Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5008] 
Maori Television Service Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clause 1 Title ( 
continued 
)  
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I am pleased to see that my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has handed in an amendment on the basis of a suggestion that I made. I now understand that Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First has made a further amendment and also that there is a further amendment from the Government. If that is correct could the Minister nod? I understand the Government will move an amendment also. 
The ironic thing about this situation is that those amendments have come about as a suggestion from a non-Maori of this Committee 
Hon Member 
: Does the member mean a New Zealander? 
JOHN CARTER 
: A New Zealander who is not of Maori descent. 
Hon Member 
: The member has a Maori name. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I have a Maori name only by adoption. It seems strange to me that suddenly we now have three amendments: one from the Government one from New Zealand First and the best one naturally from Georgina te Heuheu. That had to come about as the result of a suggestion from someone who was not involved in the Maori Affairs Committee but who sat here tonight and thought it was very odd not to have a Maori title for a bill that is all about issues that relate to Maori. Other bills pass before this Committee that are not directly related to Maori issues such as the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. That bill had some additional Maori wording that I cannot pronounce properly so I will not try to do so. It has become a habit to have an English and a Maori part of a title. 
I am absolutely amazed that this bill was just named in English the “Maori Television Service Bill.” I am staggered that the Minister for example who said that this bill is intended to teach people about the Maori language has used English to describe it. That is quite extraordinary. I would have thought that the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia would at the very least have wanted to say that this bill is all about teaching people the Maori language so therefore surely the first thing that people should see when they pick up the bill is some Maori wording. They should also hear it when they turn the television on—which of course is something that the Minister will have to learn. However we will teach him that on the way through as well—it is the “on” button. 
But I would have thought that the Minister would have wanted to present this as the Maori Television Service Bill with that title then followed by—or even preceded by—the very good wording put in by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu. It surprises me that this bill was sent from the Minister to the select committee. I find it very strange to think that other members of the select committee did not even click on to the fact that there should have been some Maori wording in the title. 
It is interesting that that has now suddenly become a fad. In fact three or four of us might end up putting in amendments to the title to make sure that the Maori language is properly recognised. That is important. If the purpose of this bill is as the Government says it is—to allow New Zealanders to learn the Maori language—then surely to goodness that should be reflected in the title. I say to the Minister as I have said before that I am not certain whether we will achieve that. We will have further debate on that when we get into the parts of the bill with amazing deficiencies and debate the lack of accountability there will be as a consequence of that. The $55 million of taxpayers’ money that will be spent on not achieving anything is an issue that we will be debating. 
But right now we are in the narrow debate on the title and I know that the Chairperson will be calling me back shortly to talk about it. So I thank him; it is good to see that he responds to prompts like that. I say to the Committee that when we are debating the title of a bill it is important that the title reflects the intent of the bill. I believe that when somebody picks this bill up that person will not see this title do that. It states “television” but not “learning”. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Mr Carter’s speech took the words out of my mouth. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that the Government would provide a bill that is meant to advance te reo Maori and not have a Maori title for it. It is quite laughable that the Government should omit from the title the very thing it says it is trying to promote. I see that we now have a very rushed amendment from the Government seeking to correct that situation by coming up with a name though I note that name is different from the name the Hon Georgina te Heuheu came up with. That now creates some confusion in terms of which one of those names is the correct Maori translation. I understand there is a translation of Te Ture mo te Ratonga Pouaka Whakaata Maori but we do not have a translation of the Government’s version of the title. So now we are left trying to work out the correct wording in Maori for the Maori Television Service. 
I think that is rather strange. I was trying to look for an explanation of why that had occurred. Going back to the preamble it seems to me that we should compare it with the comments the Minister made prior to the dinner break. He referred to the Privy Council’s decision and the preamble—which stated that the Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori by the use of both radio and television broadcasting—and he said that he saw the provisions of this bill as fulfilling that obligation. I get the impression that basically the Government feels a sort of obligation arising from the 1994 decision of the Privy Council and is therefore putting this bill in as a sort of a cop-out out of a feeling that it is fulfilling its obligations by putting this bill together. Therefore the Government is simply saying it has signed that issue off now and has completed its obligations to preserve te reo Maori through television and radio by putting this bill in. Now that it has done that the Government thinks it can throw that issue out of the way. 
As I mentioned previously I think the Government has simply sidelined the issue and effectively sidelined the whole advancement of te reo through radio and television broadcasting by putting te reo into a separate television station that nobody will watch and that will then have a very limited viewership. I reiterate that there is absolutely no data to suggest how many people will watch this station but given the debate over the broadcasting frequency the service will use it appears that people will have to buy television aerials in order to watch it so that will mean it is very isolated. 
The Minister has it wrong when he interprets the Privy Council’s decision as stating that the Maori Television Service is necessary in order to comply with that decision. That is not what it states. It states that the Government—in fact the Government accepted an obligation to use radio and television— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must speak to the title. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I am speaking to the title because I am speaking to the amendment that was put in to include a Maori version of the title. 
I think that the word “Service” should come out of the title. I accept that it is “Maori Television” but I do not think that it is a service at all. Instead of using the breadth of radio and television throughout New Zealand to promote the Maori language we will have one station that very few people will be watching and all the money for te reo advancement that is coming through from the Government will be directed into the programming for that station. So we will find a situation where there is no money for national and regional television to promote te reo Maori because it has all gone to this television channel that nobody will watch. That is absolutely farcical. 
The Government is effectively doing a huge disservice to Maori and to te reo Maori by isolating and segregating it instead of encouraging New Zealanders as a whole to learn te reo and encouraging its use within the whole sphere of New Zealand through regional television in particular but through national television as well. There are far far better ways for television and radio to be advancing this cause so I do not think there is a service here at all. In order to have a service there needs to be people to serve. Therefore I do not think that this is the right title for this bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to address the title. Let us look at the date on the title—2001. It is now April 2003 and that reflects this Government’s commitment to preserving the Maori language. If we go back through some of the history of the Maori Television Service we can see from  
nga korero o te wa 
 that it goes back to September 1997. It states that a Maori television network was proposed by an Auckland-based tangata whenua television company. It stated that Te Mangai Paho would be replaced by a seven-member Maori broadcasting commission which would set and monitor standards. It would be a Maori-owned limited liability company that would run a national channel. Funding at that stage was to come from a 10 percent cultural tax on radio and television advertising and the Te Mangai Paho share of the broadcasting licence fee. The Minister might like to take a call and tell us what happened to that cultural tax. Thank heavens it never saw the light of day. 
We were looking forward to a Maori television bill being passed in 1997. In October 2000 the same people were still involved—Robert Pouwhare Hone Harawira Joanna Paul—and a number of others: Tainui Stephens Hone Edwards and a trust group under a banner. It said it was now tweaking the proposal to make it ready for the new Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should not be talking about the principles of the bill. The debate on the title is a very narrow debate. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am focusing on the date in the title which is 2001 and the time that it has taken to get the bill to this stage. The story comes back to 2000 when the bill was still going to be passed. It is now 2003. 
I move on to the wording of the title. I notice that elsewhere in the bill—and we will debate this later—the Government has proposed the protection of the title and a Maori translation of that title. But I agree with the National member Georgina te Heuheu that it is extraordinary that it took her to table an amendment providing that the title should have a translation. If we look at the current craze for translating every title into Maori we see the Inland Revenue Department is named Te Tari Taake for example. The names of all other Government departments have Maori translations. We even have the Race Relations Commissioner suggesting that private companies should translate their names into Maori. So it is indeed extraordinary that there was no Maori title for this bill. 
But then again maybe that is not extraordinary. Maybe it is a reflection of the true spirit of this Government—that did not bother to provide a translation of the title even though we have had the debacle over the translation in the preamble. By the time that the Government got to the title it could not be bothered to provide a translation of it. That reflects that it is just paying lip-service to its alleged commitment to protecting Maori language and culture. 
If the Government were really true to its principles and if it really believed what it says about protecting the language it would have used the resources that were used to provide the translation in the preamble to provide a translation of the title—not pages further on not buried somewhere in the bill. It would have made the effort to provide a translation of the title in clause 1 if it were really true to its commitment to protecting Maori language and culture. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 In speaking to the title of this Maori Television Service Bill I find it somewhat astonishing that the Labour Government forgot to put a Maori title on this bill. Not only did the Labour Government forget but the Maori Affairs Committee forgot. Let us just have a look at what the main provision of the bill is supposed to do. The bill establishes the Maori Television Service and sets out its functions which include as its “principal” function to promote te reo Maori. I repeat its “principal” function is to promote te reo Maori. Just 24 hours ago we were debating the National Library bill and what did the Government have to say? It said the bill provided the Maori world with a presence within the National Library by including the existing Maori name of the National Library. Why is it that the Minister of Maori Affairs forgot to put the name in Maori and it took my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to bring an amendment in tonight to satisfy the principal function of this bill? I certainly endorse the timely and appropriate amendment that she has made. 
I might say that there is a considerable and somewhat colourful background to this bill. Indeed the title should perhaps reflect some of the other things that have gone on. Maybe it would have been appropriate to have called this bill the “Helen Clark and Dr Ross Armstrong Memorial Bill” or perhaps even the “Labour Government (Support a Canadian Fraudster) Bill”. I say that because on 15 March 2002 one Parekura Horomia said of John Davies: “He’s the best person for the job.” Speaking about applications for the job Derek Fox went on to say that there was no perfect answer but that the board had come down on the side of strong financial and management control. Derek Fox said: “I am confident the guy will deliver.” So there is another alternative— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please come back to the title. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: —or perhaps we could just call it the “Derek Fox Fund Bill”. Speaking strictly to the title I say that because on 26 October 2001 the chairman’s fee was set at $36000. A year later on 22 September 2002 one Derek Fox was paid $84000 as a pay cheque; $50000 in expenses. But the other and final alternative— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I bring the member back to the title. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: —this is going to the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is a very narrow debate. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It could be just the “Parekura Horomia (Let’s put the Maori Title in at the Last Moment) Bill” because that really is the point of it. We have had three amendments in a couple of hours about something that was so plainly obvious. This is the bill that has as its principal function the promotion of te reo Maori. It took my colleague—fortunately conscientious and studious—to remind the Committee that that vital function should actually be adhered to in the title of this bill. 
I must say I was interested to hear Dover Samuel’s somewhat shrill concern that he had forgotten to place the Maori translation to the title of this bill. He did bring up the difficulty that he was prepared to give the Ngapuhi translation but that that could possibly be different from the Tuwharetoa translation. So when the Minister gets around to talking about why he failed so miserably in the first instance to place a Maori title to this bill I am hoping that he will be able to accurately describe his title. 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In the hope that the next speaker is more relevant and speaks to the title I am going to call the honourable member Jim Peters. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 “Relevance” is the real issue in this title—the relevance of time the relevance of intention and the relevance of where we are now in 2003. This bill looks at a period of optimism right back in 2000 when there was a brave new world out there for those sitting on the other side of the Chamber. In their ignorance they thought that all things were possible and in a buoyant economy it seemed that all things were possible. Most of all they thought they could remedy the previous Government’s inability to translate the 1993 decision into action. The title of the Maori Television Service Bill reflects that exactly It reflects the optimism of members over there and the expectations they had of somehow accomplishing the intention that the Privy Council had put before them—which was also the feeling amongst Maori television people and the industry. 
Sadly although there were 10 submissions—nine of which were heard—and 3 hours of committee consideration a year later we sit here with an unfulfilled intention with regard to the title of the Maori Television Service Bill. Therefore in view of the discussions that have already gone before I rise to support my colleagues’ very firm intention that—unlike the members opposite who somehow got it wrong—we on this side of the Chamber now have two alternatives. Each one of them recognises in its language and spirit what those members should have recognised—that this title deserved to be not the Maori Television Service Bill but something that would truly reflect the aspirations of those who look to have the language in a secure place and in terms of their original desire—one that would be placed in the perspective of our airwaves and before our eyes visually which is one of the marks of modern television. I support my colleagues’ intention in terms of the pathway or roadway to the whole world that this visual demonstration which is our modern television service can and ought to open up. 
I am mindful of the fact that where I come from 18 percent of people will never see this television station because that is the reality with regard to the choice of frequency that this bill will put into place should present plans go ahead. In our district 18 percent will never see this channel and that is a shame. That is a real issue for the Minister to consider. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Party 8. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “Service” the words “(Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori)”; and 
to add the following new subclause : 
(2)this Act may be cited as either— 
the Maori Television Service Act 2003; or 
Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori Act 2003. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Party 8. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is good to see the member doing his homework. I refer him to Standing Order 301 which states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” I now wish to continue the voting. As members are aware there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to add a new subclause (2). That amendment is now out of order because the Minister’s amendment has been agreed. Her amendment is therefore inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendment is in the name of the honourable Bill Gudgeon. That too is out of order as it is also inconsistent with the decision that has already been taken with the passing of the Minister’s amendment. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is a very strange ruling. The fact is that the Committee has certainly made an amendment. It now accepts the Minister’s amendment but that does not mean to say that the Committee if it were of a mind could not make further amendments to the bill. It is not inconsistent. I know that there are times when an amendment is inconsistent as a consequence of a decision made but this is not inconsistent. It means that if Georgina te Heuheu’s or Bill Gudgeon’s amendment were accepted that would then become the name of the bill. It does not mean that there is an inconsistency; it just means that the Committee has since moved on and changed its mind. It is not a matter of whether there is a conflict; it is a matter of the Minister’s amendment being one form of wording and the Committee deciding whether there is to be another form. In that case I think we should be putting Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment. If that is passed then we might want to consider Bill Gudgeon’s amendment and the Committee will decide on both accordingly. 
Jim Peters 
: A consideration of the Minister’s amendment alongside that of my colleague Bill Gudgeon’s in regard to the language used will show a similarity of purpose and language intent. Therefore there is no inconsistency. In view of that not being inconsistent with the Minister’s intention there seems to us to be no reason that Bill Gudgeon’s amendment cannot proceed and that there is nothing inconsistent with the language that is used with regard to the total meaning of the Minister’s language. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again say that the Committee has decided on the title and it cannot go back over that. It means therefore that the other amendments are inconsistent. It is a longstanding tradition that where that happens that is what takes place. I am the sole judge of relevancy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Clause 1 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Party 8. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions and provisions to establish Maori Television Service and Te Putahi Paoho 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments in relation to the purpose clause clause 3. I am pleased that Minister Turia is in the Chamber because of all the Maori members on the other side of the Chamber she is the one who thinks most deeply about the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I know she was not in the Chamber earlier when I made my remarks about the lack of clarity in the preamble as to whether the establishment of this service is in satisfaction of a treaty obligation or of some social obligation that the Government has tried to import into this whole arena. 
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 …” then it sets out certain purposes. I ask the Minister or any Maori member on the other side of the Chamber this question: where in the treaty is there an obligation on Maori to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori? Of course Maori are going to do that anyway. In the face of the denigration of te reo for the last 163 years Maori have doggedly insisted upon protection of te reo. I want to know why when certain Crown obligations are being imported into legislation the Government suddenly also imports an obligation on the part of Maori to protect it. What statutory governance or sovereign powers do Maori hold that give them an accountability for the protection of the Maori language? I refer again to page 3 of the preamble. Under the heading “Background in English” paragraph (2) states: “In the litigation that culminated in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council … the Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori …”. That is the Crown’s obligation. 
The whole purpose of Maori taking litigation before both the tribunal and the courts was to prove an obligation on the part of the Crown and in the Waitangi Tribunal report on te reo and in the litigation to the Privy Council that was proven by the Maori litigants. Now when this Government comes to set up a Maori Television Service it is somehow important to that background to have without any just cause an obligation on the part of Maori. So there is a sort of partnership going on here and it puts the obligation on both parties—Crown and Maori together. There is no such obligation on the part of Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. I want the Minister to take a call and say how he can sit there allow this legislation to go through the House and somehow be part of importing into it an obligation on the part of Maori to protect the Maori language. 
This legislation is all about the obligations incumbent upon the Crown and let us not forget that. But that is symptomatic of the mishmash of obligations and responsibilities that are littered throughout this bill and that is why in one of my opening contributions this afternoon I raised the issue of whether the Government is sincere in suggesting that this is indeed in satisfaction of those obligations that the Privy Council found to be existing in 1993. As I say I want the Minister to explain that to us because it is not good enough. When the Maori Television Service came before the Maori Affairs Committee it raised that very issue of where the treaty imports an obligation on the part of Maori to protect the Maori language. Maori have been the victims of this non-protection of te reo ever since the signing of the treaty. So how does this make sense? I am suggesting that it does not make sense. It is importing into something an idea that is not there and has no right to be there. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It is very interesting to see the reference to the year 2001. Quite simply it is a case of wishful thinking on the part of the Government to have ever thought that this bill would be passed during 2001. I do remember standing here and asking the Minister when he thought the Maori Television Service was going to be on air and he told the House that he hoped it would be by the middle of 2001. Well here we are a couple of years later and we do not even have a start date for this television station. What project would we ever find in the private sector that would invest millions of dollars per annum without a project start date in mind? It would not happen in the private sector. This project is the flagship project of the Government and it has just been an absolute disaster from start to finish. 
This part deals with the establishment of the service. Let us just remember a few facts about the establishment of the service. It is a little known fact that the Maori Television Service has been acting without any official status whatsoever and that is why Te Puni Kokiri has been largely responsible for every decision or lack of decision that has been made by the Maori Television Service over the last 3 years. Let us just remember the appointment of Mr John Davy. When it transpired in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that there were some concerns about Mr Davy’s qualifications what did we hear from Derek Fox? He said that the appointment process was “robust and correct.” [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Running commentaries are out of order. The member might like to have a look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: He said that Mr Davy was doing “a great job” and that there was no reason to question his qualifications or to look behind his degree which if I remember rightly was from the Ashland School of Business a university that exists only on the Internet. So what did the Government do next? It bagged Millennium People and its management of the appointment process. Michael Cullen stood up in the House and said that Millennium People was a “bunch of amateurs” and that the whole process was an absolute shambles. That poor company is no longer as a result of the negative comments of the Government. 
This part sets up the accountability framework of the Maori Television Service and that I think is something that all members of the Committee are very interested in. We have been wanting to know for a long time how accountable the Maori Television Service is in terms of its expenditure. One of the key things that the directors seemed to make up their minds about was the level of their fees and an increase in their fees. In terms of accountability because they have no legal status some of the decisions that have been made quite clearly would not stack up in other circumstances. I refer to things like questionable tendering processes—the idea that one can have a closed tender and invite only a few friends to put in a tender for certain equipment and buildings—and looking at swanky premises down at the Viaduct with views of the America’s Cup. No television business in its right mind would set up in the most expensive real estate in Auckland overlooking I might add premises in other areas of Auckland city that are less expensive. 
I am glad this part deals with the whole issue of conflict of interest because some really quite unusual decisions were made by some board members such as the whole idea that a tender could be let to Sony—and miraculously one of the directors on the board just happened to be an employee of Sony. The whole project from start to finish has been mishandled and I think the Minister knows that. Things have happened within the Maori Television Service that quite frankly would not be acceptable in any other Government department. But things have been allowed to muddle on. We do not have a start date. That is an absolute shambles. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 1 mentions the commencement. The question is when? What are the delays and why? Is it funding or the lack of it? Who is responsible? Is it management? The taxpayers are asking questions. When will the bill receive the royal assent? Those are the questions that are out there and amongst us in this Committee. Why where and what? How? Who is responsible? Millions of dollars are being invested in this programme but nothing has happened yet. 
Part 1 sets out the purpose. It describes the purpose as recognition that the Crown and Maori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve protect and promote te reo. The purpose of this Act is to provide for the establishment and functions to protect te reo Maori. That is what the purpose should be about. It is all about how what where and why. What will the outcomes be? Will it just be another form of entertainment? As I said before would it not be interesting to conduct a survey to see how much of the language will be learnt through this form of media? When this programme gets going will there be facilitators who will help assist those learners of the language when they view those programmes? That is the real crux and challenge of that programme. The Government says that it will hold fast to the Treaty of Waitangi obligations of the Crown and it says it will protect the language so that people will learn their tikanga and those things that are dear to them in the language especially. Yet where is the provision for assistance when that programme gets going? For example what if my people say: “I don’t understand what’s being said on that programme. How am I supposed to learn when there is nobody there to facilitate?”. How are they to say to us that the vowel sounds are not right—that it is not “a e i o u.” but “ah eh ee o oo” in order to be precise on the pronunciation of the language? That is the challenge. If $55 million is to be spent on this programme each year it had better have very very positive results otherwise people will be saying: “Plastic Maori waste of time waste of money.” 
My challenge to the Government and to the Minister is to have those programmes in place so that the purpose—which I hope is the Government’s idea of promoting and learning about the language—will be fulfilled. If they are not where does it stand as a party? That is what it is all about. If the money is being provided produce the goods. Let us see the outcome. Let us hear the outcome. I am expecting a big rise in the percentage of people who will be able to speak Maori. I will not be satisfied until that proof is before us and we hear it. That is the challenge. Where is the purpose? What is that purpose? Is it enough to say that the Crown has fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi by providing a television channel for Maori to be heard? What about the language being learnt? That is what it is all about. Otherwise the taxpayers will want to get rid of it. We have a say in this country about what happens to that money and how it is being spent. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to put forward a very non-controversial amendment that I am hoping all members of the House will support. Indeed I am expecting even the members from ACT to support this amendment because it seeks simply to strengthen the political independence of the Maori Television Service. It is extremely important that we ensure the preservation of the independence of that service because it is more or less totally dependent on Government funding. Hopefully there will be some advertising and the ability to enter into some agreements with other interests but basically it will be totally dependent on the Government. So it is important—because we know the old expression about he or she who pulls the purse strings—that we try to include in the legislation as many provisions as we possibly can to preserve the independence of the Maori television service. 
There is an existing section on independence in the existing Act but it is extremely weak. It asks only for the responsible members of Te Putahi—I am sorry I am having to think with my colleagues chatting loudly next door. What I am saying is that the existing provisions may look all right on the surface but in fact they would enable many other persons to give directions to the service. What the legislation states is that responsible Ministers must not direct the service but it does not refer to any other Minister directing the service or any person acting by or on behalf of the direction of the Minister and so forth. All I have done is to take the provisions about political independence that are in the Television New Zealand Bill and included them in an amendment that will make it clear that it is not just the responsible Ministers who may not direct the service with respect to a particular programme and so forth but also any other Ministers or any person acting by or on behalf of or at the direction of any Minister. 
It is important because I think there is real potential for political interference in Maori television from the “person who pays the piper”. There may be a temptation to try to pull the strings and so the potential would exist for political interference. All that the amendment seeks to do very non-controversially is to strengthen the provisions so that they are virtually identical to the provisions in the Television New Zealand Bill so that a Minister will not be able to interfere with a particular programme allegation or complaint in the gathering or presentation of news or preparation of current affairs or programme standards. 
The amendment is focused on protecting the editorial content of Maori television programmes from political interference. It is not talking about other issues like financial issues. It is simply saying that there may not be ministerial interference in the editorial direction of a particular programme the gathering of news the preparation of current affairs or programme standards. 
I see that the Minister of Education is looking extremely worried over there. I point out to him that those provisions basically have been taken and modelled on the provisions in the Television New Zealand Bill. We have sought official assistance with our amendment so I think he should cease to be worried. It is simply an amendment to ensure that there is no potential political interference in the editorial content of Maori television. That is extremely important for all of us to ensure in this bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I just want to ask the member who has moved this amendment a brief question. That is: was it her intention to open up as a result of this amendment the ability of board directors to direct on editorial or presentation matters? That is what this amendment does. 
Sue Kedgley 
: No. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia to explain some matters to members of the Committee and members of the public who are interested in this bill before the House tonight. The part before the Committee at the moment establishes the new Maori Television Service. That is contained in clause 7. The functions of the service are outlined in clause 8 and the powers of the service are outlined in clause 9. 
Clause 9 is an important clause because it fundamentally changes the way the Maori Television Service will be able to transact its business. Members of the public who are listening to this debate may be staggered to know this but for over 2 years in the establishment phase of the Maori Television Service as contracts have been entered into executives have been appointed directors have come and gone the affairs of the Maori Television Service have been transacted through the Ministry of Maori Affairs Te Puni Kokiri. In that regard the signature of the Minister has been sought on many matters and the signature of the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri on many more because the absence of provisions like clauses 7 8 and 9 particularly clause 9 has meant there has been no lawful body available to transact the affairs of the service. 
So what we have before the Committee tonight is a very important part of the bill but it is also a very important opportunity for members on this side to ask the Minister to account for the way in which those powers have been used by his department and by himself to date. The first thing I want to do is ask him why that state of affairs exists. Why is it that a bill that should have been passed 2 years ago—a bill that the Prime Minister said publicly over 2 years ago she was getting pretty hacked off about the delays on—a bill that is so important to the Government and to the Minister has taken so long to come to this Committee? Why is it that clauses 7 8 and particularly 9 have taken so long to come to the Chamber so that the affairs of the Maori Television Service can be transacted by the directors and by the chief executive? 
Until this bill gets its final reading those matters will be discharged by the senior officials of Te Puni Kokiri. I quoted to the House yesterday I do it again today a statement from the Prime Minister on 18 March 2001. She said this of the Maori Television Service: “I saw it was going around in circles and so I raised it at cabinet and what we’ve done is brought a group of officials together to get the clear options up to the cabinet. We just weren’t getting any proper advice to be honest”. The Prime Minister said that 2 years ago. I ask the Minister in the chair tonight why it has taken 2 years to get from that point of absolute frustration on the part of our Prime Minister to today to even have these important clauses in Part 1 come before the Committee. The Prime Minister also 2 years ago said this: “We want some options—and fast ... I want some decisions. I want us to be in a position to make some decisions instead of seeing the issue go round in circles at a bureaucratic level.” 
Opposition member: 
: When was that? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Two years ago the Prime Minister said that. And for the last 2 years the Minister who sits in the chair tonight has prevailed over a scene of absolute chaos. I want the Minister to stand and take a call and tell us why it is that these important clauses to give effect to the legal entity of the Maori Television Service have taken him as long as this to get to this stage. The Prime Minister was annoyed with him 2 years ago and I want to know how annoyed she is with him today. I have a pretty fair idea about that. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that Mr Samuels is pretty annoyed with the Minister as well and rightly so. He is a man who no doubt supports this bill—I do not. If we are to have a Maori Television Service then the legal framework should be in place that is contained in Part 1. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I heard the speech of Bill Gudgeon early tonight and I must say he is somewhat of an optimist in hoping that in fact the service will deliver. There are plenty of signs now for anybody who wants to look at it that this service cannot possibly deliver. In Part 1 we see another example of why the service will not deliver what it is intended to. I refer to clause 8 which talks about the functions of the service and states: “(1) The principal function of the Service is to promote te reo Maori me nga tikanga Maori through the provision of a high quality cost-effective Maori television service in both Maori and English that informs educates and entertains a broad viewing audience and in doing so enriches New Zealand’s society culture and heritage.” Subclause (2)(c) states that part of the functions of the service is to “ensure that in its programming the Service has regard to the needs and preferences of—(i) children participating in te reo Maori immersion education; and (ii) all persons learning te reo Maori”. 
This afternoon a member who was part of the select committee told us that they questioned Derek Fox the chief executive officer about what his intentions were in regard to television and whether it would educate. According to the select committee he said no definitely not it would not be an educational channel it would be there to entertain. Now we find that in terms of furthering te reo and despite what the Act says effectively what will happen to the money that is put into Maori television is that it will be for entertainment programmes. I wonder just how effective entertainment programmes will be in order to educate New Zealanders in te reo. 
The Act says that. The wording is there to say that it must educate but most of us know Derek Fox and most of us I think appreciate that Mr Derek Fox is not a person who listens particularly well. He is a person who has very firm ideas of what he is going to do and no amount of words in my view will change what he does. If he says to the select committee that this television channel will simply be to entertain not to educate then I would rather believe him than believe what the Act states. The Act is simply the principle. It is what happens on the road that is important. 
We will get a situation where we have a channel that is simply pouring all this money into an entertainment system that will not provide for te reo and te reo education in any meaningful sense. I go back to the point that firstly now we have a situation where funding is simply going to a marginal television station with a viewership that nobody can predict that nobody knows nobody has any idea how many there are. Certainly we know that the vast bulk of New Zealanders and I think even the vast bulk of Maori particularly given that a lot of Maori cannot even get the channel will not get the benefit of that. 
Coupled with that is an even more serious situation that the bulk of funding will go to Maori television and funding for the furtherance of te reo will not be available for any other television or radio station. I look at the press release put out by Te Mangai Paho on 21 February 2003 which said Te Mangai Paho had called for an urgent funding increase—note “an increase” and the channel is not even off the ground—to enable it to cope with the new demands created by the Maori Television Service. That was in February—now it is April and we still have not got one. But at that point in February it still had inadequate funding for the television service that at that point did not exist. The Maori language television and broadcasting funding provider made the plea when it appeared before the Maori Affairs Committee at Parliament yesterday. Te Mangai Paho board chairman Toby Curtis told the committee the level of television funding channelled through the agency had increased by more than 100 percent in the past 3 years. Te Mangai Paho was administering 29.4 million dollars’ worth of television contracts this year and that figure will rise to $40.3 million within 2 years. Almost all the funding—and that is $43.3 million—will go towards programmes to screen on the new Maori Television Service. If nobody is watching those programmes what will we do? 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The Minister has probably not been in the situation of a small boy in the playground who is confronted by a big guy who says: “I can beat you with my hands tied behind my back.” As I look at the clauses in Part 1 that is the situation I see. I sympathise with the Minister because that is the situation that this television service is in before it has even begun. It illustrates all the worst features of paternalism and all the worst features of years and years of a partial pass-over but not real authority. Why is that? The Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia is not remotely responsible for this service. Part 1 makes it very clear that that responsibility is shared with the Minister of Finance. So I am in great sympathy with the Minister of Maori Affairs before he even starts because his hands are well tied right up behind his back. 
The funding for this service is not sufficient. I could go through some of these clauses concerned with administration—which as we all know are not sufficient—but the most frustrating part relates to the doubtful passing to the Minister of any proper responsibility. [ 
Interruption 
] There may be laughter; time will tell. Despite what has been said by the previous member the pitiful amount of money that has been put into the service is already on record. Those members over there may comment but they should be ashamed of themselves because with all the expectations that were there in 2000 and with all the intentions behind the submissions that were made to the select committee just over a year ago they have allowed this bill to come to the Committee in an emasculated reduced form where the Minister in the chair really has no responsibility. Unlike my colleague Rodney Hide who last week found out that the Minister is responsible I say that in terms of Part 1 it is very clear that the Minister is not responsible. 
That is a way out and the Minister of Finance will not bear the public burden for the fact that the Minister of Maori Affairs will not get this service going at all. Anyone who has been working in the television industry and those who have come to the Committee with an understanding of the efforts of the previous Maori television service will realise that exactly what I am saying will prove to be correct. That may be the reason the Minister’s amendment to clause 3 states that there could be a flick-off before the service has even started and before we will retrospectively correct the malpractices of the past in regard to Mr Davy and others. 
Clause 3 allows for the rights or the spectrum licence of the safely guarded and much cared for UHF spectrum to be transferred to a third party other than this service. Why is that? Is there an expectation that somewhere down the line or in the very near future this will not work and that the very carefully selected frequency will not be able to be used in the long term? I would like the Minister to pick that matter up if and when he chooses to rise. I would like to know why clause 3(ca) is there. Clause 5 very carefully sets out the intent for that frequency to be for the sole use of this television service. 
Parts of the expected protections in regard to the appointment of directors will be difficult to achieve in the Maori world. No one working in Maori television will not have a conflict of interest. Nobody at present on the board does not have a conflict of interest apart from the newly appointed chairman. From our side of the Chamber I have to say that the new chairman does bring some semblance of conformity experience and expectation to the service although this party does not support the furtherance of this bill. 
Why? Again I say that Part 1 gives no confidence in regard to who will have responsibility. Over the years to come it will be a big drawback for the Minister to have his hands tied behind his back. It is the Minister of Finance who holds the portfolio not the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee that at the conclusion of the debate on this part—whether it comes to an end or by the acceptance of a closure motion—we move to Part 2 of the bill and that the votes on Part 1 and any amendments thereto be taken on the next day that this bill is considered without debate 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Was that the closure motion— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it is not a closure motion. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 There is some really worrying wording in Part 1 of this bill. If we look under the heading “Key provisions about Maori Television Service” at clause 8(1) we see that: “The principal function of the Service is to promote te reo Maori me nga tikanga Maori”. If one goes to the interpretation one sees that “nga tikanga Maori for the purposes of this Act means Maori custom practice and law”—not just “custom” but “practice and law”. Then if one goes to clause 9 “Powers of Service” one sees that “For the purpose of performing its functions under this Act the Service—(a) has full capacity to carry out or undertake any business or activity do any act or enter into any transaction;” and so on. 
The principal function of this service is to promote Maori custom practice and law. That makes this legislation really political because nowhere in the Privy Council ruling did it say that the Crown was required to promote Maori law. What is Maori law? Under this sort of legislation Television New Zealand could be required to promote English law—and I would actually like Television New Zealand to be required to promote the English law that I favour. How come we have allowed it to slip through in this legislation that we will use taxpayer-funded public broadcasting to promote what this bill defines under nga tikanga Maori? Until now I understood that te reo Maori was the language and tikanga Maori was custom but for the purposes of this bill nga tikanga Maori is taken to mean not just custom but practice and law. There is considerable Maori practice in law that would be abhorrent to most New Zealanders—and I refer to historic and not current practices— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What’s that? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Eating people and capturing and enslaving people. I am not saying that they are contemporary practices but there are things that people would find abhorrent so why are we allowing taxpayers’ money to fund the promotion of Maori law? 
Furthermore will this bill override the powers of the censor who would find some Maori law or customary practice objectionable to the public? I am not saying that the Maori Television Service will promote that but this legislation enables Maori television to promote Maori law. I think that is highly questionable. 
I invite the Minister to take a call and—to use the same words he used earlier tonight—to say quite clearly what is meant by that and to reassure this Committee and the people of New Zealand as to what the principal function of this service will mean. Under Part 1 it seems to me that the powers of service of the Maori Television Service are very wide indeed. They are boundless and could encompass anything that Te Putahi Paoho deems fit. Te Putahi Paoho is another bottomless pit for taxpayers’ money which will be funded out of the consolidated account and not out of the appropriation for the Maori Television Service. The setting up of that comes in under Part 1 too. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us what the exact role of Te Putahi Paoho is. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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— 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are very pleased to support this bill but we have some amendments that we indicated in our earlier speeches on the bill. One of the amendments that relate to this part in addition to our first one is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 77. In that Supplementary Order Paper the Minister makes an amendment to clause 3 of the bill by adding paragraph (ca). That paragraph concerns the safeguarding of the UHF right and where that spectrum may be leased or transferred to a third party which is not the Maori Television Service for the promotion of te reo and tikanga in television. 
The Greens are putting forward an amendment fairly minor at this stage to replace the words “principal functions” in that additional paragraph with the words “functions as set out in clause 8.” That amendment is intended to ensure that all the clauses concerning the transfer of the UHF right are related specifically to the entirety of the functions and the purposes of the Maori Television Service and to make sure that all those purposes are integral to any service provider whether it is the Maori Television Service or a third party. This amendment minor though it is will ensure that this clause will be consistent with later amendments that we will put forward on Part 2. The totality of those amendments will go in some way towards protecting the UHF spectrum right while making sure that that spectrum is used for the promotion and protection of te reo and tikanga and also that the service provided is delivered in a way that maximises access for all people over the whole of the motu and has regard to the learners of te reo. I urge all members to support and vote for the amendment to that clause. 
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. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: As per the leave of the Committee granted earlier the question will be put at a later date. 
Part 2 Key provisions relating to appointment and duties of directors transfer of UHF right accountability of Service and establishment of related entities 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Maori Television Service Bill sets out the provisions relating to the appointment and duties of directors the accountability of the service—and we have heard a little bit about that this evening—and the establishment of the entities related to that service. On that issue my colleague Murray McCully was absolutely right to point out that this service has been operating for 2 years and doing all sorts of things—appointing directors and spending taxpayers’ money—without any legal right to do so. The pity about this legislation which Stephen Franks made reference to is that even when this bill becomes law there is still no clear accountability or ownership mechanism and no clear process of giving instructions. I certainly agree with him on that. It is an attitude that says this is just a Maori organisation anyway and it does not matter too much. That is just not good enough for the Maori service for the Maori audience and for New Zealand. The Ministers have discharged their responsibilities over the Maori television service in the last 2 years by inferring the same sort of attitude which is: “Well OK they made this mess up here but what the hell—let’s just box on!” It is true Minister. That is just not good enough for Maori for the service and for our expectations of where we think Maori ought to be going. 
I refer to the issue of the appointment of directors. It is the issue about dual accountability. To me that is part of the mishmash of the whole service that has been set up. Who are those people accountable to? I have criticisms obviously of the way the board has been operating in the last 2 years but in a sense one has to have a little sympathy for the interim board. On the one hand it has an electoral college and on the other hand it has the Crown. It is required to have a broad viewing audience which suggests that its functions are to reach all of New Zealand yet at the same time the service is to broadcast mainly in te reo Maori. So the board has that sort of conflict: it has huge responsibilities but has that niche responsibility as well. In addition to that the board is accountable to two bodies. That in itself throws up the issue I raised earlier about who owns the service. 
In this legislation Maori are consigned to a second-hand second-rate format. It is doomed to fail unless the chairman Wayne Walden leading Maori businessmen—which is the one thing this Government has done right and I commend it for that—can make a gold purse out of a sow’s ear. I commend the service to Wayne because it is all on his shoulders. What we have here is a lack of clear accountability and a lack of knowledge of who the stakeholders and the eventual owners are. There is no certainty of funding because we do not know what sorts of dollars are tied up in it—whether they are treaty dollars or welfare dollars. Knowing this Government I suppose that they are probably welfare dollars and it might or might not appropriate the sum in any year. On this side of the House we have some anxieties about funding but on the other hand there is no certainty about it so somehow the chairman has to perform a miracle. This is a greenfield service starting from scratch with responsibilities that are given to no other service. There is a broad audience and a niche market and a big undertaking. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Clause 62 in Part 2 refers to “a report on compliance by the Service with its policy of being a good employer (in the context of the purpose of the Service) including a report on its equal opportunities programme;”. What is the Minister’s definition of a good employee? Is that found out in the initial interview or will the employer wait to see how well the employee works? Clause 62(2)(e) states: “a report on the number of employees who during the financial year received remuneration and other benefits in their capacity as employees ...”. We are looking not only at remuneration but also at the performance of employees. What about the report on the total value of remuneration and other benefits received by each director of the board during the financial year? How will their performances be evaluated? In my last employment as a lecturer at the Waikato Institute of Technology I remember that for every course taken we as tutors and lecturers were evaluated on our performances. By whom?—by the students we were involved with; we had no part in the decision on that. Where does this legislation cover the employees and the directors? I want the Minister to take a stand on that. 
New Zealand First will insist first on identifying how many people will learn the language; and secondly asking how many people will participate in the viewing of daily programmes. How many people will participate if there is a programme on learning te reo? What about the cost-effectiveness of the programmes and the accounting for the millions spent? We are driving a wedge home here in relation to being accountable—an audit of all employees from the chief executive officer down; of their performances and how they respond. If there are problems what are they? If there are successes what are they? What is the level of achievement? We are holding the Government to account. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Oh get a life! 
BILL GUDGEON 
: That is why the Government is where it is. Has the programme met the need of every tribal area; if not why not? The Government says it is providing a programme for learning and for the retention of te reo and the teaching of tikanga. Have all those considerations been taken into account? 
There will be feedback from the tribal areas because it is their language their tikanga and their protocol that is being taught in the programme. If there is no degree of satisfaction they will tell the Government what to do with that programme. What would happen to the face of Maoridom again? The publicity would say: “There they go again!” so we are asking the hard questions. We want more accountability; we will ask what the result is of such-and-such a programme how the staff performed or except for the chairman are they there because of cuzzie-bro? 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What about the board of directors bro? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: The directors are all included because in the end those people do not take it; it is the general public of Maoridom who are criticised and told: “There your people go again!” So I ask the Committee to please take into account clause 62 in Part 2 in respect of reporting on the performance of everyone involved with the programme. If the programme fails I will say: “I told you so.” 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Once again it is a great pleasure to follow the honourable Bill Gudgeon who made a very important point. The preamble states that the purpose of the Maori Television Service is to promote the Maori language te reo. But where is the requirement under any of the outputs to measure that success and that promotion? There is none. I can explain to Mr Gudgeon why there is none. It is because this Government knows that that television service will not achieve the broad grand objective set for it. That is the reality of what is revealed when one reads the contents of the output agreement. 
I want to take members to clause 28 “Duties of directors”. It states that a director must: “(a) act in good faith honestly and with integrity;”. They are great words. I am very pleased that the Hon Trevor Mallard is here because we have had a Maori television service before. The Hon Trevor Mallard—as an Opposition MP and with the support of Dover Samuels—shot that television service to the ground. I would like him to reflect on his duties as a member of Parliament when day after day he attacked Tuku Morgan in this Chamber for short-term political advantage destroying the Maori television service of the day and setting it back years—and Dover Samuels went along with it. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to reflect on the fact that day after day after day Tuku Morgan was attacked for the simple reason that New Zealand First had chosen National over the arrogance of Labour. When those now Ministers were dealing with a Maori television service back then did they act in good faith? Did Trevor Mallard act in good faith? Did he act honestly? Did he act with integrity? I think that Trevor Mallard might say—[ 
Interruption 
] Dover Samuels does not realise that that far back it was the National Party with New Zealand First that was in Government. Back then Trevor Mallard shot down the Maori television service with the support of the Maori MPs. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: No no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Dover Samuels is saying that Trevor Mallard did not have his support. I am pleased to hear that because I have to say that that remains the most disgraceful display that I have ever seen in my time in Parliament. 
We now have these Ministers making pious statements about the Maori Television Service and the Maori language. They should look in the mirror when they wonder why we are so many years behind in terms of that Maori Television Service. That party is against the Maori Television Service. We were against it then and we are against it now. It was a poor show when for simple politics this Government shot down the Maori Aotearoa Television Network. Government members do not answer the questions. When they come along here with a statement of intent do we see that it is Maori language output or that it is Maori people listening? 
The Minister of Defence who is trying to interject always has to pipe up. I would like him to know what role he played in supporting Trevor Mallard in shooting down the Maori Television Service at a cost to the taxpayer of millions and millions of dollars. Do we see anything in here that will address that problem? 
David Benson-Pope 
: Fiji or Waiheke Island? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What is that man talking about? He comes all the way from Dunedin each week flies up here on a plane then all he does is sit there and every now and then he calls out: “Fiji or Waiheke Island?” It must be rather sad that that is what one comes all the way to Wellington for—to sit there and talk about Fiji and Waiheke Island. It must be a code for something. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 This is a very important part because it sets out the code of conduct for directors. It also sets out the appointment process and the process that directors have to follow when they resign. Had this legislation been in place this part would have been a very important part and it would have been used many times with the game of musical chairs that has been played by the directors of Maori television. They have lost so many directors in such a short space of time that I have lost count. 
While we are talking about the conduct of directors I think it is worthwhile spending a bit of time talking about the code of conduct in general at Maori Television. Maori Television has spent quite a bit of time developing its code of conduct. I am reading from the code. It states that Maori Television recognises that the conduct and effectiveness of its organisation are highly dependent upon the quality of the people who comprise it. One would say that that would be correct. The code goes on to say that Maori Television should demonstrate high standards of integrity in all phases of its business. The next points made in the Maori Television code of conduct are that it must not intentionally cause Maori Television’s books and records to be incorrect in any way; must not create or participate in the creation of any records that are intended to conceal anything that is improper; must volunteer knowledge of any untruthful and inaccurate statements or records whether intentionally or unintentionally made; and must bring to the attention of its supervisors transactions that do not seem to serve a legitimate or commercial purpose. 
The writer of this document finishes by asking the people at Maori Television to read the code of conduct with the great care it deserves because Maori television and their reputations depend on it. Can members guess who wrote it? John Davy wrote this code of conduct which is dated 4 March 2002. In it he says that they must all demonstrate high standards of integrity in all phases. That document was downloaded from the Maori Television website. Funnily enough it is not there any more. One of the other great pieces of creative writing that I downloaded from the Maori Television website was John Davy’s CV. I would like to quote from that: “Canadian born”—that is about the only truthful bit of his CV—“John Davy brings over 25 years of international business finance and entertainment experience to Maori Television ... hired as CEO/CFO for an emerging company in the field of virtual internet and consumer e-commerce.’’ That sounds pretty glam. His CV states that he was former chief executive officer of an Asia-Pacific investment advisory company had lots of offshore portfolios and was involved in network marketing. According to his CV he was a telecommunications specialist worked with joint-venture companies had an MBA from Denver University and is a certified financial management accountant. But get this—John Davy “has over 35 years experience in the entertainment and sports industry.” and apparently is a composer a singer and a songwriter. Now we all know that that was an exercise in creative writing and bore no relation to his skills. 
But I get back to the bill. I am interested in the code of conduct of the directors because I do not think that some of the directors understood what their obligations were. One of the provisions in this clause is about the method that directors must use to explain conflicts of interest. A director must disclose to the rest of the board whether he has a financial interest in or could benefit in any way from some of the transactions as a result of the Maori Television business. There were some dodgy dealings going on on that board. There were some contracts that almost went ahead—there was the Sony contract that nearly went ahead and the lease for the Viaduct Basin that was nearly signed. Quite clearly some directors did not know what “conflict of interest” meant or what the difference was between having a governance role and a management role. In terms of setting out quite clearly what directors are supposed to do I think that that is a pretty important step but of course there has not been much continuity on the Maori Television board. Directors have left with alarming regularity so there has been very little consistent management of the board and very little consistency in decision making. Now we are in the position where the chairman has become the chief executive. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with issues of accountability. I note that there are 19 clauses in this part—clauses 47 to 65—setting out all sorts of accountability on paper which the Maori Television Service is expected to meet. It seems to me that that is a very Pakeha way of doing things. Setting things in statute with great detail is the way that Pakeha try to make sure that there is some accountability. I am not sure that that is a Maori way of doing things. In fact we have already had a huge number of signals throughout this debate about the Maori way of doing things and I think that the Maori way of doing things is really revealed in the very beginning of the bill. 
I see that in clauses 47 to 65 there is an obligation on the Maori Television Service to provide a statement of intent. There is an obligation on it to provide an output agreement an annual report a statement of responsibility and a financial report. Those are all pretty standard things to see in legislation in terms of accountability as we understand it but what can we actually expect the Maori Television Service to do about them? The signals are very very clear. The report of the Maori Affairs Committee states: “In its submission the Service argues that accountability requirements fetter the ability of its board to meet its obligations (set out in clause 8). It says a preferable structure would be to establish the Service under the Companies Act 1993 which it argues would remove many of the accountability requirements.” So we can see there exactly what the service thinks in terms of the provisions that require it to be accountable and there are ways of doing that that we could examine. We could put our thumbs to our noses and there are some other things that have happened up at Waitangi from time to time that also demonstrate what Maori think sometimes when Pakeha try to tell them what to do. 
The select committee said in response that the service will largely be funded by the Government for the foreseeable future that the responsible Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for that funding and that therefore accountability requirements are necessary. That is true. But the service has already told us very very clearly what will happen. We can have all the words we like all the words in the world—we can have all 19 clauses stating that the service has to be accountable—but at the end of the day I know what will happen. The sort of information that we will get out of this from the Maori Television Service will simply be a waste of time. The clauses provided are pretty general and I am sure that the Maori Affairs Committee will find year after year that the service will come back with inadequate reporting. I look forward to what the Audit Office will say about its reporting. I think it will be a bit of a hoot frankly. The service will come back and waffle around and effectively we will not get any answers. United Future knows about that because we did not get any answers when we were asking for some sort of indication as to viewership—who was going to listen to this channel. We could not get an answer. We were just told: “You’re Pakeha. You don’t understand Maori.” I can see that exactly that sort of thing will happen every time the service is asked to be accountable. I refer to the clause 50 “Contents of statement of intent’ and I notice that subclause (1)(j) states that there have to be some “performance targets or measures by which the performance of the Service and its subsidiaries may be judged:” I look forward to seeing those performance measurements. We have not seen any yet. This is a service that has already had millions and million of dollars put into it. There is a commitment for $30 million and for $40 million in 2 years’ time. It has had all those commitments for funding but where are the performance measures? Surely the service has been going long enough to be able to give a pretty precise account of what it is going to do with the money it has already been funded. But what do we see? We do not see a word and we cannot find out. The service does not even know how many people are going to watch this television channel yet all it does is complain that because the channel is UHF people will have to buy licences. Only a small proportion of people are actually going to see it let alone the rest of the country. 
There are no statistics and there is no research. Nothing has been done to tell us what is going to happen with this channel. There has been no clear statement from the service in terms of how it will spend this money. We can see very clearly from the way that the Maori Affairs Committee has already been treated and from the responses it has received from the service that the service will simply thumb its nose at any indication of being accountable for the money it has—so we can simply forget it. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I would like to run through three further amendments that we are putting up on Part 2. These amendments are amendments to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 77 in which there are provisions relating to the UHF right and the potential to lease or to transfer that right to third parties. 
The primary changes we are suggesting are to replace the words “principal function” with the words “functions as set out in section 8” and those changes are to clause 28B and clause 28C(4) on the Supplementary Order Paper. In addition in clause 28D(1) we are adding the words: “to be used in fulfilling the functions as set out in section 8.” The purpose is to ensure that if the UHF right is leased to some third party because the Maori Television Service is no longer using it—because it no longer needs it or has closed down or for whatever reason—it gets used for the purpose of promoting te reo and tikanga Maori and also that the delivery of those services is also an obligation on that third party. 
Clause 8 sets out the functions of the service and subclause (1) describes the principal function of the service as being to promote te reo and tikanga Maori. That is the phrase that is used throughout the Supplementary Order Paper. We are seeking to change that so that the further functions that are set out in clause 8(2) are also included as part of the obligation on any third party. These amendments put a brake in our view on any third party who intends to acquire the spectrum and provide only the minimal amount of te reo and tikanga in content and only the minimal amount of service delivery to the New Zealand public. 
Progress reported.