A history of the first ten years of Māori Television –its growth, its challenges and its unique contribution
to New Zealand media culture.
Established in 2004, Māori Television has had a major impact on theNew Zealand broadcasting landscape. But over the past year or so, thepolitics of Māori Television have been brought to the foreground of public
consciousness, with other media outlets tracking Māori Television’s search
for a new CEO, allegations of editorial intervention and arguments overnews reporting approaches to Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust.
Based on a Marsden Grant and three years of interviews with key stake­holders – staff, the Board, other media, politicians, funders and viewers– this is a deep account of Māori Television in its first ten years. Jo Smith
argues that today’s arguments must be understood within a broader context
shaped by non-Māori interests. Can a Māori broadcaster follow both tikanga
and the Broadcasting Standards Authority? Is it simply telling the news inMāori, or broadcasting the news with a Māori perspective? How can it
support te reo Māori at the same time as appeal to all New Zealand?
How does it function as the voice of its Māori stakeholders?
Offering five frameworks to address the challenges of a Māori organisation
working within a wider non-Māori context, this is a solidly researched
examination of Māori Television’s unique contribution to the media culturesof Aotearoa New Zealand.

Jo Smith (Waitaha, Kati Māmoe and Kāi Tahu) is asenior lecturer in English, Film, Theatre and Media
Studies at Victoria University. She is the authorof book chapters as well as articles in a range ofjournals including Arena, Continuum, Transnational
Cinemas, Settler Colonial Studies and AlterNative:
An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples.

ContentsAcknowledgements

vi

Introduction: Five Frameworks for
Understanding Māori Television1

Chapter One: The Long Struggle forMāori Television8

Chapter Two: Bringing Tikanga to Television

38

Chapter Three: To Zig Where Others Zag –Māori Television Programming Strategies

64

Chapter Four: Audience Engagements with
Māori Television Programming

91

Chapter Five: Māori Television and aPolitics of Culture Framework

120

Chapter Six: Putting the Five Frameworks to Use 144
Conclusion

161

Appendix One: The Māori Television Service(Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003
Section 8166

Appendix Two: Funding Channels

167

Appendix Three: Māori Television’s Rightof Reply

168

Bibliography

171

Index182

Chapter One

The Long Struggle for Māori Television

In 1972, Hana Jackson organised a petition to Parliament and it was an obvious place
for us to go, to support Māori Language Day and Māori Language Week. As part ofthat activity, we had lots of discussion about the power of the media and how Māori
were not valued, not only Māori language, but Māori people and Māori tikanga.
So lots of discussion about the power of the media, and in 1978 we took anotherpetition to Parliament, requesting that a Māori television production unit be established and that it should start producing a twenty-minute Country Calendar typeprogramme, which became Koha. (C. Dewes, interview, 2012)

One cannot understand the impact and significance of Māori Television
without understanding the longer history of Indigenous struggle in thiscountry. Māori have been at the forefront of media activism in Aotearoa
New Zealand for more than four decades, with the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi(Treaty of Waitangi) the mobilising force. Article II of the Treaty guarantees that the New Zealand government, as one of the two Treaty partners,
is responsible for protecting and promoting all things held dear to Māori:‘taonga’. Media activists have argued that te reo and tikanga Māori constituteimportant taonga of Māori society and thus are protected under Te Tiriti oWaitangi.
Given these roots, Māori broadcasting is directly linked to strategies oflanguage and cultural revitalisation, and to issues of equitable Māori representation as a partner to Te Tiriti. As long-standing Māori educator CathyDewes (Te Arawa, Ngāti Porou)* suggests in the quotation above, the power*This book includes iwi affiliations only for those who participated in the research and who agreed tohaving this information included.

4

THE LONG STRUGGLE FOR MĀORI TELEVISIONof the media plays a crucial role in shoring up a sense of self and collective
identity. If language is the cornerstone of a people’s way of being, and if that
language is not heard on a daily basis through media outlets and in everyday
conversation, how can a people thrive? If the perspectives shown on television, heard on radio and filtered through feature films are resoundingly
non-Māori, what does this do to the status of te reo and the many differentvalues, norms and practices embedded in the language that help constitutediverse Māori worlds? Joris de Bres of the Human Rights Commission hasargued that ‘the right to language is a vital human right, because it goes tothe very heart of a person’s identity and culture. It is vital for the realisation ofpeople’s cultural, civil, political, social and economic rights’ (Te Puni Kōkiri,2011a, p. 21). Many generations of Māori have struggled to make the Crown
fulfil its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These struggles have come atpersonal and financial cost to Māori, and the struggles continue today.
Cathy Dewes’s reflections on political strategies in the 1970s relate topresent-day circumstances. According to Dewes, Koha (a 30-minute Māori
magazine programme that emerged in 1980) was initially devised as a styleof television that might appeal to ‘heartland New Zealand’, in the same way
as the long-running television series Country Calendar, which covers rurallife in Aotearoa. One tactic at the time was to think of how Māori perspectives and language might infiltrate the ‘white man’s house’ and become anormalised and everyday part of the life of the nation. In a single-channel
era where channel surfing was not yet an established norm, Dewes describes
an incident associated with Māori Language Week activities:On television, a Pākehā student of Māori language was engaged to provide continuityin Māori during Māori Language Week. We knew that there would be a huge backlashfrom the Pākehā rednecks so we consciously, deliberately chose a Pākehā in order toshow them that this was not just a Māori thing, that Pākehā were convinced of thevalue of te reo Māori as well. Because that was a huge invasion into their homes, aMāori-speaking person in their sitting rooms. They had nowhere else to go unless theyswitched it off or muted her, even though she was on for such a short time. (C. Dewes,interview, 2012)

Dewes’s comments suggest that stealth tactics were a necessary feature ofpolitical strategies at the time, and that dealing with a large non-Māori majority was a crucial factor in attempts to advance Māori causes. Accordingly,
5MĀORI TELEVISION: THE FIRST TEN YEARS

getting non-Māori to engage with the language was an important part oflanguage survival strategies.
Although New Zealand television culture has experienced significantshifts in attitudes towards te reo Māori since the 1970s, as well as technological shifts from a single-channel era to an era of digital plenty, there areinteresting parallels between the 1970s strategies suggested by Dewes and theway in which former CEO of Māori Television Jim Mather (Ngāti Awa, NgāiTūhoe; CEO from 2005–2013) described Māori Television in 2013.
In an article titled ‘From Political Football to Part of the Furniture’, Mather
noted that two-thirds of the viewers who watch Māori Television are notMāori (Hubbard, 2013, p. A6).* Mather acknowledged that he was pleased
about the broad appeal the broadcaster had garnered. For him, te reo ‘is atreasure belonging to all New Zealanders’ and Māori Television is ‘much morethan a language revitalisation channel’. Mather argues for the importance ofa large non-Māori majority in advancing the aspirations of Māori, and thatby having all New Zealanders value te reo, Māori language and culture might
become an everyday factor in the life of the nation, or ‘part of the furniture’.
Yet, one could ask, whose house is this furniture in?
When Moana Jackson and Atareta Poananga developed their NgāWhare Rua or ‘two-house’ model for understanding the struggle for Māoriself-determination, they drew on examples from Māori television programming found on national broadcaster TVNZ. This model has become apopular reference point for Māori media scholars:
The TV One programmes Marae and Te Karere are contained within the mainstream
house . . . . Both programmes attempt to portray values, language and issues related
to the Māori house . . . . Within the mainstream house they occupy a ‘room’, but the‘house’ is not Māori. They are still a minority within the whole industry and have toconform to the policies and practices of the mainstream house. They are probably
fortunate that they are there at all, given that many ethnic minorities do not have apresence in the mainstream house. (Te Kawa a Māui Media Research Team, 2005, p. 23
cited in Hokowhitu and Devadas, 2013, p. xxix)*

These figures are based on a telephone survey conducted by Research New Zealand on behalf of Māori
Television on 2–25 November 2011 and including a sample range of n=1004 respondents aged 15+. In 2014a Colmar Brunton survey conducted on behalf of NZ On Air found that 50 per cent of Māori Televisionviewers were Māori. This figure was based on N=1000 telephone and N=400 online interviews conducted on4 April–4 May 2014 (excluding Easter and Anzac Day) and involving respondents aged 15+.

6

THE LONG STRUGGLE FOR MĀORI TELEVISIONIn the wake of the 2004 launch of Māori Television, the possibilities forMāori control over media have improved. Following Jackson and Poananga’smodel, Māori Television has significantly increased the amount of Māori
media content available when compared to the offerings on other free-to-airnetworks such as TVNZ and MediaWorks. But does Māori Television constitute a house of its own, run by Māori, for Māori and about Māori? MāoriTelevision constituted a significant shift in terms of offering a greater rangeof Māori media, on multiple screens, nationally and internationally − and inprime time – and this shift has been achieved by deftly negotiating a range ofcultural, technological, institutional and historical factors. Aspects of government policy, the funding climate, and the institutional norms of television
have helped to shape Māori Television practices. Yet these policies, funding
regimes and television industry norms (how programming should look andsound, as well as the focus on audience share) are practices long embedded in
non-Māori ways of doing things. As such, Māori Television offers intriguing
insights into how a media entity can contribute to te reo and tikanga Māori,and thus to the betterment of te ao Māori, while working within these existing
constraints.
A historical framework for understanding the struggle to establish MāoriTelevision and the diverse expectations placed upon it provides insights. Thisframework allows us to see how the Māori media sector is connected to larger
efforts to have the Crown recognise its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Māori Television is tied to a larger Tiriti-based politics, at the same time
as it is part of a broader media culture dominated by an English-speaking
non-Māori majority.
Its history also draws attention to Māori Television’s educational rolein revitalising a minority language, using a popular form of entertainment
media. Educational imperatives bump up against entertainment imperatives,in ways that give rise to persisting tensions between those who think that aMāori media provider should appeal to a broad audience, and those who
think the network should be more strictly by Māori, for Māori and aboutMāori. When Dewes describes the stealth tactics of the 1970s (to infiltratethe ‘white man’s house’ with te reo), her approach resonates with the inclusive
strategy championed by Mather in 2013. Both Dewes and Mather underscorethe importance of a large non-Māori majority to Māori media initiatives.
Yet other Māori Television stakeholders have consistently argued for a more
Māori-focused approach to Māori media.
7Chapter Six

Putting the Five Frameworks to Use

Māori Television faces multiple demands from its various stakeholders, atthe same time as it must negotiate the embedded norms of New Zealandmedia industries, as well as governmental and flax-roots political aspirations,and persisting economic constraints. There is value in understanding thesecomplexities through a range of frameworks, including matters to do withhistory, tikanga, programming, audiences and the political desires attached
to cultural processes. A five-framework approach offers differing angles onMāori Television as a social and cultural phenomenon, and opens up fresh
perspectives on matters often taken for granted. It makes space for the diverse
voices of, and perspectives from, te ao Māori, as well as for the viewpoints of,and conditions facing, those who work in the Māori media sector.*To demonstrate the value of such an approach, brief insights into how
the five frameworks might be of use in relation to Māori Television news andcurrent affairs can be obtained by looking at coverage of a pre-eminent peerlanguage institution, Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. Native Affairs’ 2013
coverage of the financial affairs of Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust (TKRNT)
and its financial arm, Te Pātaka Ōhanga (TPŌ), generated much conflicting
debate within te ao Māori and New Zealand’s public sphere more generally.
These debates raised questions about culturally appropriate news media practices, and the role of Māori journalism within a democratic society. A brief glossof how the five frameworks could be deployed to throw light on the complex
issues raised by Native Affairs’ coverage, and on subsequent public discussions,*It is my hope that the five frameworks proposed in this book complement the earlier work of authors suchas Carol Archie, whose important text Pou Kōrero: a journalists’ guide to Māori and current affairs helped todecentre a prevailing non-Māori perspective on New Zealand media.

8PUTTING THE FIVE FRAMEWORKS TO USEfollows. The Native Affairs–TKRNT media event demonstrated the contested
expectations underpinning Māori news practices, and the impossibility of
speaking of te ao Māori in monolithic terms. More than this, the debates anddiscussions inspired by the NA–TKRNT media event reveal the impoverishednature of New Zealand public-sphere discourses more generally, and prevailing perceptions of Māori news media and Māori institutions.

Setting the scene
In 2013 Native Affairs broadcast two stories (‘A Question of Trust’, which aired
on 9 September, and ‘Feathering the Nest’, which aired on 14 October) dealingwith the governance and management of language-revitalisation preschoolorganisation TKRNT, and its financial arm, TPŌ. Both stories investigatedthe concerns of 51 kōhanga reo members from Mataatua and Tauranga
Moana rohe over issues relating to the financial structure of the organisation,
lifetime membership practices, and personal loans to staff and board members to the value of $10,000. The story drew on information about credit-card
expenditure given to the Native Affairs news team. When approached by
Native Affairs to make comment on the story, TKRNT declined to engage.
As the media event progressed, TKRNT applied for an interim injunction
to prevent Native Affairs from covering the story; it banned Native Affairs
staff from a subsequent press conference, and it laid a complaint with theBroadcasting Standards Authority over ‘A Question of Trust’, a complaintthat was ultimately not upheld.
The coverage by Native Affairs sparked two inquiries. The Ministry ofEducation commissioned Ernst & Young to conduct an inquiry into themanagement of public funding by TKRNT, which found no wrongdoing.
A subsequent inquiry into TPŌ by the Serious Fraud Office also found noevidence of criminality by TPŌ. While these inquiries took place, TKRNT
held a national hui at Ngāruawāhia to address concerns raised by whānau.
Meanwhile, ‘Feathering the Nest’ received international recognition as amodel of good Indigenous journalism, and the Native Affairs team positioned
itself as a champion of the flax roots. Many Māori and non-Māori shared
opinions via television and radio news media, blogs, tweets and news-feedcomments on the importance of holding those in power to account, even
esteemed kaumātua. However, other voices from te ao Māori raised questions
9Haunui Royal, Carol Hirschfeld and Julian Wilcox at Māori Television. ‘The Little
Station That Could’, Sunday Star-Times, 23 March 2014. Reproduced with thepermission of Lawrence Smith and Fairfax Media NZ and the Sunday Star-Times.
Ref. 629116922.

Producer Kay Ellmers and camera operator Steve Fisher interview contestant Zayde
Taurima from Mohaka Marae for season two of Marae Kai Masters. Reproduced withthe permission of Tūmanako Productions.

The 2014 Marae Kai Masters presenters Te Kohe Tuhaka (left) and NevakRogers at Waikare Marae. Photograph by Peter De Graaf. Reproduced with thepermission of the New Zealand Herald.

It’s in the Bag hosts Pio Terei (left) and Stacey Morrison (centre) with a contestant.
Reproduced with the permission of the New Zealand Herald.

$45
228 x 152 mm, 210pp, paperback,colour illustrations
ISBN: 9781869408572
Published: November 2016