Franks Stephen: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5081] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I hope that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is listening to me because I think there is a matter that he would have a close interest in. Clause 72 “Protection of trustees” has a provision in subclause (2) that is deeply confusing. It appears on first reading as though it states if a trustee officer or agent refuses to help set up this legislation—the words are: “ … fails or refuses to act in order to prepare for or assist in the implementation of this Act”—then he or she cannot be held liable. The other interpretation is that if he or she does fail or refuse to act in order to prepare for or assist in the implementation of the legislation—in other words if he or she does something in order to assist—then he or she cannot be held liable. I think that anyone whether a lawyer or non-lawyer who reads subclause (2) will see two completely opposite meanings for that subclause and there is nothing in the grammar or context that really states what it is that the Government is trying to do. 
Clause 72 is about the protection of trustees. I assume that they already have a protection in their trust deed. I would be very surprised if they had taken on the trustee exposures if they did not have a protection in their trust deed. So the provision in clause 72 must be intended to add a new kind of protection for them. But is that a protection for trying to delay block or change some aspect of the legislation or is it a protection for not doing one of those things? I can see no indication from the context about what was intended. 
The second point concerns clause 74 which states that the directors of the service must be appointed as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of this legislation “in accordance with section 24.” I turn to clause 24 and see it simply states that the board must consist of seven directors four appointed by Te Putahi Paoho and three by the responsible Ministers. To understand what is going on we then have to go to schedule 2 where the appointment provisions are set out. When we go to that schedule and try to imagine what clause 74 will mean in practice we find that that clause is a very covert discreet signal that we then have some joint action by the Ministers and Te Putahi Paoho. An almost hilariously detailed set of definitions has been set out. 
Clause 74 is a little 5-line clause but behind it lurks pages and pages of definition—on suitability conflicts of interest financial probity tests and the whole 9 yards. All of that is implicit in company law and would be totally unnecessary if clause 74 simply stated: “The directors shall be appointed as if they were directors of a company and have all the duties responsibilities liabilities and requirements of directors of a company except that—” and the Government might then have been able to tell us quite clearly why it was that this service was not a company. But nothing in Part 3 tells us that. Indeed nothing anywhere else in the bill tells us why the service was not made a company. 
I think we can then find out why the service will not be a company. It is because this legislation is a carefully cobbled-together set of compromises that are entirely political and are set up to allow the Ministers in fact to control the outfit without alerting Maori to just how deeply they are being patronised. New Subpart 2A which contains new clause 76A “Review of Act” underscores that. Clause 76A(1) states: “The responsible Ministers must as soon as practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement day”—in other words 5 years from now—“(a) commence a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act …”. It is not to be a review of the Maori Television Service but of this legislation in accordance with the terms of reference set out by the Ministers. 
 There is nothing in the Maori Affairs Committee’s report that tells us what it is up to here. Clearly someone said this legislation was a dog and someone else said the committee should not worry about that because the legislation would be looked at in 5 years’ time. That is the most amazing code of acceptance of failure. Even with that little safeguard the Government was so hopeless in the drafting and presentation of this bill that we have had a shambles today concerning which amendments go forward and which do not. This legislation is an abject failure.