RNZ reports that Allan criticised RNZ’s treatment of Maori journalists and “urged the public broadcaster to have a look at its culture”. This came after Dunlop, a Maori, was passed over for the position of co-host on Morning Report - a job she had obviously pinned her hopes on. Allan's comments will inevitably be seen as a rebuke to RNZ for not promoting her partner.
She reportedly prefaced her remarks by saying she wasn’t speaking as a minister. In her apology yesterday she said she attended the function as Dunlop’s partner and was speaking on behalf of Dunlop’s family, but she accepted her comments could be interpreted as telling RNZ how to manage its affairs.
Oh, come on. Allan is a senior minister. She has been in Parliament since 2017. She knows the rules. She knows that her actions as a private individual and as a minister are not easily separated. In fact she admits there is no delineation in terms of public perception. That’s why there’s a cabinet manual advising ministers how to conduct themselves.
I think Allan understood perfectly well what she was doing, and moreover that she knows that what she said at the function can’t be unsaid by going through the motions of a ritual apology.
She would have known her words would register with RNZ, which has a crucial interest in maintaining good relations with the government. It may or may not be significant that RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson subsequently made a conciliatory statement liberally laced with te reo Maori. It looked ingratiating.
The matter was seen as serious enough for Chris Hipkins to weigh in with a statement accepting Allan’s apology but adding that it would have been better had she not accepted the opportunity to speak. It was the lightest of raps over the knuckles for an action that could be interpreted as ministerial interference in the affairs of an organisation that's supposed to be statutorily independent.
Allan's comments and subsequent Claytons retraction will have done nothing to ease public concerns about uncomfortably close relationships within the Wellington Beltway and their potential to compromise government integrity.
Neither will anyone be reassured by the fact that RNZ took several days to report the story. We can only conclude RNZ decided its interests were better served by keeping Allan’s interference quiet.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
Oh, come on. Allan is a senior minister. She has been in Parliament since 2017. She knows the rules. She knows that her actions as a private individual and as a minister are not easily separated. In fact she admits there is no delineation in terms of public perception. That’s why there’s a cabinet manual advising ministers how to conduct themselves.
I think Allan understood perfectly well what she was doing, and moreover that she knows that what she said at the function can’t be unsaid by going through the motions of a ritual apology.
She would have known her words would register with RNZ, which has a crucial interest in maintaining good relations with the government. It may or may not be significant that RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson subsequently made a conciliatory statement liberally laced with te reo Maori. It looked ingratiating.
The matter was seen as serious enough for Chris Hipkins to weigh in with a statement accepting Allan’s apology but adding that it would have been better had she not accepted the opportunity to speak. It was the lightest of raps over the knuckles for an action that could be interpreted as ministerial interference in the affairs of an organisation that's supposed to be statutorily independent.
Allan's comments and subsequent Claytons retraction will have done nothing to ease public concerns about uncomfortably close relationships within the Wellington Beltway and their potential to compromise government integrity.
Neither will anyone be reassured by the fact that RNZ took several days to report the story. We can only conclude RNZ decided its interests were better served by keeping Allan’s interference quiet.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
4 comments:
As I stated in another thread this is clearly why Dunlop probably should not have got the job.
That said, herein lies the problem with the culture and identity game playing (and it isn't a game).
In the end there can be no actual winners. Ms. Dunlop didn't win because she was beaten by someone RNZ thought was better or she posed a problem for them because of her relationship with Ms. Allan that they could not solve. Not because of her ethnicity.
RNZ didn't win because they now have been called racists for no reason at the same time they literally espouse most things Maori ad nauseum.
We live in an age now it seem if you beleive you are special because of your 'ethnicity' or your 'identity' then it is becoming clearer to clear thinkers that you have much in common with a European dictator from the 1930's.
If New Zealand actually had a government and a media that stopped playing theses games and spent time shutting down this aberrant thinking and behaviour with a common sense rationallity instead of invoking, being complicit and siding with it NZ would be a much happier ethno/identity-secular country.
Sounds like sour grapes!
Her partner didn't get a promotion so she puts her size 10 Minister of Justice boots on and complains, accusing RNZ of not being pro-Maori enough. Then issues a faux apology, no doubt with a smirk on her face.
Grow up, Kiri. Just because you're Maori doesn't mean you're entitled to be given everything you want when you're not the best person for the job.
It applies to everyone else...it's called Life!
The fact that someone with your racist viewpoint has been appointed Minister of Justice really is an oxymoron and an indictment of Hipkins and the rest of the Labour Party for sanctioning it.
I'm sure you can't see the irony in this which makes it even sadder.
It is absurd to suggest that RNZ is not pro maori. Very many of their programmes are blatantly and disgracefully so. The station is totally captured. Nothing critical of maori and their artful manipulations is ever heard. Despite this the Select Committee into the recent Charter Inquiry recommended that the Charter be reworded to yet further emphasise maori promotion. The percentage of maori announcers certainly meets the 15% threshold and some are clearly there primarily for their maoriness and not their command or pronunciation of English (ie Nathan Rarere, who has difficulty resolving his inability to pronounce the g at end of ing words, so instead uses gunna in place of going). I recall an interview some time ago where a target pro maori content was stated; it was far above 15%, despite public stations dedicated entirely to maori. Morning Report is apparently held in high regard but I do not know who listens at that hour. Mani and her te reo babble were very apparent on Midday. To those who criticise Mani I say mmm, mmm, mmm, the way she affirmed all pro maori propogandists.
what nonsense! rnz is owned by minister of broadcasting - willie jackson (most likely a maori). what more evidence of lack of racial bias do we need?
Post a Comment