Hutchison Paul: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5023] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the Chair very much for the opportunity to speak on Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori Bill which I believe this bill now is. I am delighted that that is the case. We are speaking on Part 1 but I must say that even though it was belated we looked forward to the translation from the Minister. It is good that this bill is in line with for instance the National Library bill that we talked about earlier. 
But I want to talk about aspects of the purpose of the bill. The purpose clause states: “In recognition that the Crown and Maori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori … ”. If one goes to the commentary on the bill and looks at the background to it one sees it states that that is the key principle behind it. This bill stems from the Waitangi Tribunal’s 1986 te reo Maori claim Wai 11 which found that te reo Maori is an essential part of Maori culture that it must be regarded as taonga and that the Crown is obliged to take active steps to protect it. 
I have just been reading a most excellent article by Moerangi Vercoe on the Privy Council’s decision. I understand that in litigation relating to that decision in 1993 the Crown accepted that te reo Maori was in a serious state of decline. Just to demonstrate how serious that was I note from the report of the Maori Broadcasting Advisory Committee in 1973 that the status of te reo was that in the order of 13 percent of Maori had high fluency in te reo but that by 1995 8.1 percent of Maori had high fluency and one then goes on to find that in June 2000 only 4 percent of Maori had high fluency in te reo. Now that may be something to do with the demography and the high fertility rates of the Maori population but nevertheless that is the background. In that litigation by the Privy Council the Crown outlined a time frame for addressing that issue that included the development of a special purpose Maori television service. 
I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to the Committee whether there was ever an evidence base as to why television is the best way to promote te reo Maori or tikanga Maori. Is there any real evidence to substantiate that? Will the Minister take a call and substantiate why the flagship policy arising from that decision should be the establishment of a body corporate to run a television service as is embodied by this bill? That is an absolutely fundamental issue and I do not believe there has ever been an explanation of that. I wonder if that is the reason that this bill has been as my colleague Murray McCully describes it a sea of absolute chaos ever since it was in the hands of the Minister Parekura Horomia. 
Indeed I note that there is no clear commencement date. On 11 November 2000 Parekura Horomia said that the Maori Television Service would be launched early in the next year in 2001. He said it would use only the Maori language in 2001 and then said that using only the Maori language would make the channel unwatchable for most Maori. That is what he said. It was quite fascinating that by 18 February 2001 none other than the Hon Helen Clark said that she saw the establishment of the service was going round and round in circles. This bill has no evidence base whatsoever as to its reason for being. After a year of the Minister saying it would be up and going the Prime Minister said it was going round and round in circles and she wanted options fast. She said that she wanted some decisions and wanted Labour to be in a position to make some decisions instead of seeing the issue go round and round in circles at a bureaucratic level. It was not until 25 February—