Hutchison Paul: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5110] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Again I take great pleasure in talking on the schedules of this bill Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori bill. I must remind the Committee that we have yet to hear from the Minister as to exactly why he failed to have a Maori name for this bill as well as for the schedules when the whole idea of the bill was to promote Maori language. Certainly as my colleagues Pansy Wong and Murray McCully pointed out the schedules of which there are three are incredibly important given the history surrounding the appointment of directors and the chief executives that we have seen so far. 
The first schedule deals with the electoral college the second schedule deals with the appointment of directors and with the chief executive. If we look at Part 1 of schedule 1 we see that it refers to organisations that may appoint members of the Maori Television Electoral College and it lists those organisations which have a role in promoting te reo Maori that are each entitled to appoint one representative to be a member of the college. We have never heard from the Minister—and it would be tremendous if he were prepared finally to take a call on this matter—why he has not explained to us a rationale behind the fact that $55 million of taxpayers’ money will be spent on television when we have no evidence-base to show that is the best mechanism to promote te reo Maori. All the organisations listed in schedule 1—from Te Kohanga Reo National Trust to Nga Kaiwhakapumau i te Reo Maori and including the Maori Women’s Welfare League the National Maori Congress the New Zealand Maori Council and the list goes on—are highly capable and eminent in terms of their ability to promote the Maori language but the Minister has never told us anywhere about any evidence-base showing that this huge amount of taxpayers’ money spent per year is an effective way of promoting the Maori language. 
Schedule 2 deals with the appointment of directors and undoubtedly one of the great concerns has been the appointment process that we have seen so far. Part 3 of that schedule deals with the appointment of the chief executive and again we must ask the Minister why the history of the appointment of chief executives has so far been so totally and absolutely unsatisfactory. On 15 March 2002 the Minister in the chair Parekura Horomia—who has failed to give an explanation to the people of New Zealand—talked about John Davy as being the best person for the job. Derek Fox the next director—the one who sat on the board and slipped out of a meeting only at the last moment before his own appointment—said that there was no perfect answer about applications for the job but that the board had come down on the side of strong financial and managerial control. He went on to say that he was confident the guy would deliver. Well that is the very man that this process has delivered. Here we are with a bill that will encompass the expenditure of $55 million of taxpayers’ money on promoting te reo Maori yet we have a legacy of 100 percent of directors so far having been appointed in a very shonky manner.