Kate McNamara: NZ Herald journalist on Moana Pasifika facing questions over funding contracts

The Moana Pasifika Super Rugby franchise faces questions over disclosure and transparency at ownership level.

It recently came to light that the team received taxpayer money indirectly through Whanau Ora contracts.

NZ Herald journalist Kate McNamara says it's unclear how much public money funded the team - but investigations are ongoing.

"It may be that all of their funding came from the Whanau Ora contract - but it may be that there's a small amount of funding from another source in there."

LISTEN ABOVE

Note: The original story from the NZ Herald has been updated to clarify that Whanau Ora funds flowed to the Moana Pasifika Charitable Trust, and the current owner of the Trust and the team, Pasifika Medical Association, has emphasised that no Whānau Ora funds have been used to fund the Moana Pasifika professional rugby team. The Herald has removed from the story the contention that Whānau Ora funds were directly used for the professional team in the fiscal years 22/23 and 23/24.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Right. It's been revealed today that Farno Order funds have
been used to prop up the Mowana Pacifica Super rugby team. Now,
the money went from the government to Pacifica Medical Association Group,
which is a charity that's commissioned to spend Faro Order
funds and from them was given to the rugby team.
Kate McNamara is the Herald journalist who helped break the
story with us. Now Hi Kate hi Hether. So we're

(00:20):
talking about about one point five million dollars, maybe up
to as much as two point three million dollars. Was
that all public money?

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Certainly one point five was public money, it's not clear.
There's another six hundred thousand that came in the year
twenty twenty one twenty twenty two. It's not absolutely clear
that that was public money. It's probably public money, but
I haven't the PMA hasn't confirmed that that came from
the fano Ora contract. It came from Pacifica Futures, which

(00:51):
is the Pacifica commissioning agency funded by Tipuny Corkrey. But
and maybe that all all of their funding comes from
the fano Aura contract. But it may be that there's
a small amount of funding from another sport in there,
so we know not.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
We know at least some and it seems like a
sizeable chunk is public money? Is it appropriate to use
public money that are supposed to be going for Farno
Order projects, which is jabbing babies, healthcare, that kind of
thing to a rugby team.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, so the is it allowed is probably the first
question you might ask. And it may well be allowed
now whether or not that's a good idea? You know,
if you ask me, do I personally think it's a
good idea? I think it would be tough to make
it stack up? Would exactinations in babies? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Right? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:44):
So?

Speaker 1 (01:44):
But would it be allowed because it would feed into
bolstering the culture which is one of the things that
Faro Order is supposed.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
To do bingo so strengthening cultural identity. And I mean
that's as elastic as you want it to be, right,
you could pay me to go down the pub answer,
Patrick Day?

Speaker 1 (02:01):
Really? Yes, I see, I take your point. It's a
fair point. Now there are three people who sit on
both boards, right, They sit on the boat on the
onea pacifica board which is the rugby team that gets
the money and they sit on the Pacifica Medical Association
Group board, which is the outfit that gives the rugby
team the money. Is that not a conflict?

Speaker 2 (02:19):
They're related parties, so yes, and you know it's it's
self dealing if you want. And they say, the chair
of Pacifica Medical Association tells me that they followed their
protocols to mitigate this conflict, and so the conflicted decision

(02:41):
makers weren't involved in essentially okaying the wouldn't have been
involved in okaying the fan or funding decision. Now, they
weren't that exact. They just set out what their protocols
were and that these would have applied.

Speaker 1 (02:57):
Okay, And I note that this group has now lost
the contract. It's been given to somebody else and there
are much stricter rules. Is that because of this, because
of the funding of the rugby team?

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Yes? I would point out that this contract was renewed
for twelve months last year under the current government. So
you know, if you want to blame someone, you can
probably spread it around a little bit. I do think
that the current government has been looking at this and
they've changed a number of things. They've tightened. It took

(03:28):
them a while to do it, and in the meantime
they rolled the contract over for twelve months. They have
more measurement requirements of outcomes now in place for the
upcoming contract starts July first, and you're not allowed to
so you, the commissioning agency, are not allowed to buy

(03:52):
essentially buy your own services. And so that actually would
be a big change looking ahead.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, which might tidy this kind of thing up. Thanks
very much, appreciate it, Kate McNamara, the Herald Senior journalists.
For more from Hither Duplessy, Allen Drive, listen live to
News Talks dB from four pm weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio