Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5279] 
Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill be now read a third time 
. E te rangatira whakahaere korero tena koe. E aku hoa mema o te Kawanatanga me nga mema o Tera Taha tena tatou katoa. I a koutou Winitana e mihi ake ano i a koutou. He kaupapa whakahirahira rawa atu tenei mo nga iwi Maori katoa o Aotearoa mo te reo Maori mo nga tikanga. Na reira he mea nui tonu tenei ki te whakatakoto i Te Pire Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori ki tenei Whare mo te panuitanga tuatoru. Tena tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. To my fellow members of the Government to the members on that side of the House greetings to us all. To you too Winston and the others greetings as well to you. This policy is one of vast importance for all of the Maori people of New Zealand for Maori language and for Maori customs. So indeed it is a privilege to present the Maori Television Service Bill for its third reading. Greetings to us all 
.] 
The Maori Television Service Bill was introduced on 20 November 2001. The first reading took place on 5 December 2001. The bill was then referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration. After careful consideration the Maori Affairs Committee reported the bill back to the House on 7 May 2002 with a number of amendments. The select committee’s amendments were adopted in full during the Committee stage as were a number of further minor amendments put forward. Amendments adopted at the Committee stage include: a new translation of the preamble of the Maori title for the bill; requiring the service to foster where appropriate its broadcasting capacities for appropriate training and education; aligning the provisions relating to the independence of the service with a similar provision in the recently passed Television New Zealand Act; removal of the Kaitiaki Trust; the inclusion of a clause protecting the name Maori Television Service; a tightened and clearer disputes resolution process; and a review of the bill 5 years after enactment. 
The amendments I have listed have been the source of significant debate and to a large extent speak for themselves. The amendments provide greater clarity in some areas and will assist those parties that have to work with the Act. The review of the bill in 5 years’ time is a particularly important addition. It recognises that the bill brings forward a new model of cooperation between the Crown and Maori. It also recognises the creation of a new entity in a fast-changing broadcasting environment. It is appropriate therefore that in 5 years time we take stock of our achievements and address any fine-tuning that may be required. 
Since the commitments made in the early 1990s a dedicated Maori television channel has been a long time coming. In the sense of finalising a Maori need for its usage within this nation the journey has taken nearly 43 years. I am proud to be part of a Government that has remained focused on its commitment to promoting and protecting the Maori language and culture and providing an outlet for showcasing Maori achievement—whether cultural social or commercial. Within Maoridom there are many expectant viewers awaiting the Maori television channel. I envisage that all New Zealanders will come to understand embrace and value the contribution of the Maori Television Service to our identity. We have just witnessed a great finalisation of the settlement with the Ngati Ruanui people. It is important and it would be great if the whole nation were given the opportunity to understand the detail behind the settlement the issues that are relevant to the situation that Ngati Ruanui found itself in throughout our history and its needs today. 
I agree also with Darren Hughes who noted in the House during the second reading of this bill that many Pakeha would be eagerly awaiting the Maori channel. I know that none of those people will be disappointed. The service will provide programming that will entertain promote education and development inspire people in communities and challenge people about who they are and their place in this world. It is well known that nonsensical prejudices prevail at times both in this House and in other areas of the country. It is important that the Maori Television Service is recognised as a platform for better informing this nation’s people and as an asset for all New Zealanders in the future. It is about Maori needs; it is about expressing showing and informing other people better. 
The service will place a particular emphasis on targeting our young people. In terms of Maori demographics 40 percent of our people are in the 14 to 16-year-old group and 65 percent are 25 years and younger. The media they follow and the interconnectivity they have with things like television are well known. I remind the House that over 50 percent of Maori are in those age groups. The service will provide an unparalleled opportunity for Maori to tell their stories and for all New Zealanders to gain a better understanding rather than being fed the nonsense they are at times fed by ill-informed and ill-prepared people who want to continue with scurrilous and scandalous upheavals and scratch the prejudices of people who do not care about the first people of this nation the tangata whenua. 
I thank the people who have played a key role in supporting the establishment of the service. For their support and vision I thank my Cabinet colleagues the Maori Affairs Committee the Maori caucus and the Maori members of other parties who have come up quietly—even though their parties might not have agreed—and said they supported the bill. I feel privileged to have worked with them. I also thank my colleagues in the Green Party for their continuing support in standing against all other prejudices to support this bill. I also thank United Future for the odd times it voted for this bill—contrary to what was said in the newspaper the other day. I know that those members have a vision for seeing a new Maori channel available in every kohanga reo and kura in the country and available also in people’s sitting rooms. That is what it is about. 
More broadly I remind the House that the establishment of the Maori Television Service Bill is the consequence of significant consultation negotiation and agreement between the Government and a number of Maori stakeholder organisations. They include the original claimants in the broadcasting asset case—the New Zealand Maori Council Nga Kaiwhakapumau i te Reo the Te Reo Maori Television Trust Te Putahi Paoho and its representative bodies including the National Maori Congress and the Maori Women’s Welfare League—and especially the hapu iwi and whanau around this country. I acknowledge those organisations and the many individuals who have worked long and hard for this day. 
Of the people associated with those organisations and with the promotion and protection of te reo Maori generally I especially want to recognise Dr Huirangi Waikerepu and Sir Graham Latimer who took the case initially and have campaigned for it over the years. I also acknowledge the board and wish the chair Wayne Walden and the new provisional chief executive well in the sense of their persistence and professionalism. Like the rest of New Zealand I look forward to seeing the results of the hard work and commitment of the service when the channel goes to air. Finally I wish to thank the officials for their work especially those from Te Puni Kokiri. 
I commend the Maori Television Service Bill to this House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the third reading of the Maori Television Service Bill but I am sorry to say that National will not be supporting it as I am sure has been signalled pretty clearly during the second reading and Committee stage of this bill. 
I will give some credit to my colleague John Carter. He was a little bit incredulous that a bill that sets up a Maori Television Service to promote and protect te reo had no Maori title. I give him credit for making that point to me during the Committee stage. That led me to put in a Supplementary Order Paper proposing a Maori title and that made the Minister get cracking in order to put his own title forward. I guess he was probably embarrassed. If one thinks about the so-called flagship projects that this Minister boasted about when he took over 3 years ago one was to be the successful establishment of the Maori Television Service. The second was closing the gaps and we heard a little bit about that earlier in the week and this afternoon. The third was the Maori fisheries allocation and we are still waiting for that to come to this House in the form of legislation. So by the Minister’s own count we might say that he is finally getting legislation through this afternoon that will set up the Maori Television Service but it has been a sorry saga of non-performance and mistake after mistake ever since the Minister said he would get the television service up and running. That is a great shame. 
I am very mindful of the National Government of the early 1990s taking on board the Privy Council recommendations that the New Zealand Government was bound under the treaty to promote and protect te reo and in the sale and allocation of broadcasting assets te reo was seen to be a vital part of that protection obligation. The National Government certainly made some quite significant steps forward in the 1990s. I acknowledge that we did have the saga of Aotearoa Television but one would think that a new Government coming in in 1999 would have been able to take that earlier saga and make sure that no mistakes were made under its stewardship. But no that was not to be. 
As I said earlier this has been a sorry saga of mistake after mistake. We had the total debacle over the appointment of a Canadian with no business experience no Maori experience and no television experience to run the Maori Television Service. The establishment board made the appointment anyway and as the organisation was not legally formed as a proper service the Minister of Maori Affairs was responsible for that. In the end the Minister and his Government are responsible for the debacle that occurred over the John Davy appointment even though they tried to shed their responsibility elsewhere. And as if that was not enough we then had the appointment of Derek Fox as the chief executive who is a guy who was initially appointed as the chairman and who somehow managed to sit on a panel that was interviewing for the chief executive position and then—lo and behold!—he was it. Where is the transparency in that? This Minister must take responsibility for the lack of transparency in that appointment. As we have said on an earlier occasion Derek Fox was initially brought on because he was running a political party that had the capacity in 1999 to oust this Minister so in a sense Derek Fox appears to have been bought off. He is now probably where he always wanted to be—in the position of chief executive officer. He may be the man for the job but the circumstances in which he was appointed have to be decried. Again this Minister must take responsibility for that debacle. 
The problem with those debacles is that a Maori Television Service is something that is probably wanted by a great number of New Zealanders. Many Pakeha say to me that they really have only a couple of sources through which they can even begin to understand the thinking and aspirations of Maori. One of those is the  
Mana News 
 programme which is broadcast every morning on National Radio which a lot of Pakeha listen to and appreciate and the other is the  
Mana 
 magazine. From time to time they also watch  
Marae 
 on Sunday but that is not enough. I talk about two peoples going forward together. We are one nation with many people but with shared values. The wider community has a right to understand the values of Maori which incidentally happen to be values that are probably shared by all of us. However if those Pakeha are waiting around for this television service to happen they have no doubt run out of breath. 
As I said despite some of the hiccups in the 1990s this Government did not seem to learn a thing. In a sense it has presented us with legislation that does not guarantee the success of this service. One has only to listen to the submissions made by the Maori Television Service board itself to hear that it was deeply disappointed in the legislation and right to the end they were probably endeavouring to bring in some changes that would make this legislation a lot more realistic in terms of the major task ahead of the board which is to bring a television service into operation from scratch and to make it successful. This proposal deserved the Minister’s full attention. All the mistakes that have occurred suggest that this Minister is not up to managing or overseeing the establishment of this service and that is a great shame. 
 Maori deserve better. Instead Maori have been brought into disrepute by the mistakes that have been made. That is not fair. New Zealanders deserve better. If we are to have some shared understandings if we are to go forward together in a shared undertaking then this television service could have been an absolutely critical factor in doing that. Instead we are left with legislation that is inappropriate and does not make clear who its stakeholders are or what the basis of funding is. The funding for this service is to be appropriated annually. How does that tie in with the satisfaction of a treaty obligation? I am suggesting that it does not tie in with the satisfaction of a treaty obligation. How does the Crown’s ongoing involvement in this satisfy a treaty obligation? It does not. And those matters are of extreme importance to all those Maori people who for the last 15 to 20 years have laboured long and hard to bring this service to fruition. They have had no answers whatsoever on those matters. 
The only bright spot in all of this—and I said this earlier during the Committee stage—was the appointment of Wayne Walden as the chair. I do not know who I give credit to for that—possibly Wayne himself because he was brought on board to manage the recruitment and management process. At the end of the day I guess he decided that if the thing was to work he had better take over the chairmanship of it. I wish him well. How does one turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse? If anyone can do it hopefully he can. I wish him all the best but this legislation does not have our support. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 It is a sad reflection of today’s climate that informed public debate is often cloaked under the skirt of an ideological mistress trussed up by political correctness and giving birth to dim-witted legislation. The problem is we all end up paying for it at the expense of legitimate issues that could use the resources to better effect. Maori television is but one recent example. 
In 1993 the Privy Council told the Crown that it had a duty actively to protect Maoritanga which includes language and culture. I have no problem with that. As a nation not only do we have an obligation but also an ethical requirement to protect our cultural heritage both for its own sake and for future generations. We have an implicit responsibility and duty to safeguard and nurture the wider interests of Maori as an integral part of this unique cultural heritage that is New Zealand. But these interests can never be absolute. No good can ever come from trying to rewrite history by token gestures that unfairly penalise one segment of our population in favour of another. 
This ideological tactic driven by well-meaning but deluded apologists will always result in added social tensions and will inevitably undermine the very point they are trying to make. Late at night after a couple of glasses of Chardonnay in an office in Parliament Maori television probably sounded like a great idea and a possible vote-catcher. The public has never demanded it. From the broadcast point of view a stand-alone Maori television station makes not one iota of sense. Aotearoa Television Network was a prior attempt and it failed. It failed miserably and suffered an ignominious demise in 1997. Unfortunately some bad ideas do not rest in their graves quietly and like a phoenix on a bad hair day the blueprint for Maori television Mark 2 was resurrected in 2001. This is the kind of thing that happens when a flock of ideologically driven non-Maoris think they have the answers to a problem of their own creation. 
Where in the Privy Council ruling was there a broadcasting directive? If we really want to protect Maori language and culture we would empower Maori to make their own decisions so that if there were legitimate needs for Maori television it could be funded by Maori accountable to Maori shareholders with the same economic rules of the game as for every other player. The whole process could be driven and supported by Maori at large. There should not be any doubts about that. 
The problem is that Maori television has succumbed to business practice error No. 1 and that is identifying a need that is not there. The second mistake is to fund a venture by the deep pockets of the taxpayer so there are no market incentives to succeed. How else can anyone explain the tsunami of practical blunders which has earned its architects and advocates an industry raspberry and a black mark on their respective résumés. That approach would surely have sent any other enterprise into the realms of oblivion. The Canadian chief executive officer who was initially appointed through a woefully inadequate vetting procedure was discovered to have falsified his CV and ended up bankrupt and in prison. He has since turned up in Afghanistan of all places pursuing some other employment possibility. Learning nothing from that folly Derek Fox who was one of those engaged in the interviewing process for a new chief executive officer suddenly switched chairs and assumed the position himself. Apart from all the accountability and transparency issues could we really not find one person who is experienced and competent and who wanted the job before looking inward? Is there not a red flag in all of that? 
To cap that two people from a key supplier to the enterprise were at the centre of a scandal at Aotearoa Television Network involving the spending of around $8000 each on clothes travel and five-star hotels. One of those people was later given an additional $1.6 million to make yet another documentary series— 
Hawaiki 
 for the Maori Television Service and even more for another series  
Rongoa 
. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They’ll get on to the estimates. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: That is exactly right. So it goes on. The latest audit on accounting practices at Aroha Films has thrown up even more questions. Two production companies allocated as much as $700000 have collapsed leaving bad debts; signatures obtained in advance for cheque payments; original invoices made out to outside parties; photocopy printing and stationery costs nearly three times that budgeted; and $270 for—of all things—speeding fines disguised as “equipment rental”. Aroha Films has paid $152000 in consultancy fees has been billed for home renovations has $24000 of payments to employees in dispute and paid out a whopping sum of $94835 in petty cash in the 5 months between April and August. 
 National got it wrong the first time. Even with the benefit of that experience we now have a Labour Government hell-bent on following the example of lemmings with Maori television. Experience has seemingly taught Government absolutely nothing. Rather than treading warily the Minister of Broadcasting Steve Maharey says that the Maori Television Service will be “one of the most exciting public broadcasting projects ever attempted”. Yet the Minister claims there will be only a niche market for it. If that is the case why not let the niche market pay for it? Why should others have to pay for what they do not want will not be a part of nor will benefit from? We could underwrite struggling regional television and require the inclusion of targeted Maori programming if that is what we really need to do. At the very least we would not be wasting our money on infrastructure but would create new employment possibilities and a talent pool for the future for the major networks. Taxpayers have other more important priorities. If we really want to do something positive for the social cultural and economic development of Maori we could put resources into early interventions and stem the appalling rise in crime health and unemployment statistics. Only those divorced from any sense of reality and fiscal responsibility could possibly support this bill and it is a bill—one paid for by the unwitting taxpayer. 
Let me now highlight some of our major concerns. Just because the Crown has an obligation to protect Maori taonga and te reo that does not infer any sort of a broadcasting directive let alone the establishment of a television channel. The Privy Council ruling was not that specific. If we were serious about protecting Maori language and culture we would empower Maori to do it themselves. The function of the service is supposed to have been to provide te reo through a high-quality and cost-effective service. This will never happen because there are no real market incentives for it to operate in such a fashion. A clause in legislation telling it to operate efficiently will not simply cause it to do so unless there are real incentives—incentives that can come only from private enterprise. We all know the inevitable outcome: a tax dollar black hole. The service is supposed to remain independent of ministerial interference from programming. Would it really air anything likely to offend a politically favourable Government lest it lose the taxpayer dollars that it feeds off? 
Let us look at competence issues. Its first chief executive officer John Davy with a fraudulent CV is now in Afghanistan. The appointment process for the next chief executive officer is doubtful. The new chief executive officer already had a falling out with a Government over the transmission platform. Stated initially what he wanted was resources of $100 million to start up. How does he think he will be able to do a job with one-third of that? Key programming supplier Aotearoa Television is hardly a shining example of cost-effectiveness. Aroha Films came out of an audit looking foolish has been billed for someone else’s home renovations and managed to spend $94000 on petty cash in 5 months. The transmission platform chosen for the service was one of the worst possible choices made. Not only was it bitterly opposed by the service itself—which wanted CanWest’s TV4—but it is now confined to transmitting on an outdated UHF frequency that is available to about 22 percent of the present potential viewer audience. As a final kick in the teeth those who are actually interested in watching the service but who cannot receive it will have to fork out an additional $200 to have a suitable aerial installed. 
This bill is the single worst example perpetrated by non-Maori apologists and is nothing more than taxpayer-funded tokenism. It is in fact a slap in the face for Maori paid for by the slapped faces of the taxpayer. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be opposing this bill I am sorry to say. We have some real concerns about it. The area I want to cover is clause 76 in Part 3. That provision deals with the transfer of assets and liabilities to the already troubled Maori Television Service television station. 
But first the bill has been introduced to establish a service to promote and teach te reo. With regard to te reo training I have to concede that I support that part of the bill. As members heard in the previous reading of the bill my mother-in-law would be very disappointed if she were to hear that I am against that part of the programme. But the important thing is that the programmes are of high quality. Another function is to be cost-effective. Well we have heard this afternoon how negative the effect of being cost-effective is. So we have some real queries about that. The service also is to provide translation into English and Maori. I ask members why that was not done through Television One TV2 or TV3. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: They can translate from Maori to English. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: It is not a problem and the savings would be astronomical. Sadly $50 million will not get us there. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Better than $11 million. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Right let us move on. Let us get back to the assets side of it. I ask the Minister what the assets are. Are there any assets? Are the service and the transmitters assets? Will the intellectual property right on the programmes and the registration of the programmes be assets? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Yes. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Thank you. Are the vehicles currently owned by the organisation assets? 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Yes. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: They are all nodding away there but the trump card is coming up. What about furniture and high-tech equipment? The question I want to ask now is whether they are leased or on hire purchase. If they are leased or on hire purchase and if this organisation goes bottom up those assets will not be owned by the service. The hire purchase companies and the lease companies will have preferential ownership of those assets. Those are some of the concerns I want to put to the Minister. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It’s like our land. We thought we owned it but other people took it. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Oh well the member is addressing that; we will address it too when we get there. 
Why should we be so concerned? The Minister of Broadcasting Mr Steve Maharey in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on 20 April 2003 referred to an award-winning Maori production company based out of Ruatoria. Through my own research I have found out that it is a quality company. It is an asset. One of its series was the  
Moko Toa 
 series which we all know about. It is a qualified production company. But the plug has been pulled because funding is not available through the Maori Television Service. Given that that company was making programmes like that I say that the production companies that are to be brought on board now will produce inferior programmes. 
Let me touch on some liabilities. What are they? Again we do not know. I have just spoken about assets. I ask the Minister where we sit currently with the Viaduct Basin building. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What building is that? 
EDWIN PERRY 
: The one at the Viaduct Basin that is costing something like half-a-million dollars a year. Where does the lease sit with the service? Are there any ongoing costs? I might be helping the Minister to find out what is actually happening to that building. Are there some liabilities? I believe that there are some liabilities with that particular building and they are hidden liabilities. Are there any hidden liabilities that may announce themselves through some of the production companies? In my own research I found that there may be and there will be some liabilities coming back on the organisation that could be a hidden cost. 
The Minister knows and I know that there are other serious issues that face the Maori people and here we are spending $50 million on something that may be a miss-and-hit station. Can I just touch on the areas of need. One is Maori secondary schools. They may look nice from the outside but on the inside they need revamping. They need new carpet and new state-of-the-art teaching aids. Just last night here in Parliament we heard a young group of Maori screaming out for funding for their programme. At this point I must say that Te Mangai Paho did help them with some funding. But the $50 million that the Minister is to spend on this television station could be spent on a lot of other areas where it would be productive and positive in respect of our people. 
I also want to touch on the funding. The Budget is coming around. I say to the Minister that if the Maori population is 12 percent of the total population then why is he not getting 12 percent of the Budget for this television station. With regard to te reo teaching we know that there are enough organisations in the country. Kanohi to kanohi eye to eye is the best tool. Our old people never had television with which to teach people te reo. They did it on the marae kanohi to kanohi. I say to the Minister in relation to all these private organisations that our marae are the most sacred place where te reo should be taught by our old kaumatua within our own iwi who know the kawa and the tikanga of that particular area or hapu or rohe. 
There are some problems with the coverage. We have heard before in this House that a lot of areas throughout Aotearoa will not receive coverage. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: 92 percent can. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: We will see; we have heard a lot of other good things about it. If that is the case it will be good. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It will be good news. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: I do not think it will be good news; that is the only thing I am concerned about. 
Let me talk about the board which has been touched on many times before in this House. Let us hope that the board does not make the same mistakes as it did with Mr Davy. We need people who have the skills to smell out somebody who comes along to try to fit us up—and I am talking about us about Maori as well. We need to be aware that there are qualified people on that board. 
 Can I talk about the chairman? I also applaud as my fellow MP Georgina te Heuheu did—and I am sure our Maori members across the House do too—Wayne Walden’s appointment. He is a man who has been successful in business. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: We did appoint him. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Yes I know. The Government had to find somebody to clean up the Maori Television Service. He will clean it up—I hope he does. He will sniff out the ones who are not performing. 
The only other concern I have is in respect of the appointment of our whanaunga Derek Fox. Why was he not appointed at the beginning? That is all I say. 
Darren Hughes 
: It was not good enough! 
EDWIN PERRY 
: No it was not good enough. He should have been there at the beginning. He is the right man to run this service. He is the right man to look at the programmes. But the board got sucked in by a guy who came across from Canada with all the credit cards and all the CVs and what did he do? He fitted us up. All I will say is that again this is a hit-or-miss thing. The Minister knows and I know that if the money were spent in other areas it would be more beneficial to our people. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development)) 
: 
 Sometimes I cannot but be amazed at what I hear in this House when it comes to anything to do with Maori development. I hear people talking about unwitting taxpayers having to pay for the Maori Television Service and there is no consideration that Maori people pay tax too. We are big taxpayers. Not only that; one should think about where those “unwitting taxpayers” got their wealth from originally. I think we should have a few history lessons around here before members start carrying on in the way that they do—trying to make us feel as if our hands are always out for a handout instead of a hand-up to where we should have been in the first place. 
The retention of te reo is a very important aspect of our treaty rights. Te reo is our access to our culture. It is who we are as a people. It is our whakapapa. It is the essence of who we are. Those of us who have had the misfortune to lose te reo or not to have te reo because of the way in which we have been educated to think about ourselves know that loss far more than anybody could say. 
I am always surprised when the National Government is critical of any Maori developments. When one thinks about the history of government in this country and the number of years that the National Party was in Government one has to ask what it has done that has assisted our people to go forward to take charge of their own development and to be independent people. Yet it criticises every single move that this Government makes to try to address those issues. Anything that is about positive development is negated by those in Opposition. I think that is tragic. 
I was thinking about Derek Fox. There is nobody better suited to be the chief executive officer of Maori television. He is a living taonga. Under article 2 of the treaty he should have been appointed as of right to be the head of Maori television. Name someone better! We sit in this House and listen to people putting down every action that our people take. If we look at the developments that are taking place—[ 
Interruption 
] Is it not funny? I one day heard that member’s party talking about tikanga in the House—about members shouting across being rude and being negative. But what do we see right now? 
Actually the member would be surprised to know that I agree with him. I do not agree that we need to be negative about personalities or the issues that are confronting us. I want to be positive and I say that we need to be seeing positive images of ourselves. We need Maori television. The media are so negative about our people. Our young people need to have hope about their future and the way for them to have hope is for us at least to have control over this form of media; for us to have the ability to communicate right into the sitting rooms of our families so that they can see the positive things—and there are many positive things happening throughout our country. 
That is the reason I totally support Maori television. I see it as a tool for our development a tool that we absolutely need. Sure some mistakes have been made and there may be some mistakes made in future but we have had agencies make mistakes with our people with the result that millions of dollars have gone down the tubes and do we hear anybody in this House complain about that? No. But the moment the money gets into Maori hands and mistakes are made it is a damned different story and some of us are sick of it. I am sure there are some people on the other side who really are sick of it as well. 
There is a huge opportunity with Maori television. Large amounts of really positive information that are stored away can be brought out and put on to Maori television so that we can take advantage of it and be educated about a whole range of things. 
I go back to retention of te reo because that is why the television service has begun. I have heard people in the House asking why we do not do that through Television One or TV3 or whatever. Television has been around a long time and what do we see? We see that 5 minutes of  
Te Karere 
 has grown to 15 minutes. We see very few positive things on television about our people. Even  
Te Karere 
 buys into the mainstream television thing of negative reporting. It reports every negative event. How many times when we get around the country to really positive events do we find a television camera there? Kaore; there is none. I think the Maori Television Service is a really really important development and I like to think that those of us in the House who are tangata whenua will see it as such. I hope that our friends in the United Future party will look to the positive rather than continuing to look to the negative and will see the potential of this television service. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour— 
John Carter 
: Point of order— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: There are calls. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member had not called when the member had finished and I have put the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I called and you are just being silly and offensive to the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member did not call. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I called. To have an acting Speaker behave in that way is just an outrage. You may run things that way on your little councils but this is an outrage. You know the rules and you know who wants to speak on this matter. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated please. The member did not call and I have put the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I have called. Now you are calling me a liar. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s behaviour is disorderly. The member will leave the Chamber please. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No I will not. I want to speak in this debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber please. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No I will not. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am putting the vote and the member— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No you are not putting the vote. I have called and you have refused to call me. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be quiet. The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No I will not. I wish to speak on this matter. You are actually preventing debate. You are not behaving like a Speaker. You are just trying to play up to your Government members. You are not behaving as a Speaker. Your behaviour is completely disorderly. Then you accused me of not calling when I rose to call. Then you carried on calling the debate. You are being silly now. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s behaviour— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You are lying to this House.