Editorial: Boost for Maori bid welcome

Accusations of racism have clouded discussion about the awarding of free-to-air broadcasting rights for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

But there is more than a whiff of bigotry about some complaints that the bid by Maori Television has been boosted by a support from Te Puni Kokiri.

TVNZ and TV3 were also in the hunt but when Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples pledged $3 million of TPK money for the rights, it thrust Maori TV into the front-runner position for the rights, which cover pool games involving the All Blacks and all matches from the quarter-finals on.

The announcement caused howls of outrage from inside and outside the industry. Some were quick to point out that Maori TV doesn't reach every home in the country - conveniently sidestepping the fact that TV3 and Prime don't either.

Others claimed that the station lacked the expertise to handle the event, a suggestion that would be laughable if it were not so nakedly patronising: the channel's Anzac Day broadcasts have been of world-class quality. Yet others questioned the decision to spend money earmarked for Maori development on a bid for the commercially valuable broadcast rights to a sporting event.

Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell suggested that "misinformation, mischief-making and an appeal to racial prejudice" had driven many contributions to the public debate. This drew the scorn of National MP Tau Henare, a former Maori Affairs Minister himself. He had, he said, "used that excuse and [you] use it when your back is against the wall and you haven't got a decent-enough argument".

Henare's comment contributed little to the discussion other than to confirm the predilection for opportunism that has marked his entire political career. Certainly it avoided the issue at hand.

To his credit, he acknowledged that Maori Television was as capable as any other broadcaster of producing good coverage, by contracting in whatever expertise it might lack. But bizarrely he described Maori TV as "essentially a privately-run company" - it is Government-owned - which was being given public money "to outbid another player in the market".

That last matter certainly merits examination. On the face of it, the spending of TPK money on broadcasting rugby games may seem problematic. The ministry is established to offer advice on "policy affecting Maori wellbeing" and it's easy enough to assemble a sneering argument that broadcasting Rugby World Cup matches doesn't advance that cause. But, the TPK website also proclaims its remit to contribute to "Maori succeeding as Maori, achieving a sustainable level of success as individuals, in organisations and in collectives ... Our investments in Maori development build resources."

It is no stretch at all to fit the Maori TV bid into those parameters. When the competition begins, the free-to-air broadcast will become a metaphorical meeting point for the 50 per cent of the country that does not subscribe to Sky. Assisting Maori TV to showcase the quality of its operation to audiences who do not regularly tune in is completely consistent with the kaupapa, or mission, of TPK. It will build resources and contribute to organisational success, and the sustainable success of a Maori organisation provides a model which all should welcome.

The financial implications should be kept in perspective, too. As a proportion of the channel's $28 million annual budget, $3 million may sound like a lot, but in commercial broadcasting terms, it's small beer. What's more, Sharples says that the funding - which is in the nature of a purchase agreement - would buy "a package deal of programming" over the next two years.

Over and above these specific considerations, it is worth remarking that Maori TV has assumed the role of the nation's pre-eminent public broadcaster as TV One has become increasingly entertainment-driven. That is not entirely TVNZ's fault, of course: a defective model requires it to simultaneously be profitable and serve the public interest. But that's not Maori TV's problem.

Maori TV would have been better to have ignored the satirical item on TV3's Nightline. It's a programme with a reputation for edgy items and the one in question had its funny moments. It was slightly juvenile and might have been better signposted as a non-news item, but it was a little over-sensitive to see it as racist.

But, whatever Tau Henare might say, Te Ururoa Flavell and others raise a point worth considering. If TVNZ had received a $3 million boost to its bid, the outcry would not have been as loud - or as pointed.