude towards Israeli, Pakistani, North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. Hersh's chilling conclusion, at the end of the epilogue to the new edition: "There are many who believe George Bush is a liar, a President who knowingly land deliberately twists facts for political gain. But lying would indicate an understanding of what is desired, what is possible, and how best to get there. A more plausible explanation is that words have no meaning for this President beyond the immediate moment, and so he believes that his mere utterance of the phrases makes them real. It is a terrifying possibility."

Note: Gordon Dryden's newest book, the United Kingdom edition of The New Learning Revolution (a complete update of The Learning Revolution) has just been published in England. International, America, New Zealand, online and Chinese editions will be published early this year: www.thelearningweb.net

As David Slack has recently observed, the signs of Christmas are all about us. Festive muzak blares in every shopping mall. The poor and down-trodden roam the streets pushing prams full of Christmas mailers. Turkeys are force-fed to meet their execution deadlines. Fruit ripens on the trees. And each day begins with the smell of sunscreen slathered over my useless Scottish skin.

Christmas, of course, it is the day that Jesus died. Or, quite possibly, the day that he was born -- I'm a little sketchy on the finer details of theology. For me, however, the true meaning of Christmas is the following: alcohol, presents, food, and -- not least -- a few days of decent spino.

Spino, if you have never come across it before, is a very useful noun which describes the art of loafing around (preferably while lying horizontally upon one's spine). It is pronounced to rhyme with rhino, and -- according to Harry Orsman's dictionary -- is a New Zealand dialect word of 1940s origin. During the post-Christmas hiatus you are more-or-less guaranteed to have an interlude of spino when you can do exactly what you want. And, for me, this means indulging in an orgy of reading.

Throughout the year I carefully prepare my list of Christmas spino books. I particularly like to track down those obscure favourite novels that people cite in their autobiographies. I'm also rather partial to the autobiographies themselves, particularly the 'man alone' accounts of light-house keepers and solo sailors (nothing makes Christmas leftovers taste more delicious than reading about starving people adrift in yachts). But the best books are usually recommended to me by librarians. These are usually the scary sort of librarians, who scold you for your ignorance when they see what you're borrowing: "The Maltese Falcon? Have you read The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins? Well, why not? I'll hold these books while you go and get it."

I've discovered some of my favourite books during Christmas spino. So I thought -- in the spirit of Christmas giving -- that it would be good to make a top five list: 'Five books I wish I hadn't read, so that I could receive them this Christmas, and read them for the first time all over again'. Perhaps the regular Public Address writers might even consider producing their own lists, and share some of their favourite literary spino for future Christmases.

Guidelines for Christmas Spino Book lists:

• Nothing too well known. Nobody needs to be told that Emma or The Sun also Rises are good books.

• Nothing too worthy. Nobody wants to be made a better person at Christmas. This rule disqualifies any book commonly taught at a university.

• Nothing too depressing. Christmas is already the year's foremost suicide season.

• No two books in the same genre. As every mother knows, reading too much of the same genre at Christmas will lead to cramp.

My own list covers the main Christmas spino varieties: Travel Writing, Children's Literature, Crime Fiction, Collected Essays, and Romance.

1. Travel Writing: An Island to Oneself -- Tom Neale

Strictly speaking, I suppose this isn't so much travel writing as 'staying put' writing. Tom Neale went to live in the uninhabited South Pacific atoll of Suwarrow (a.k.a. Suvarov) in 1952. Anchorage Island, the largest of the Suwarrow group, has a land area of only 0.2 square kilometres. Neale lived there entirely by himself -- in three separate periods of occupation -- for nearly 18 years.

An Island to Oneself covers Neale's first two visits to Suwarrow during which he spent about six years on the island. In the main, the book is simply an account of Neale's daily activities: his cooking, his gardening, his fishing, and his laundry. It sounds astonishingly dull, but actually it's surprisingly compulsive reading. How do you make a vegetable garden when there is no proper soil on your island? What do you do when your dinghy capsizes in a storm and you are miles from land? How do you stay sane during what is effectively years of solitary confinement? The last question is perhaps the most difficult to answer; although I suspect that Neale was turning a little strange on the occasion when he sought friendship with a duck. As he himself admitted: "I can imagine no duller pet."

A duck on a coral atoll is highly unusual; it had probably been blown off-course to Suwarrow during migration. But for some reason -- presumably loneliness -- Neale became quite obsessed with it: "I would not rest content until I had tamed her". He spent months gradually gaining the duck's confidence, tempting it with delicious foods, until eventually it would eat from his hand and follow him around "almost like a dog".

But then the dreams began. At first, they merely involved delicious visions of "thick hunks of bread with butter" [and a] big pot roast of hogget". One night, however, they suddenly took a new and horrifying turn:

No longer did I crave hogget, nor even bread and butter; only one mouth-watering dish. There on a silver platter with, I remember, a highly ornate carving knife and fork, and surrounded by a mound of exotic vegetables, was the wild duck.

I woke up shivering. The impact was as terrifying as if a head waiter had lifted a silver cover to reveal the elaborately cooked head of my best friend. Even though it was the middle of the night I jumped out of bed and rushed down to the beach to await the dawn and make sure the wild duck was still alive.

The dreams continued to torment him for weeks. And gradually Neale's relationship with the duck began to change:

I was now seeing my beloved duck through different eyes. The dream and the reality had somehow treacherously merged. I was horrified to discover that I was now questioning my reluctance to think about cooking the wild duck. After all, I was desperately in need of a change in diet, so surely there could be nothing wrong in simply ensuring my survival. Perhaps my duck might even feel that there was a certain rightness in sacrificing herself to save a friend? Each day those murderous thoughts continued to torment me until one morning the temptation became so great that I almost put my hand around her neck. I was sweating. One twist and she would be ready for the pot.

I should probably warn vegetarians that they may be upset by certain passages in this book. But for those of us who have fantasized about living alone on a tropical island, this is a fantastic read. You can experience the hard work, malnutrition, and loneliness of life on a coral atoll without ever having get up from your hammock.

2. Children's Literature: Minnow on the Say -- Philippa Pearce

The best children's books can be enjoyed by adults as well, and Minnow on the Say has all the essential ingredients for a cracking good read: a river (the Say), a canoe (the Minnow), and a desperate hunt for treasure. Philippa Pearce grew up in the King's Mill House on the River Cam, and the house and its surroundings provide the backdrop for this book -- as they did for Pearce's more famous children's novel Tom's Midnight Garden, which won the Carnegie medal.

Pearce paints a vivid picture of life in an ordinary working family: the bothersome little sister, the much-admired elder brother, and the cruel intolerance of a father who refuses to understand your perfectly rational explanation for losing his wheelbarrow in a river. The story is narrated with a marvellously warm sense of humour; it is much less melancholy than Pearce's other work. One of my favourite passages describes a scene in which the hero of the novel, David Moss, attempts to flag down a bus in an emergency. The bus is driven by his father, who is forbidden to pick up anyone who is not standing at an official bus stop:

Mr. Moss was humming contentedly to himself as he drove round the bend of the road and came within view of the Little Barley Bridge. Then he caught sight of the figure at the side of the road, and the outstretched hand. He assumed, at once, the special, unseeing, cold expression that was necessary in the passing of these would-be boarders of buses. They were no better than pirates; and the drivers of the Castleford and County buses had thought that this piracy was stamped out. No one now attempted it. Yet, here, standing by the Little Barley bridge and far from any bus stop, was another impudent one, due for a lesson.

One of the advantages of being grown-up is that you are big enough to bully children and take their presents away from them. So do yourself a favour, and steal a copy of Minnow on the Say from a small child this Christmas.

3. Crime Fiction: The Long Goodbye -- Raymond Chandler

This book nearly breaks the first guideline of my list, except that it appears to be one of those novels which everyone has heard about, but few have actually read. Shame on you all. Raymond Chandler is one of the great American writers, and should probably be considered in the same class as Faulkner and Hemingway. Certainly he is one of the most imitated authors in modern history. In fact, there is a sense in which all subsequent 'hardboiled' novelists -- from Robert B. Parker to John D. MacDonald, Ed McBain, and Sara Paretsky -- are simply watered-down Chandler.

Chandler was born in the U.S.A., but -- rather surprisingly, given his status as an iconic American writer -- was raised and educated in England, and was actually a naturalized British subject. He studied French in Paris, and German in Munich. Then, following the declaration of the First World War, he enlisted in the Canadian Army and served in France. As you might expect, his war experiences had a huge impact on his subsequent life. He later wrote: "Once you have had to lead a platoon into machine-gun fire, nothing is ever the same again."

After the war Chandler settled in Los Angeles where he embarked on a relationship with Cecilia Pascal. Eventually they became engaged. The youthful-looking Cecilia had originally told Chandler that she was the same age as him, but a few days before their wedding she admitted to being ten years older. Chandler was shocked by the news, and there was talk of calling off the marriage. So it was just as well that Cecilia hadn't told him the whole truth behind her doctored birth certificate -- that actually she was nearly 20 years older. Bummer. In later years, Chandler was mystified by the sudden speed of his wife's aging.

Chandler's subjects and style are so well known that there seems hardly any point in describing what actually happens in The Long Goodbye. But suffice it to say that there are crooked cops, murderers, gangsters, alcoholics, dope doctors, knife-wielding Mexican houseboys, and -- of course -- a femme fatale.

Some people will strongly disagree with my assessment of Raymond Chandler as a great novelist. Sara Paretsky has called him the most misogynist writer in the history of American literature. But I prefer to think that Chandler was simply a product of his time. You can decide for yourself. Here he is describing women with blonde hair in The Long Goodbye:

There are blondes and blondes and it is almost a joke word nowadays. All blondes have their points, except perhaps the metallic ones who are as blond as a Zulu under the bleach and as to disposition as soft as a sidewalk. There is the small cute blonde who cheeps and twitters, and the big statuesque blonde who straight-arms you with an ice-blue glare. There is the blonde who gives you the up-from-under look and smells lovely and shimmers and hangs on your arm and is always so very very tired when you take her home. She makes that helpless gesture and has that goddamned headache and you would like to slug her except that you are glad you found out about the headache before you invested too much time and money and hope in her.

There is the soft and willing and alcoholic blonde who doesn't care what she wears as long as it's mink or where she goes as long as it is the Starlight Roof and there is plenty of dry champagne. There is the small perky blonde who is a little pal and wants to pay her own way and is full of sunshine and common sense and knows judo from the ground up and can toss a truck driver over her shoulder without missing more than one sentence out of the editorial in the Saturday Review. There is the pale, pale blonde with anaemia of some non-fatal but incurable kind. She is very languid and very shadowy and she speaks softly out of nowhere and you can't lay a finger on her because in the first place you don't want to and in the second place she is reading The Waste Land or Dante in the original, or Kafka or Kierkegaard or studying Provencal. She adores music and when the New York Philharmonic is playing Hindesmith she can tell you which of the six bass viols came in a quarter of a beat too late. I hear Toscanini can also. That makes two of them.

And lastly there is the gorgeous showpiece who will outlast three kingpin racketeers and then marry a couple of millionaires at a million a head and end up with a pale rose villa at Cap Antibes, an Alfa-Romeo town car complete with pilot and co-pilot, and a stable of shop-worn aristocrats, all of whom she will treat with the affectionate absentmindedness of an elderly duke saying goodnight to his butler.

The blonde across the way was none of these, not even of that kind of world. She was unclassifiable, as remote and clear as mountain water, as elusive as its colour.

4. Collected Essays: The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell: Volumes I, II, III, and IV -- George Orwell

Every household in the world should own this superb set of books. Orwell is justly famous for his excellent, although somewhat dreary novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. But his essays, journalism, and letters reveal a much more appealing personality. Orwell employs a magnificently dry sense of humour to dissect a wide range of topics, such as: The Decline of the English Murder, In Defence of English Cooking, and A Nice Cup of Tea.

Orwell was originally an imperial policeman in Burma, and some of his harrowing experiences in this job are described in the essays A Hanging and Shooting an Elephant. He resigned from his police career after five years' service, and returned to England determined to make a living as a writer. Initially he struggled with this ambition, requiring enormous amounts of effort and numerous revisions to produce articles with which he was only mildly satisfied. But by the end of his life, he had developed a Russell Brown-like ability to dash out pages of wonderfully-written and insightful prose with no apparent exertion. The effortlessness of his style is aptly demonstrated in the opening sentences of his essay Decline of the English Murder.

It is Sunday afternoon, preferably before the war. The wife is already asleep in the armchair, and the children have been sent out for a nice long walk. You put your feet up on the sofa, settle your spectacles on your nose, and open the News of the World. Roast beef and Yorkshire, or roast pork and apple sauce, followed up by suet pudding and driven home, as it were, by a cup of mahogany-brown tea, have put you in just the right mood. Your pipe is drawing sweetly, the sofa cushions are soft underneath you, the fire is well alight, the air is warm and stagnant. In these blissful circumstances, what is it that you want to read about?

Naturally, about a murder. But what kind of murder? If one examines the murders which have given the greatest amount of pleasure to the British public, the murders whose story is known in its general outline to almost everyone and which have been made into novels and rehashed over and over again by the Sunday papers, one finds a fairly strong family resemblance running through the greater number of them. Our great period in murder, our Elizabethan period, so to speak, seems to have been between roughly 1850 and 1925, and the murderers whose reputation has stood the test of time are the following: Dr Palmer of Rugeley, Jack the Ripper, Neill Cream, Mrs Maybrick, Dr Crippen, Seddon, Joseph Smith, Armstrong, and Bywaters and Thompson.

It is interesting to note that Orwell was ahead of his time in terms of analysing popular entertainment as serious art. His essays on Boy's Weeklies and The Art of Donald McGill (McGill was a popular illustrator of seaside postcards) are both entertaining and enlightening. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for some of Orwell's modern imitators. I once attended a seminar which presented a serious literary analysis of letters to Penthouse magazine. It is curious to reflect that we may have George Orwell to thank for this kind of scholarship. Although, I dare say, he would probably have been greatly amused.

5. Romance: I Capture the Castle -- Dodie Smith

It takes a lot of bottle for a bloke to include a romance in his top five list of Christmas spino books. But Dodie Smith's I Capture the Castle is nothing short of a masterpiece. For years I was the only person I knew who had read it, and I'd begun to feel as if it were somehow my own private book. Recently, however, it has been made into a movie and all sorts of other people have now come to admire it, which -- quite unreasonably -- makes me rather peevish. J.K. Rowling has even named it as her favourite novel.

Dodie Smith was so enormously talented that she had three different careers as a writer. In the 1930s she was a successful West End playwright. Her play Dear Octopus is regarded as a classic of the period. Then she wrote a series of novels including I Capture the Castle. As an encore she thought she'd try her hand at children's literature. Her first attempt, The Hundred and One Dalmatians, did rather well.

I Capture the Castle is the story of a once-genteel family who live in a slowly disintegrating castle. Their descent into poverty has become so severe that they have sold all their furniture, and are forced to live on donations from their ex-maid's adolescent son. In an attempt to earn money, the eldest daughter announces that she is going to become a street prostitute. When this proves impractical in rural Suffolk, she decides to get married instead. The ensuing events are told through the diary of the family's middle child, Cassandra.

In her four volume autobiography -- which, incidentally, I thoroughly recommend -- Smith describes the agonies she went through in the development of this novel. She suffered terrible bouts of depression, and spent years compulsively re-writing each page -- she once estimated that she had produced at least six versions of every paragraph in the book. But amazingly, none of this anguish is apparent in the final version. It reads as if the prose has simply leapt from her pen. Here is the novel's excellent opening paragraph:

I write this sitting in the kitchen sink. That is, my feet are in it; the rest of me is on the draining board, which I have padded with our dog's blanket and the tea-cosy. I can't say that I am really comfortable, and there is a depressing smell of carbolic soap, but this is the only part of the kitchen where there is any daylight left. And I have found that sitting in a place where you have never sat before can be inspiring -- I wrote my very best poem while sitting in the hen-house. Though even that isn't a very good poem. I have decided that my poetry is so bad that I mustn't write any more of it.

If you haven't previously read I Capture the Castle then I would recommend it for the number one spot on your Christmas spino book list. Grab a copy and read it under a shady tree on the first morning of your summer holidays. And enjoy the happy feeling of knowing that your return to work is still days and days away.

The following is the John O'Shea Memorial Speech delivered by the head of South Pacific Pictures, John Barnett, to last week's SPADA conference. The conference apparently witnessed some bolder statements than usual from the stage, and there were none bolder than those below.

I can't say if I agree with John's radical prescription for public broadcasting in New Zealand, but I'm very happy to re-publish it here, because John is doing something that I suspect the pending select committee inquiry in TVNZ will comprehensively fail to do: take public broadcasting in New Zealand seriously. So, read on - and by all means have a think - RB.

JOHN O'SHEA MEMORIAL SPEECH

JOHN BARNETT

It's my pleasure to speak today.

This annual address is the John O'Shea Memorial Lecture.

I want to take a minute or two to talk about John O'Shea.

He was, as many people know, a pioneer of New Zealand's screen industry. I think my first exposure to his work was in 1959. This was before television had come to New Zealand - it will be a surprise to some of you that there was a time when television did not exist.
1959's big event was the Lion's rugby tour of New Zealand. John O'Shea's company, Pacific Films, would cover the matches at the grounds on Saturday, process at the Film Unit on Saturday night, write and record the commentary on Sunday and by Tuesday/Wednesday the match was screening in cinemas around the country at lunch times for the equivalent of 20 cents admission.

In 1962 I went to see the New Zealand feature Runaway and in 1964 Don't Let It Get You. I can't say that either of them inspired me to join the film industry, but I was aware that John O'Shea and Pacific Films were the lone voice of a New Zealand film industry.

In the 1970's when I was starting out with Endeavour Productions, I approached John O'Shea to co-produce a documentary series we were planning called Women In Power. We lined up world leaders, all women - Indira Gandhi, Imelda Marcos, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and some others - but financing it was difficult and although we made an interesting pilot with Indira Gandhi, the project went no further.

But I learnt several things from John O'Shea.

One was that sheer dogged determination was an essential element of the New Zealand producer's lot.

I also observed how John was available to help people and give advice and support where needed.

And I want to start today by talking about something in this vein.

In the past month, I've been approached on a couple of occasions to assist in raising funds for people in the industry who have become ill. Over the past couple of years, we had quite a number of these requests. For my part, South Pacific Pictures will help where we can, but I've been thinking for some time that as an industry, we need to be much more organized and prepared for these types of requests. When one of our compatriots falls ill, suddenly or gradually, we need to have a mechanism which spares them the indignity and more importantly, the fear that inability to work brings.

I would like to see us all join together to create a Benevolent Fund to cover, or at least assist, anyone who needs financial support.

It would work something like this:

Everyone who works in the industry - crew, actors, producers, directors, writers, post production, etc - would contribute a sum, say $2 per day for every day they worked. This would accommodate freelancers who don't necessarily work every day.

The funds would be invested by trustees, who do this regularly, and the interest would be available to meet the needs of those who contribute.

A different group, representing the various sectors of the industry, would make allocations as needed, and within the funds made available by the financial trustees.

I would suggest that a number of the larger production companies, and post production houses, and the TV networks all kick it off with donations, and that becomes the core capital.

My view is that the core capital should be about $500,000. When the industry is running well, there are over 5,000 people working on a daily basis, that is $10,000 per day, $50,000 per week. Over the first year the fund should add another $750,000-$1 million, and this would continue on into the future. In 5 years time, there could be $3-4 million generating a return which would provide the underpinning for misfortune that sometimes befalls industry people.

This doesn't remove the need for personal requests where necessary, but it would be a mechanism that can provide instant support, and can diminish the initial fears and concerns of people.

It won't work unless everyone buys into it. It needs technicians, actors, writers, post people, directors, producers.

The management of it should be pan industry, with all the guilds represented. For my part, if the one thing that came out of this weekend was a commitment to initiate this, I'd feel that the SPADA conference had been the most beneficial event this year.

So having sown that seed, I will address the main purpose of this speech.

I learned from John O'Shea a healthy and highly developed sense of irreverence and scepticism for the bureaucratic entities which controlled so much of the industry.

John had a stutter which he would use to dramatic effect as he fulminated about those b.b.b.bastards in t.t.television or the F.F.F.Film Unit or the T.T.Tax Department. Of course at that time the F.F.Film Unit was owned by the Government, not Peter Jackson.

So, I would like to speak today in the spirit of John O'Shea and his irreverence and scepticism of those who shape our world.

Where to start?

And who to start with?

It's all very tempting, and there are so many targets, that I could speak for a week, but given the time constraints and the events of the past weeks, I will concentrate on the big one, the one whose performance and presence affects all of us - Television New Zealand.

For the past weeks the papers, TV screens, radios and magazines have been full of the shenanigans at TVNZ.

What may have escaped most of you, is that much of this has been covered in the entertainment pages and the news pages.

Hardly any of it has been covered in the business press.

And yet TVNZ is supposed to be a business - the 55th biggest in the country in terms of revenue last year and its governance is as a Crown Owned Corporation.

But its owner, the Crown, through the Government of the day, doesn't treat it like a business.

What I want to talk about, is the dysfunctional ownership and governance structure of TVNZ, the impact that has on those who govern it, and those who manage it, the media who interact with it and report on it, the public who view it, and the independent production industry who depend on it for a good part of their income.

Let me start by saying that one can't just blame the current Government for the mess.

Yes, they should take some blame - certainly some responsibility - but their actions and reactions are formed by a structure which they didn't devise.

Nor can one lay all the blame at the door of the recently departed CEO, or the Head of News, or the Chairman or the Board. Like the owner, the Government, they are all trapped in models which can't succeed in today's climate.

This month's headlines may focus on Ian Fraser and Craig Boyce, but think back for a moment - Norman Geary, Roseanne Meo, Chris Anderson, Ross Armstrong. For the past 10-12 years, we've had a company where Board and Management have distinguished themselves by their mediocrity, and in some cases, their plain incompetence.

There have been some real successes - Hugh Rennie and Brian Corban as Chairmen, Julian Mounter, Brent Harman and Rick Ellis as CEO's, but their efforts and often their legacies, are eroded and discarded by the continuing procession of inadequate appointees.

Let's look at the media landscape in New Zealand today and the influences that dominate it.

Firstly, it's a global business - news and current affairs appear in our homes, offices, cars within minutes of their occurrence.

They are reported by multiple sources and analysed by even more.

They are delivered by print, radio, internet, television and cell phone. No one medium has the dominance in reporting or analysis.

It is true that over the past 70 years, print then radio then television, each had a period of dominance, but today they all compete and none of them has the upper hand.

The same is true of sport, entertainment, documentary, children's programming, movies and so on. They are all globally influenced - not in a negative way - but in their delivery systems and in their trends and influences. Free to air television is just one of the mediums that deliver these programmes to us. It's obvious to a New Zealand audience that sport, movies and documentaries are not dominated by FTA Television.

It's fairly obvious that when we want information we don't wait for a 6pm or a 10.30pm slot on TV1 to find out about a subject.

So the range of providers and deliverers is wide and ever increasing. To run TVNZ at its optimum you must know about all these, and make your plans with the whole landscape in mind.

Secondly, let's look at the ownership of the competition in New Zealand: - In television it's Sky, TV3, Prime, that is Murdoch, CanWest and currently Packer, although that may change shortly - In print it's O'Reilly, Fairfax - In radio it's O'Reilly, CanWest - In internet it's Google, Yahoo and so on.

What distinguishes those operators from TVNZ? It's not just the fact they are overseas owned. The key thing is that they are media companies, who know what their goals are, who make long term plans to achieve them, who can understand and interpret the landscape and whose boards in turn appoint Chief Executives who can implement those plans.

Contrast that with TVNZ.

The owner, that is the Government, changes its own philosophy on a frequent but irregular basis. Since 1985, it's had 3 entirely different philosophies about what TVNZ should be. In that time there have been at least 6 Ministers of Broadcasting, a number of whom have been allowed to let their own personal views influence the direction, style and content of the organization. And in so doing they've mostly diminished the value of the asset, and left it without the ability to plan long term, and meet the new competition, on either the technology or content fronts.

Over the years, these Ministers have appointed the Boards of TVNZ. Not for their knowledge of the media, not for their understanding of the new technology and its impact, not for their understanding of the advertising market and not for their experience in covering or managing organizations with 1500+ employees scattered across the country and not for their ability to direct a complex business faced with competition on every front.

No, the first criteria is usually determined by political acceptability to the Government of the day. So at least half the competent people are immediately out of contention.

Given Government ownership, and the consequent desire to broaden representation and skills, the Boards are selected with gender, geography, ethnicity in mind. Is this the best way to choose the Board of Directors of a company who fights for its share of the patch on a daily basis?

Calling it the Public Broadcaster doesn't diminish the need to generate $1.2 million per day and find programming that meets audience needs and wants. And having selected the "great and the good" to sit on this Board, they are proscribed from "interfering" in the company's day to day management.

The terms of their appointment are set out by the Crown Company Monitoring and Advisory Unit - CCMAU - whose experience is theoretical, not practical.

Writing in the New Zealand Herald last week, Fran O'Sullivan described the Government rules as a "Significant encroachment on the independence that State boards had previously enjoyed".

The suspicion with which Government and bureaucrats view "business" results in appointments that are seen to be free of conflict.

This is a small county. Restrict yourself to the doctrinaire approach of "no conflict" - perceived or actual - and what do you finish up with? Board appointments of people who know little of the media, or little about business.

And then there's the dynamic of this ill assorted group trying to work together. Strong, independent directors are important in any company, but where the mix includes a majority of well meaning but not particularly knowledgeable people, informed debate just doesn't take place.

I've spoken to directors who have had knowledge of certain areas and they tell me that if they wish to pursue a line of inquiry on any issue, they are often shut down by the group dynamic that occurs when the rest of the Board, and particularly the Chairman, can't enter the debate and very quickly loses interest and moves on to another topic.

Can any Government of the past 18 years tell me which Chairman knew anything about transmission or signal delivery?

So how could they debate about Sky's growth and threat? I know of a couple of Chairmen who refused to talk about anything technological.

Over the past 20 years I've met most of the TVNZ directors. If there's one thing I hear year in, year out from these people it's - "it took me 3 years to understand anything and now my time is up".

How efficacious can they be as Board Members? How can they argue for Public Service broadcasting when they don't comprehend the financial/ technological/content drivers of the business?

In the audience today are many producers who run their own companies. Ask yourselves if you would appoint a selection of good, honest, but ill-informed people to run your business.

I need to stress, I'm not criticising the individual Board members here - I'm criticizing the system that selects and appoints them, and then casts them aside when a Government changes, or when new favours need to be repaid, or just because they've "had a turn".

And here's another thing that ought to be obvious to everyone:

Boards come and go, Chairmen come and go, and Chief Executives come and go, but every day the staff at TVNZ know they have to fill a range of functions - sell ads, schedule them, buy programmes, commission programmes, ensure they are delivered and scheduled, keep the signal transmitting and so on and so on. Without this there is no station. So when new Ministers, Boards, chairs and CEO's arrive with half-baked ideas, the staff - most of whom have seen it all at least 3 if not 4 or 5 times before - just get on with their jobs.

You will remember when the Charter was introduced, and it seemed that not all the staff rushed to embrace it. They were referred to as "truculent".

I wonder how much was "truculence" and how much was the simple realization that just doing their everyday job was critical enough to keep the doors open 24 hours a day.

The Board, governed by its bureaucratic masters, restricted from interfacing with the operations, lacking in knowledge of its core business, is always going to be at a disadvantage. Management with both continuity and knowledge can out manoeuvre it. And unfortunately that's never been clearer than in the last few weeks.

But think back again over the past 15 years, and think of some of the decisions TVNZ Boards have made, and what they've cost the company and the country.

Many of you may not be aware that in 1990 TVNZ owned 35% of SkyTV. By 1997 that was down below 171⁄2% and by 1999 they had sold out completely.

Can you imagine TVNZ's strength today if it still owned 35% of Sky?

We would probably have a number of free digital channels carrying every conceivable kind of public service programming.

We may have been able to influence the carriage of major sporting events.

The company would have had a long term revenue base, isolated from the vagaries of the advertising market.

The list of possible benefits goes on and on.

TVNZ paid well under $50 million for its original stake in Sky, and got back under $150 million from the various sales.

In plain economic terms, 35% of Sky is worth about $850 million today.

So on almost any front you want to contemplate, selling Sky TV hardly looks like the actions of a clever, well informed, media savvy board.

In fact, the 2 Chairs responsible for this short sighted decision - Norman Geary and Roseanne Meo - were supposed to be smart business people. That's why they were appointed - that and their relationship to the Government of the day.

But neither of them knew anything about the media or television and the environment they were thrust into.

And there was another factor which was paramount in these actions. Both Geary and Meo knew that their appointments were only for 3 years at a time. How or why, were they going to take a longer time frame into their decisions?

And to further compound the error, when TVNZ under Meo sold 46 million shares in Sky in June 1999, it accepted $2.75 per share, when there was an alternative offer of $2.90 on the table, and a month later the price was $3.19, nearly 20% higher.

The deal was strange enough for the Stock Exchange Surveillance Panel to ask for an explanation.

And having received $103.5 million for the shares, what did the National Government - the then owner - do? It took $70 million as a special dividend.

Of course the Government's advice comes mostly from the same people in Treasury or CCMAU regardless of who is in power. Have these civil servants indicated an ability to understand this company and its business?

The TVNZ Boards also have another important function and that is the appointment of the Chief Executive.

I don't want to focus on individuals - the press has done plenty of this in the last few weeks - but I will take this opportunity to give some advice to this, and the new Board, and the Government.

I've been doing business with the NZBC, BCNZ, TVOne, South Pacific TV (TV2) and TVNZ for over 30 years. I've been patronized by a few Chairmen who have disappeared, leaving only destruction and I've enjoyed relations with 2 other clever, capable chairs.

I've enjoyed interchange with 3 CEOs and watched others treat the company, it's clients, producers and audiences with disdain, and I've watched some CEO's destroy morale and value.

So I reckon I've got some experience to pass on.

Here are some recruitment pointers for anyone who is contemplating applying for the CEO's job:

1. If your work experience is limited to an organization that gets a cheque once a year from the Government - don't apply.

2. If your experience of employing people is limited to being able to see your whole staff when you step out of your office - don't apply.

3. If you can't prove by your track record that you can get the best out of big egos and suppress your own - don't apply.

If you haven't lead a large and diverse organization spread across a number of buildings in a number of cities - don't apply.

5. If you can't read a balance sheet, understand currency hedging, complex financial transactions and the dead weight of inventory - don't apply.

6. If you don't understand that every ad you don't sell today, can never be sold - don't apply.

7. If you don't understand that programmes you bought 23 months ago, and only played once, will bite you in the bum if you didn't write them off at the time - don't apply.

8. If you don't understand how the new Sky recorder, or video iPod sales and downloads, or blogs, or web casting will impact on audiences, revenue, programme acquisitions and commissions - don't apply.

9. If you don't understand the power of local New Zealand programming, and the need to nurture and encourage a local independent production industry - don't apply.

10. If you don't watch Maori TV, to see the latest in innovation and the new talent of the future - don't apply.

11. If you don't understand New Zealand employment law - don't apply.

12. If you don't understand the relationship between a Board and Management - don't apply.

13. If you don't know how to grow succession - don't apply.

14. if you haven't lead an organization that operates in a highly competitive environment - don't apply.

15. If you do understand and can prove that you understand all those things - not some, but all - and quite a few more, then you might be able to work out how to provide strong public service programming to New Zealand audiences.

My list here is not complete - I'm happy to consult to anyone who wants the full list, but there are three more things I'd say to the Board and its recruiters:

1. Please do proper reference checks. Ask all of the candidate's previous employers for references - not just the ones you think will tell you what the candidate wants you to hear. Does that sound elementary? It might, but I can categorically assure you that TVNZ has hired senior management without checking on their complete history.

2. The choice shouldn't be about a relationship with a politician. It's a business and you need to pick the best person.

3. And how about this: If you don't think the candidate could do Brent Impey's job, why offer them a bigger job at TVNZ?

Look, if the key criteria for the CEO is affinity to an ephemeral politician, the owner is failing to do the best for the business and its public.

Read any list of potential candidates being suggested by the print media and you'll find at least one candidate with the qualification "considered out of favour with the Government".

Run that by me again... I thought the organization was independent? I thought the Board got to choose the CEO? What's the point of having a Board if the Government is going to choose the CEO? I don't know what the reality of the Government pressure is, but all the print media seem to think the decision isn't made independently.

Here's another thing that I think is a real indictment on the process. In the past 20 years, only Brent Harman was appointed to the CEO's position from within the organisation.

Surely it's the sign of a strong organization, and a strong Board, and a wise owner, if it grows its own succession?

Why is it necessary to begin a worldwide search every time a vacancy occurs? What happened to the people inside who understand most of the issues without having to get up to speed?

In most good organisations, Boards keep a keen eye on 2nd level executives, and think about who will be the next leader. If your Board appointment is only for 3 years, what part can you play in growing successors? If the CEO is a short term external appointment, why do they care who follows them and in this business 3 years is a very short term.

Now the current Government has a view about what it wants the Public Broadcaster to do.

In 2003 the Government wrote a paper called "Broadcasting in New Zealand - a 2003 Stock Take". It set out the recent history of broadcasting since the late 1980's, provided a current context, and set out principles for public and private broadcasters.

Now I'm a believer in the Government having a role in the Communications arena and as I'll explain later, I think there are some very simple and efficient ways to do it. But I don't see clarity in our systems when the Government owns the broadcaster.

Let's take the switch from analogue to digital.

This isn't an easy task in any country, but in New Zealand, the Government knows that the costs associated with this will have a big impact on its own asset.

The transmission network could manage the switch pretty much now, but another arm of Government has been set up to investigate whether it's feasible.

So the people who are ready and capable of switching, have to wait until the Government does its review to work out that, yes, we will have to switch, and we're now going to tell those companies how to do what they already know.

And of course, the impact on TNVZ's balance sheet is a key driver in the decision process.

In the 2003 Government Broadcasting paper, there are 4 principles for public broadcasters:

1. Universality 2. Diversity 3. Independence/autonomy 4. Quality

Universality is described as: Public broadcasting must be both technically receivable and socially/culturally accessible to all citizens. It addresses the entire population and seeks to be "used" by as many people as possible. This does not imply the maximisation of ratings on a commercial model, but popularity in the sense that it provides a public forum for everyone in reflecting and catering for the full range of social and cultural interests. Public broadcasting should have universal appeal, and should provide programming across a wide range of genres to meet a wide range of needs (e.g. to "educate, inform, entertain").

Diversity is described as: Diversity and universality are complementary principles. In terms of the genres of programmes offered, the audiences targeted, and the subjects discussed, public broadcasting should reflect the diversity of public interests, and address the whole public through the range and diversity of programmes and of the subjects addressed.

Independence/Autonomy are described as: Public broadcasting should provide a credible forum where ideas are expressed freely, and where information is available, where debate occurs, and where quality is valued and creativity fostered. This is most likely to be achieved where public broadcasters are not dominated by commercial pressures or subject to political influence, and where they are enabled to act in the public interest.

Quality is described as: Public broadcasting strives for efficiency as demonstrated by provision of quality services in terms of individual programmes, channel schedules, and the total range of services offered by public broadcasters rather than efficiency understood simply in terms of commercial considerations. Delivery of quality services to an audience, as distinct from delivery of an audience to a broadcaster, may require the independence of public broadcasting institutions from commercial imperatives.

The argument for public broadcasting institutions that this paper makes is that they can best embody the principles of universality, diversity, quality, and independence and thereby protect and promote the capability for, and functioning of, core values, such as democracy and cultural identity, in ways which private/commercial broadcasters are unable or unlikely to provide.

However, the paper doesn't prove these assumptions at all. It is loaded with suppositions and the words "may" and "could" preface very claim.

I am going to argue that all of these principles for a Public Broadcaster can be addressed as principles of Public Broadcasting and I'm going to suggest that Public Broadcasting is entirely feasible with Private ownership.

Universality - well I think all broadcasters - public and private - want technically receivable access to all citizens.

I also suspect that in these times of competing media they would like to be "used" by as many people as possible.

And if you'll bear with me, I'll show how to cater for a full range of social and cultural interests across the whole spectrum.

The Government paper defines public broadcasting as having universal appeal and capable of providing programming across a wide range of genres in order to "educate, inform and entertain".

A month or so ago, just before the election, I was at the launch of the International Documentary Festival. The Prime Minister took time out of what must have been an incredibly hectic schedule to open the conference.

Relaxing for a moment amongst a friendly audience, she spoke of her interest in screen documentaries.

She reflected that she didn't get much time to watch TV, but when she did, she enjoyed and appreciated the documentaries on the History Channel, Discovery, BBC and National Geographic.

Now I agree with her, but it is interesting that her information, entertainment and education is coming from a private provider not the Public Broadcaster.

Diversity - yes, public broadcasting should reflect diversity of public issues, but currently it's impossible to meet a range with 2 FTA channels. Once again, diversity and range can, and does, come from a range of niche channels - channels which specialise and brand themselves. They can't be met from an FTA schedule alone. It also comes from web casting which provides the most topic selective, and universally available information of any medium.

Independence/autonomy - Now it's sad to say, but I don't believe Government ownership with all the shortcomings I outlined earlier about governance, does provide independence and autonomy.

If TVNZ was telling staff prior to the election that it couldn't close employment contracts until after the election, is this autonomy and independence?

If TVNZ told some people it wouldn't play certain programmes until after the election was that autonomy and independence?

If Board personnel or Chief Executives need approval from on high is that indpendence or autonomy?

Let me be clear - I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Government gave them instructions or even knew about these things. But the fact that the Board or the management thought there might be a problem, doesn't give confidence to the notion of independence.

I'd like to think that the Board were entirely misguided in their understanding of this position, but what does it tell us about their perception of their appointment and their lack of understanding of the medium?

I'd venture to suggest that private ownership in multiple forms is a very capable advocate of independence and autonomy in a democracy like New Zealand.

Quality - The paper suggests delivery of quality services to an audience as distinct from delivery of an audience, is more likely to be the domain of a Public Broadcaster. I don't think there is any evidence of that in our current system.

TV3, Prime and Sky all know that a quality service will attract an audience and I think that TV3 and now Prime have both shown a desire to reach for a quality service. And of course, as long as TVNZ's revenue is ad driven and it plays hardball by acquiring programming way beyond its broadcasting capability and then counter programmes against New Zealand or quality programmes on TV3 and Prime, then this argument is a little hard to sustain.

Again, I'm not criticising TVNZ for acting in an entirely commercial manner, but I am trying to highlight the impossibility of requiring it to meet lofty ideals while both allowing and encouraging it to act in the most commercial manner in its dealings with competition.

The Government's paper postulates ideals but provides no definitive evidence in reaching its conclusions.

Now let's look closer at the Charter.

I don't think it's any secret that I've been a sceptic of The Charter since Marian Hobbs appeared at a SPADA conference and talked about the desirability of local brass bands on our State broadcaster.

I understand a desire to stretch the range and diversity of ideas, audiences and content.

I fail to see why that ideal should be confined to one broadcaster and I fail to see how it's possible to measure any aspect of the Charter.

As I said, I've never been a fan of the Charter and much of my concern stems from the emphases placed on a wide range of requirements. The Charter is required to feature the following 10 aims:

1. Programming across all genres that informs, educates and entertains.

2. Programming that serves varied interests and informational needs and age groups within New Zealand society, including tastes and interests not generally catered for by other national television broadcasters.

3. Programming that contributes towards intellectural, scientific and cultural development, promotes informed and many-sided debate and stimulates critical thought, thereby enhancing opportunities for citizens to participate in community, national and international life.

4. Programmes that reflect the regions to the nation as a whole.

5. New Zealand films, drama, comedy and documentary programmes.

6. Programmes about New Zealand's history and heritage, and natural environment.

7. Programmmes that serve the interests and informational needs of Maori audiences, including programmes promoting the Maori language and programmes addressing Maori history, culture and current issues.

8. New Zealand and international programmes that provide for the informational, entertainment and educational needs of children and young people and allow for the participation of children and young people.

9. Programmes that encourage and support the arts, including progammes featuring New Zealand and international artists and arts companies.

10. and programming of an educational nature that support learning and the personal development of New Zealanders.

Now look at the dictionary definition of "feature" and can someone explain to me how it's physically and technically feasible to "feature" all of these requirements? "Feature" normally means making one thing more prominent than the others. Which of the above 10 is the one which the drafters of the Charter consider the most important? It can't be all of them.

And not just for linguistic reasons. There are 2 constraints that shape the delivery and achievement of the Charter.

One is the sheer limitation of available time to schedule all these worthy items in time slots that ensure they are "featured".

And the other is the one that TVNZ staff rightly complains about - money. Making all this programming will cost money and scheduling a significant proportion of it will lose money.

So let's be under no illusion - TVNZ sits between a rock and a hard place as it tries to deliver all these ideals and simultaneously meet the economic objectives required of the company.

And we all know that if the economic objectives are removed, the Broadcaster will cease to maintain a dynamic, progressive, drive.

Let's look at another reality.

Is there any member of the New Zealand public who knows what a Charter programme is? And leaving aside those of you in this room who have been specifically contracted to make a Charter programme, can anyone here tell me what was the last Charter programme - or indeed the first one - they saw?

What's the point of spending $15 million, or $32 million or whatever it is on programmes if it can't be easily identified and recognised by the public?

Is Frontier of Dreams a Charter programme? Is BBC News a Charter programme? Is Insiders Guide To Love a Charter programme? How does the public know?

I can tell you every programme that NZ On Air has funded or Te Mangai Paho or the NZ Film Commission. Most importantly, I can tell you how much NZ On Air spent on every single programme it funded.

They are proud to tell us they've supported a programme and we feel we get value and connection when we see their identification.

So why does the Government and the Broadcaster hide Charter programming? Why is it all such a secret? How can the public "buy-in" if they don't know? Why should we have to go the TVNZ Annual Report to find out which programmes were Charter funded, and even then the information is incomplete.

If NZOA can identify and quantify every single dollar it spends, why should Government allow a lesser criteria for this mechanism? The general industry view is that Charter is just not transparent. We know that 98 cents of every dollar that NZOA receives goes into programme production. Better than that, we know that on top of the 98 cents, NZOA requires a licence fee from a broadcaster of anything from 10-20% and up. So every dollar to NZOA creates $1.10 to $1.20 of programming.

How does Charter funding compare? Is any of it used to buy foreign programming that doesn't get screened but takes it out of a competitors hands? And if that isn't done directly, is it used to buy programming which used to be bought previously anyway, but the additional money subsidises other competitive activity? How do we know? Is any of it used to fund staff in the Commissioning Department? How do we know? We can see that only about 70 cents in each Charter dollar goes into local production if we dig deeply enough, but where does it all go?

I find the lack of clarity and transparency to be less than ideal.

Now let's look at the Susan Wood saga and it's implications.

I don't care what Susan gets paid and if she worked at TV3 or Prime or Sky or Channel 7, 9 or 10 this wouldn't be a carcass for everyone to have a pick at.

Why is this affair in the public eye? Because the State owns the employer.

Why doesn't the TVNZ Board complain at the astounding comments from various Cabinet Ministers? They can't, they're appointed by those same people.

And why don't they defend themselves against silly comments from the Opposition? Because one day, those politicians may have the power to appoint.

How can the Government claim that there is no political interference and then try to publicly jawbone TVNZ into operational policy?

Given that perception is reality in the world of communications, what do the public think? I'd suggest that the public think that the Government is telling TVNZ what do to and they think that the Government should tell them what to do.

Let me quote from Jock Andersen's article in NBR last week. He says after interviewing Professor Bill Hodge, an employment law specialist and member of the Employment Relations Authority "A challenge (to the ERA decision) is seen by some observers as the prudent course for the extravagant and embattled State owned enterprise if it wants to be seen by the public and its political masters to be serious about containing its high salaries culture."

Hang on a minute...I thought TVNZ was independent of Government influence? I thought the 2003 Stocktake Paper said that an ideal public broadcaster should not be subject to political influence.

Everyone is trapped in a continuous circle and the only way out of the mess is to break the links.

Whether the Government thought it was exercising political interference or not, as an observer, it reminded me of the parents who stand at prizegiving or on the sports field, and tell you how hopeless their kids are, and then are surprised when they don't do any better next year.

And has all the shouting from the sideline increased or decreased TVNZ's audiences? As an observer, you have to shake your head in wonder.

And when the Opposition calls for an Inquiry into TVNZ, they are doing no more than demonstrating that they too have no idea what this business is about. What will an Inquiry prove? Will it show that TVNZ has, in the words of Georgina Te Heuheu, "wasted millions of tax pay dollars"? I doubt it! 90% of TNZ's income comes from advertising and commercial revenue.

The tragedy is that the only reason to call for an Inquiry is to attempt to embarrass the Government. Does that help TVNZ? Of course not.

You can't accuse the Government of diminishing the value of the asset and then call for an Inquiry, without being aware that the process of the Inquiry, regardless of the outcome, will do even more to reduce value and morale.

As I say, it's only more evidence of the imperative of removing the ownership of TVNZ from Government and the political arena.

Although if there is now going to be an inquiry, I will be interested to see how long it takes to figure out that changing your accounting policy on programme acquisitions brings extra costs next year and going forward. The best accounting brains I know tell me it definitely won't be a "one-off, non-recurring charge".

There are other fallouts from the Susan Wood affair and they are being felt in every newspaper, radio station, television broadcaster and production company across the country.

Speaking to my fellow producers who run large operations, I can't find anyone who would have conducted the negotiations in the way these were done.

I'm sure each of the parties will point the finger at the other, but I see it all as a consequence of the ownership structure.

An internal HR and legal team not thinking beyond the paperwork.

A Chief Executive declining to get involved and refusing to let the Board instruct him.

A Board being beaten up by the CEO for exceeding authority.

And an Owner frustrated at its complete inability to do anything other than yell from the sidelines.

I know there will be some of you who may feel I've made my point , so let me move on to a solution.

- We need a strong TVNZ - We need Public Broadcasting. Note I said "Public Broadcasting" not a "Public Broadcaster".

And here is how I think it can be done. There are 2 steps to the solution.

Firstly, I believe NZ On Air is the best instrument of Public Broadcasting that exists in this country and possibly anywhere in the world.

It is efficient, it is transparent and it acts with independence.

It exerts its influence across all the free to air broadcasters because of 2 factors:

1. It has money to subsidise or underwrite local programming: and 2. It works hand in glove with the broacasters in only supporting programming that is guaranteed to play on air.

So part one of my suggestion is to significantly increase NZ On Air's TV budget - double it from $65 million to around $130 million - $35 million of the extra $65 million would come from reallocating Charter.

Widen NZ On Air's brief to enable it to fund an enhanced range of programming, including some current affairs. Programmes like Agenda and Eye To Eye. Programmes that are independent in thought, and which shouldn't be hampered by a Broadcaster that fears its Master.

NZ On Air has very clear guidelines on what it funds. It's remit is "our faces, our voices, our places".

If you run the ruler over the whole gamut of NZ On Air's programme funding decisions, you have to agree that its all public broadcasting. It all meets the criteria of the Charter and the idealism of the 2003 stocktake.

It's reach is universal, it's width is diverse, it's independent and the output is quality.

And by using NZ On Air as the instrument, the New Zealand public is served by gaining public broadcasting on TVOne, TV2, 3, C4, Prime, MTS and some regional broadcasters.

Surely that's more desireable than confining it to TVOne or TV2?

Now let me deal with the second part of my solution and the issues of how TVNZ should be owned, and by whom.

2 weeks ago on Agenda, I said "just sell it" and I know that sent a shiver down a few spines so I want to expand and amplify on what could occur.

Firstly, I don't think it should be sold just to generate revenue from an asset sale - that's not a reason to sell and anyway, the current value is artificially depressed.

Secondly, the process of sale is both lengthy and costly and enormously disruptive to staff, suppliers, advertisers, programme makers and eventually viewers.

Thirdly, in a straight sale, the question of competitive interference in the process brings its own issues, and in the New Zealand media bear pit you can be sure that some competitors would string the process out as long as possible, to weaken the seller's position and the asset itself.

So, a straight trade sale is not going to provide a particularly speedy or positive outcome.

But here's my suggestion:

Lease TVNZ to an independent Operator.

Set the terms of the lease which would include the length of that lease and more importantly the expectations the Government requires of the Operator, as they relate to content and coverage and conduct with its public, and suppliers.

That's about all it needs to do. Because the lease has conditions, the Operator's ability to renew would be determined by its performance of those conditions.

Take a one-off fee up front for the lease period and let the Operator retain the annual profits - the reason not to take an annual return is to preserve the broadcaster's independence and to leave the Government free to devise and implement policy. Whether future government policy affects NZ On Air, or digital policy, or technological change, should be able to be determined without concern as to the annual dividend. Currently the Government requires a minimum 9% on its investment of around $270 million - that's about $24.3 million a year. So the fee should be based on that.

The Government of New Zealand, whatever its political shade, would still own the underlying asset which is the right to broadcast TVOne and TV2. Don't get hung up on the buildings - the Operator would decide whether or not they wanted to keep them or relocate.

Would the Operator run the business down? No, because any commercial businessman would want to extend the lease past its initial lease term.

How would this independent operator aspire to or achieve or maintain Public Service Broadcasting? By a mixture of owner - that is Government - imposed terms and conditions, and by access to the NZOA pool.

How long should the term be? Certainly not less than 7 years, probably at least 11 years.

Set up mechanisms, to enable the Government as owner of the asset, to ensure that it is being maintained but restrict the scope of these to broad brush compliance.

Take TVNZ out of the political football arena.

If the Lessee wants to start new channels, let it make its own decisions. If it wants to pay millions of dollars to staff, that's up to it. It no longer impacts on the Government or the public.

I'll keep reinforcing it; NZOA provides the capacity to meet Public Service Broadcasting, both on the newly leased TVNZ and the other channels.

Leasing the whole operation to an independent party will provide the independence the company needs. It will enable it to plan into the future free of artificial constraints and it will enable knowledgeable, experienced and committed media players to grow and preserve the organization.

Who should get the lease? Well like many things, it's easier to say who shouldn't. It shouldn't be the operator of an existing New Zealand television channel. That's about it.

Does it matter if the operator is overseas owned? Personally I don't think so, if the lease terms are transparent, and the conditions are clear, and New Zealand On Air's funding criteria are met, then the New Zealand public will get the outcome that is desired.

A New Zealand Lessee may sound emotionally attractive, but I'm not sure if it's critical. Remember the outcome that is best for the audience, is likely to be the result of having a strong and knowledgeable operator, rather than just a New Zealand operator. Look at the competition and think about how their international links will keep them strong and up to date on technological developments.

Public Service Broadcasting can be achieved, and it will be achieved under this model.

Something I'm really conscious of, is that I've waded into a minefield and I've been extremely open about my views. But those of you who know me, know that I am prepared to take on these issues.

Someone close to me said before the speech, "how do you think they'll react?".

I'm sure some people will be grumpy - probably quite a few. But as I've said several times throughout this morning, I believe the system has created the problems and the blame for that can't be laid at any individual's feet.

From a practical point of view, the issue of a lease should require a lot less due diligence and disruption than a sale, and of course given the desirability of TVNZ, it is possible to limit the scope and duration of the process. Any potential Operator knows how the business has performed, what the ad market is like going forward over time, what the competition is likely to do, and what the Government is seeking to require of the Operator.

In truth I'd like to believe that the governance issues of TVNZ could be managed. But everywhere you go, you see how it is treated by the Government and Opposition of the day and my suggestion is an attempt to free it from this system.

My proposal does break the paradigm, but so did the innovative approach that the Labour Government took when it deregulated broadcasting and introduced NZ On Air in the late 1980's.

I'm going to go for broke and suggest that politicians, TVNZ Directors and Executives and the media all look at Point 11 of the 2003 Ministry of Culture and Heritage Stocktake Paper which says:

"Public broadcasting should provide a credible forum where ideas are expressed freely and where information is available, where debate occurs and creativity fostered."

I would hope that my observations and suggestions would be received and discussed in this environment and that personal agendas and political position taking would be put aside to prove that:

a) We live in a democracy; b) We are interested in free expression and debate; and, c) A strong, credible, innovative and independent TVNZ is important for all of us.

Thank you.

The following analysis of public broadcasting policy in New Zealand was was submitted by David Hay, an experienced policy and business analyst of Wellington who has worked for CCMAU, Telecom and the New Zealand Broadcasting School, among others.

He offers a different diagnosis and a different prescription than South Pacific Pictures' John Barnett, whose speech is also posted today, but like John he is grappling with the greater issues of public broadcasting in New Zealand, and not just Susan Wood's salary. Enjoy - RB

The TVNZ debacle has been a tragedy in three acts:
Act One: The 1989 Broadcasting Reforms
The first and longest act began with Richard Prebble's broadcasting reforms in the late 1980's. Under the old Broadcasting Act 1977 all broadcasters had been required to serve the "public interest". The term was undefined, but at least the requirement existed.

Under the new Broadcasting and Radio Communications Acts (1989), there was no such requirement. The public interest would be determined by the consumers under a free market model. It took me three years and 60,000 words, in writing a Master of Public Policy thesis, to explain in detail why this was not just wrong in practice but entirely unjustified by economic theory. I won't repeat it here.

At about the same time, TVNZ became a state-owned company and quickly lost any sense of its public role. There were (as I recall) at least two general election years during which the main, or only, current affairs programme broadcast by TVNZ was Holmes (I'm not sure; I stopped watching television at all for a few years, because it was a waste of time.)
Act Two: The Charter
The second act was the passage of the Television New Zealand Act 2003, which contains the Charter. This was a "band-aid" solution to a much wider problem; it required only that TVNZ, but not any other broadcaster, must serve the public interest.

The Charter itself is a fusspot's recipe, cobbled together by officials, rubber-stamped by the Minister and tweaked by Cabinet. It prescribes what TVNZ must do, and even how it should be done, but it doesn't say why.

Good legislation prescribes who gets what, why, and under what conditions. The "who" in TVNZ's charter are alluded to variously as: audiences, citizens, Maori, varied interests and informational needs and age groups, smaller audiences, New Zealanders; and the independent New Zealand film and television industry. What these people should get is also prescribed: feature programming that informs, entertains and educates; shared experiences that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity; a significant Maori voice, feature programming, and... I could go on, but I'm getting bored.

The failing of the Charter is that it doesn't give a "why". There is no raison d'etre, no call to arms, and no grand vision. It doesn't inspire or motivate; it bores. Compare this with New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy; why do we have it? Because "Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible" It's a simple, eloquent and powerful statement that David Lange defend with vigour and detailed argument.
Act Three: A Failure of Leadership
That brings us to the third act of this tragedy: the appointment of uninspired, and uninspiring, board of directors to run TVNZ and their appointment of a show-pony Chief Executive.

This was a tragedy because the Charter's apparent failings are also a missed opportunity: an astute board could have stepped back from the fussy detail of the Charter and constructed a "why" for itself. Let's think, for a moment, about the Broadcasting Commission. Few people know that the Broadcasting Commission exists, why, or what it does. But everybody knows about NZ on Air. The Broadcasting Commission, when it was first established, gave itself a name that expressed its core purpose, created a CGI goldfish to communicate that purpose, and now everybody: broadcasters, television producers and the audience, knows that NZ on Air exists and what it exists for 'so you can see more of New Zealand on Air'.

TVNZ never did anything like that with its Charter. The Board failed to seize the opportunity, and it appointed a CEO who couldn't either. It would not have been difficult; here is the "why" of the Charter in three bullet points:

• So the peoples of New Zealander can understand their history, their place in the world, and what the future might hold.

• So New Zealand citizens will know who they are voting for, be able to assess the vision for the future they propose, and then judge for themselves whether their elected representatives are acting in New Zealand's best interests.

•So that we all may; in story, song, documentary and drama; enjoy each others' achievements, triumphs and laughter, and share our hopes, dreams and sorrows.

Now that wasn't hard, was it? How would you like to work for an organisation that held those goals dear to its heart and that strove, in word and deed, to fulfil them?

Is the Charter inconsistent with TVNZ's commercial objectives? Absolutely not: the three bullet points above could be boiled down into an organisational "mission statement" for TVNZ:

Above all else, deliver value and meaning to your audiences. If you do that, your advertisers and shareholders will also be satisfied.

And to prove the point, you need only look at TV3: the two television drama series that best fulfilled the Charter's vision in 2005 were Outrageous Fortune and Bro'Town. The news and current affairs programmes that rose to meet the Charter's standards were TV3 News and Campbell Live. TVNZ, meanwhile, demonstrates its innovative celebration of New Zealand's identity and culture by continuing to screen Coronation Street in prime time, two nights a week and its news is an unspeakable triumph of celebrity over substance. In these two key areas TV3 has been doing a better job of implementing the Charter, at lower cost to taxpayers, than TVNZ.

Which rather proves the point: the tragedy in this third act stems from a failure of leadership, not a failure of policy.
What happens next?
There has been much said about the "politically appointed" board of TVNZ, but that is not the issue either.

The ultimate responsibility for a company, its successes and failures, rests with the Board. What makes a broadcaster desire to serve the public interest is its organisation culture, which flows from the board's leadership. Ownership is not important in itself. Being a commercial broadcaster, rather than being tax or license-fee funded, is not important. Leadership, and how that leadership creates organisational culture, are what matter most.

The board of TVNZ is comprised of good people, but they are not capable of doing what is required; providing the leadership that would transform the culture of TVNZ. Only two members of the current TVNZ board have experience in broadcasting or journalism, and neither of them are the Chair or Deputy Chair.

The board of TVNZ is appointed by the Minister, on the advice of the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit (CCMAU), which is full of very bright and capable people, who do a sterling job of safeguarding the Crown's investments. I know this for a fact, and I say it without irony, because I've worked there. But I can state, with equal confidence, that CCMAU does not understand much, if anything, about the production of culture and identity.
<a href="
" target="_blank">

A big part of the problem is that the rules under which board members are appointed will not produce a Board capable of leading TVNZ to deliver the Charter: members are appointed for only a three-year term and paid a pittance; the boards of Crown-Companies tend to be appointed for their management experience, rather than vision or strategic comprehension (read "The Fish Rots from the Head", by Bob Garratt, for an explanation of why this creates poor governance); and appointment to a Crown Company's board doesn't always require significant expertise in the company's core business.

The crown company Boards can overcome these deficits by appointing highly skilled Chief Executives, who can run the company under the board's oversight, but without its leadership. This works, in many cases, but it hasn't with Ian Fraser's.

I don't mean to insult Mr Fraser by calling him a "show pony" CEO; I mean that his appointment was clearly made for his symbolic value, rather than his expertise. He may be a very capable manager in many respects, but did not have the experience or ability needed to lead organisational change at TVNZ. His three years in the position have proven that.

But this is the board's fault, not his: a board with real experience in broadcasting would never have appointed a presenter into a CEO's role; the board should have known that presenters tend to have volatile, egotistical characters and are temperamentally unsuited to management. Ask any radio station manager and they'll tell you an ex-journalist, maybe, but never a presenter.

The key to improving TVNZ's performance, under the current broadcasting policy arrangements (which are less than ideal), is to review the TVNZ Board and how it is appointed. The problem is not that it's appointed "politically", but that it is appointed under rules and assumptions that ensure it cannot deliver the Charter, as it is required to by the Television New Zealand Act 2003.

David Robert Hay
www.sophocrat.co.nz
021 255 9071

Appendix: the TVNZ Board
(TVNZ website, 20 November 2005)

Craig Boyce, Chairman (Christchurch)

Craig Boyce is Chairman of Smiths City Group Limited, having previously been its Chief Executive for 10 years. He is also Chairman of Connexionz Limited and Snowy Peak Limited and a member of a number of other boards, including those of Bernard Matthews New Zealand Limited, Christchurch City Holdings Limited, Datacom Group Limited, Trade and Enterprise New Zealand Limited and Orion Group Limited.

Robert Fenwick, Deputy Chair (Auckland)
Robert Fenwick is an environmental businessman with a background in brand marketing, sustainable development and broadcasting. He is Chairman of the Crown Research Institute, Landcare Research Limited, a founding director of Living Earth Limited and former chairman of Mai Media Limited. He also holds a number of not-for-profit governance positions.

Bryan Gould (Hamilton)
Bryan Gould was born and educated in New Zealand before winning a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford where he gained a postgraduate law degree. Mr. Gould was the Vice-Chancellor of Waikato University for ten years. Bryan Gould previously served in the UK's Labour Shadow Cabinet and spent a number of years in the British Foreign Office. He was also a presenter and reporter on Thames Television's current affairs programme 'TV Eye.'

John Goulter (Paihia)
John Goulter was appointed a director of Television New Zealand Limited in June 2005. The former managing director of Auckland International Airport Limited, he is currently chairman of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission, a director of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Vector Limited and United Carriers Group Limited. He is also an external advisor to ABN AMRO New Zealand Limited and a trustee and board member of the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust. In 2002 he was the Deloitte/Management Top 200 Executive of the Year and also the NBR New Zealander of the Year. He was inducted as a laureate into the New Zealand Business Hall of Fame in 2003. In December 2003, he was appointed a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to Business and the Community.

Dame Ann Hercus DCMG (Christchurch)
Dame Ann was Minister for Social Welfare, Police and Women's Affairs from 1984-87. From 1988-90 she was NZ Ambassador to the United Nations and Head of Mission for the United Nations Forces in Cyprus from 1998-99. She is currently a Director of the Crown Financing Agency and serves on a number of charitable trust boards.

June McCabe (Auckland)
June McCabe is Director of Corporate Affairs for Westpac New Zealand. She holds directorships including the Board of NZ Venture Investment Fund and the General Church Trust Board. She is also involved in the Research Centre for Families, Anglican Trust for Women and Children, Business in the Community, Books in Prison Trust and the Business and Parliament Trust.

Philip Melchior (Wanaka)
Phillip Melchior has held a range of senior positions with the Reuters Group plc culminating in his appointment as the London based Managing Director of Reuters Media. Before his international career with Reuters, Mr Melchior had an extensive career in journalism in New Zealand (both press and television). He has also held governance roles with a number of international media companies.

Trish Stevenson (Wellington)
Trish Stevenson's career has included working in television, education, marketing and publishing. She is a former director of New Zealand on Air and a former manager of educational publisher Learning Media's international team.

Wayne Mapp must be feeling pretty peeved right now. Imagine being appointed the Opposition's top bovver boy, only to be trumped by Winston Peters a mere month later. It doesn't seem fair. Particularly since Winston isn't even a member of the Opposition -- except in his own mind, of course.

Poor Wayne. Everyone but him knew that the Spokesman for Political Correctness Eradication was just the National Party's official whiner. If Wayne took a dislike to you, all he could ever do was throw an embarrassing tantrum. But Winston is a Crown Minister, and -- presumably -- what he says, goes. In his newly self-appointed role as Minister for Sniffing Out Traitors, Winston is like a rabid Rottweiler to Dr Mapp's yapping Pekinese. If Winston doesn't like the cut of your jib he can have you bunged in jail. Or even -- with the repeal of some of the more politically correct bits of the Crimes Act, 1961 -- have your block knocked off.

It is clearly Winston's opinion that Stalinesque purges of the media and general populace aren't necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, they should be seen as part of good government. Looking around New Zealand you sometimes have to agree that he has a point. For some years I have been compiling my own list of treasonous New Zealanders who -- in my opinion -- should suffer the ultimate penalty for their actions. I have just finished typing out a good copy to send to Winston.

1. Jude Dobson

In Jude's case it is not so much treason, as crimes against humanity. Her 'Family Health Diary' advertisements are certainly as inhumane as anything that happened during the French Revolution. And -- when you're watching them -- they seem to drag on a lot longer, too. It may surprise Jude to learn this, but actually I don't want to hear about her incontinence problems. Or her chafing breasts. What I'd most like to hear is that she, and her co-presenters, and all their friends and relations, and the entire staff of the Advertising Standards Authority (who have refused to uphold complaints about Family Health Diary) have been sent off to visit Madame Guillotine.

2. Dame Susan Devoy

Susan Devoy seems like a right busy-body. She struts around advertising vitamin pills, and scolds us all about our diet. I think she once said that New Zealand doesn't have enough sport. You must be kidding, Susan. Whenever I turn on the telly all I see is bloody sport. Now I realize that being a busy-body isn't strictly covered by Section 73 of the Crimes Act. But, other than this, I see no reason why she shouldn't be executed for high treason. She knew the risks when she started to advertise vitamins.

3. The Telecom loud-hailer guy

I don't like to be personal, but I'm sorry to say that the Telecom loudhailer guy -- he advertises some sort of text messaging -- has a funny walk. I think it's something to do with the way he holds his bum. But actually I find his walk so deeply irritating that I haven't really looked. I don't know anything else about this guy. For all I know he may give all his Telecom wages to help starving children in Africa. He may be a saint. But he -- or, more particularly, his bum -- has annoyed me, and I'm afraid he has to die.

4. Leighton Smith

Leighton talks complete shite all of the time. He should suffer the consequences.

5. Joanne Black

I don't have anything against Joanne Black per se. In fact, I'm sure that she's a very nice person. It's just that there are certain things that some people shouldn't be allowed to do. For example, some people shouldn't be given large armies to play with (George Bush). Some people shouldn't be given their own talkback radio programme (see no. 4 above). And Joanne Black should never have been allowed an asterisk key on her typewriter. Every week she goes crazy with her asterisk key in the Listener. She puts asterisk ellipses (* * *) all over the place. What's going on in her head? She's not even changing the subject, and she's typing asterisks. Now I appreciate that I may be over-reacting here. I can hear people saying: 'it's just an asterisk, it's not a death penalty offence.' Well, it's the slippery slope syndrome. If we let Joanne get away with asterisks, then the next thing will be apostrophes, and then exclamation marks, and so on. Of course, if the asterisks aren't her idea then by all means hang a sub-editor instead.

Anyway, I realize that the above list is by no means comprehensive. Many people will be wondering why John Banks wasn't in my top five. Or CC-Amatil's Carl Crowley. Well, don't worry, I'm working on it. In the meantime, if you think of anyone else who should be charged with treason, then please DON'T HESITATE. Send their names to Winston Peters at once.

Contact details:

Winston Peters
c/- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Racing, and Traitor-Sniffing
The Beehive
WELLINGTON