On 3 September, Kim Hill interviewed Brian Tamaki on her TVNZ Face to Face programme. I was disappointed with the outcome. Given that the Sunday Star-Times exposed the Wilson loans question and repeated that Ian Bilby had had an adulterous relationship while an Elim Church pastor, and was now employed as Director of the Destiny Training Institute, one would have thought that Kim's researcher would have done a much better job. Moreover, there are ample other questions that could have been raised, about Tamaki and Sitiveni Rabuka's relationship in the late nineties, for example. As yet, the straight media hasn't discovered that particular story. Tamaki proved a slippery customer, as usual. He didn't respond to Kim's questions about the biblical legitimacy of slavery, but he did finally clarify what he meant about his repeated use of the term "perversion." It proved to be that old fundamentalist chestnut about the origins of homosexuality, namely allegations that we'd undergone early child sexual abuse and experience gender identity confusion. In other words, he uncritically accepted what the dying New Zealand 'ex-gay' movement said about homosexuality. If Kim's researchers had been doing their job properly, she might have responded by noting that Exodus is now the only 'ex-gay' organisation left in New Zealand. Kim asked him about titheing, but Tamaki spun a line about divine sanction for prosperity. Again, Kim's researcher fell down badly here, as there could have been opportunity for a curly question about the effects of titheing on parishioners and families on unemployment benefits, DPBs or invalids benefits, although Tamaki clarified that no-one was under compulsion to tithe within his churches. Tamaki asked the rest of us to accept that he had been given the gift of biblical interpretation and authority. Yeah, right. At this stage, Kim might have asked some searching questions related to the above legitimate questions about the conduct of his ministry. She didn't. Finally, Tamaki claimed that the media had misquoted him on the subject of female political leadership, and protested that he meant 'mutual submission' of partners within the family unit, and craftily remarked that his church had no bar on women as pastoral leaders or ministers themselves, such as his own wife, Hannah. This sounds plausible, as Tamaki might see the need to establish liaisons with anti-feminist women like Muriel Newman and Deborah Coddington (ACT) or Judith Collins (National) at some point in the future. When she does have adequate backup, Kim Hill is an incisive and razor-sharp interviewer. Why wasn't she given the opportunity to do just that within the context of this interview? Was it because Tamaki arranged the interview at short notice, so Kim's programme researchers didn't have time to adequately prepare for the interview? But what about the Internet and its available information resources? All they would have needed to do was to Google "Brian Tamaki" and investigate what they found. TVNZ, let Kim be Kim! Craig Young - 6th September 2004