Franks Stephen: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5024] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I find it very interesting to consider the Maori Television Service Bill so soon after we considered the Television New Zealand Bill. On looking through Part 1 I have a number of questions for the Minister which I trust will be capable of reasonably straightforward answers. 
In the purposes set out in Part 1 we have the first reference to the joint responsibilities of the chair of Te Putahi Paoho and the responsible Ministers and to the process for the resolution of disputes between them. In fact the provisions for the resolution of disputes are all set out in the schedules so that is a minor technical mistake. But putting that aside the bill sets up a structure that appears destined to cause grief. So often that is the case with matters affecting Maori where the Crown ducks hard questions and essentially decides to use rhetoric or slogans in the law and fails to apply the same standard of care and precaution to avoid future problems that it would apply to any other group in the community. Once again it is that bigotry of low expectations. 
The bill sets up joint responsibilities for the electoral college and the Minister and then purports to set up a dispute resolution process that is not anything of the kind but is instead a provision for mediation. Yet mediation does not settle disputes if the parties are at odds for very sound reasons; mediation just provides a way in which they can talk to each other. One would be very surprised if they had not already talked to each other until they were sick of it before they get to the stage of appointing a formal mediator. The mediation outcome could simply be better-informed disgust anger and frustration with each other. I ask the Minister why we have a position whereby a body that is to receive $55 million in the first year and probably much more later is set up with no clear ownership and no clear single way of giving it instructions. What we have here is evidence of extreme patronising of Maori by establishing the form of Maori control and the reality of Maori frustration. This bill in its dispute resolution process is infinitely patronising. There may be a simple explanation for that but it is almost a recipe for deadlock and frustration. 
The schedules—I cannot address the schedules yet but they are of course referred to in Part 1 which we are debating—provide for the removal of directors. Clause 10 which is supposed to establish editorial independence and does not do so states in a very obscure way that the responsible Ministers cannot collectively give directions to the service but it does not state that Ministers cannot do so individually. It states that Te Putahi Paoho or a member of it—so that catches them both collectively and individually—cannot give a direction. Then it states that a director acting without the authority of the board cannot direct the service but of course that means that the board can do so. What exactly is intended here by editorial independence? 
Then the bill goes on to state in schedule 2 which refers back to clause 10(1)(a) to (d) that nobody can be sacked for a matter that is covered in that clause. What does that mean? Does it mean people cannot be sacked if they breach that provision? Or does it mean they cannot be sacked if they do not breach it but the body Te Putahi Paoho still believes they are not performing and delivering what they are supposed to deliver? I say to the Minister that someone must have thought through what that means but it is completely opaque to me. 
I am also concerned about the matter raised by my colleague Deborah Coddington: that the service has full rights powers and privileges to do anything it wants in the promotion of Maori custom practice and law. What does that mean in terms of te reo? It may well be that the greatest attention will come to this body if it actually carries genuine debate.