opera

Thlevision

The soap opera continues

Since the Fiji government first expressed an interest in setting up TV in the 1980 s, a firm decision has yet to be made on the issue

By Craig Skehan

The process of appointing a perma nent television services operator in Fiji is itself starting to resemble a TV 7 soap opera.

And the audience is asking : Where’s the money coming from? Why the cloak and dagger secrecy? And will there really

be majority foreign ownership?

Negotiations for television rights in Fiji go back to the mid-1980s when Austra lia’s Packer and Bond media groups wanted to set up TV in Fiji. But broadcasting did not start until 1991 when Television New Zealand (TVNZ) set up what was supposed to be a temporary service for just a few months.

Government policy shifts since then have ranged from intended majority govern ment ownership to no requirement whatsoever for government involvement.

Earlier this year, as bewildered entre preneurs tried to keep pace with policy fluctuations, a call for tenders raised hopes that a resolution was in sight. But the outcome of the tender process was a surprise and matters remain unsettleed.

Two foreign companies TVNZ and specially created Australian firm Pacific

Broadcasting Corporation Ltd (PBCL)

were authorised to form a joint venture with local private business inter ests. Government-owned Fiji Posts and Telecom Ltd (FPTL), which spent $90,000 on consultants to help compile their tender was left out in the cold.

Another government-owned tenderer, Fiji Development Bank, was also ruled out of contention. Media magnate

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation

was linked to the failed FPTL sub mission. So far it is not clear whether the

Murdoch group has lost interest or could still re-enter the scene as an investor through its existing local media holding, Fiji Times.

Locally born William Parkinson, who operates commercial radio stations in Fiji, stirred debate when he said Fiji interests should have majority control of the TV service. PBCL executive John Pollock responded testily that his com pany’s involvement had always been on the basis of a majority shareholding and management control. Pollock, whose family owns a number of Ford car dealerships in Australia, has been in and out of Fiji numerous times. There have been discussions on the possibility of a

three-way ownership split among

TVNZ, PBCL and potential local inves tors. It is unclear how such an arrange ment would work. If implemented, it would mean foreign ownership domi nance something most countries don’t tolerate when it comes to the influential television medium. There have already been tensions over what the relationship should be between TVNZ and PBCL, including in respect to management control.

Meanwhile, Parkinson has moved to stitch together a local investors’ group led by his company, Communications Fiji. Waiting in the wings with their cheque books are hotel chain owner and

opposition National Federation Party

stalwart Y.P. Reddy and businessman and government supporter Jim Ah Koy.

Both Ah Koy and Reddy have held talks with the Parkinson group.

Concerns about where plans for TV are headed intensified with public ques tioning about whether PBCL, and a finked Sydney company called Comsyst,

really had millions of dollars they had promised to invest in establishing both free-to-air and pay television channels in Fiji. The government, when annointing PBCL, said it was impressed by the promise of an initial Fs4-million invest ment, rising to more than FSII million.

The Fiji Times newspaper reported Pollock as denying information from Fiji government sources that his company was seeking to borrow funds within Fiji.

PBCL then wrote to a special cabinet television sub-committee, which would have to endorse any deal reached between the parties. The letter states that PBCL intended to fully fund the project from external sources. It is understood the company claims it cannot finalise its own financing plans in Australia

presumably through loan-raising until

a joint venture arrangement is con cluded.

Consultants have predicted the new broadcasting company would not make money for at least five or six years.

However, as with supplying equipment, money could be made more quickly through providing foreign television pro grams. TVNZ is looking to continue its current role as the major supplier of material which so far has ranged from overseas and sports and good quality programs to second rate drama series and situation comedies. Other groups want to get a bite at the programming cherry, so there could well be future criticism by would-be program suppliers about the “quality” of TV.

The cabinet sub-committee, which includes a senior representative from Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s office, has set a July 5 deadline for PBCL and TVNZ to reach a joint venture agree ment and include local investors. One complication is that the sub-committee has so far not given any clear direction on what would be the maximum allow able total foreign shareholding. And so far, virtually nothing lias been explained to the long-suffering public about how planned pay television would operate.

Some parties have questioned what they

see as a lack of direct television broad casting experience of the PBCL group, apart from the supply by Comsyst in Australia and elsewhere of equipment such as transmitters and microwave links. Comsyst is a small family company, but some decision makers in Fiji mis takenly formed the view that it was a

much larger corporation.

Ifa joint venture arrangement can’t be

finalised by July 5, Fiji’s so-called

existing temporary service might have to be temporary for a bit longer. The soap opera continues. □