Peters Winston: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is supporting the referral of this Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill to the select committee for good reason. There is a case for the careful consideration of its provisions. It merits closer consideration because a thriving and open media is fundamental to a successful democracy. Indeed in a modern democracy the media play a pivotal part in ensuring the public are informed and not misinformed. It is no exaggeration to say that our society is shaped by the media and particularly broadcast media. We do need a variety of channels for broadcasting channels that will reflect our society and allow the open expression of views and perspectives. What would not be healthy is the concentration of media power and influence in a few narrowly controlled distribution channels. 
In general we believe that there is an argument for having a viable and thriving Maori Television Service provided of course that it is fulfilling the obligations of its charter—a service that all New Zealanders can access and derive information and entertainment from. Indeed given the lamentable sad overall state of public broadcasting in New Zealand in a sense Maori Television because it has been significantly funded for various reasons while the others have not for reasons that are inexplicable has become a de facto public broadcasting service. 
New Zealanders who believe in a public broadcasting system must wonder how this state of affairs was reached because effectively there is now no proper public broadcasting service in our country. That makes us unique amongst modern democracies. No public broadcasting service in New Zealand—there is no public broadcasting service that seeks to be the voice of an emerging New Zealand culture which probably explains that although you have got all sorts of people pushing all sorts of attributes of where we are going there is no New Zealand culture that is being promoted by a broadcasting service funded by the New Zealand taxpayers. Other countries do it—Australia the UK Canada. Here: nothing. 
To some extent Maori Television is filling that gap. The Maori Television Service had a primary role to do with the future of the Maori language because it was argued that no other service was fulfilling this role. Te Reo must be a living language. That means it must be readily accessible and that means in broadcast media. As has been the case with the survival of the Welsh language it is important that the language is seen to be relevant in an everyday media sense. For that reason it was seen that for Te Reo the support of Maori Television was critical for its survival. 
The proponents behind this legislation argue that the bill will give the service a more explicit mandate to protect and promote the Maori language. That needs to be reflected upon—it will give the service a more explicit mandate to protect and promote the Maori language. Well 10 years ago what was that about? That is what every discussion in this House and behind the proposal said. 
The bill is wide ranging and covers a comprehensive set of values and issues including the functions of the service the management of the UHF spectrum accountability of documents borrowing and investment and future reviews. 
The former Minister of Broadcasting Maurice Williamson should listen to this because I remember well when he was the broadcasting Minister dishing out Maori broadcasting licences all around this country and the question was never asked: “But who is listening to these Maori radio stations?”. Minister Williamson remembers this very well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes I do. You came with me to a number of the marae. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yeah I came on the road and I could not believe what I was seeing. For example up there in the forests of Northland was an outfit picking up about $385000— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Radio Tautoko. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —that is right $385000—and there apparently was not any audience at all apart from mum and dad and the cousins down the road. That is the kind of shambles that Mr Williamson allowed to happen. So why he is talking during this important speech I do not know. Then of course he went off and he made a colleague of his a multimillionaire. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Which one? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Steven Joyce. He gave out licences under a Vickrey sale process—a Vickrey sale process. I want to remind everybody listening that this is the kind of money that has gone into this. The Vickrey sale process goes like this. Up comes this item for purchase. Mr Williamson is heading the sale. A bids $1 million B bids $100000 and C bids $50000. A gets the tender— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We could have a royal inquiry. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —well it deserves an inquiry all right but not I think from that member—because A bid $1 million but he does not pay $1 million; he pays what the second guy B bid. He pays $100000. Now every morning and five times a day Mr Joyce gets up and he points his face towards Pakuranga. He gets down on his knees and he prays to the Mecca of Pakuranga who made him a multimillionaire and then he walks into the House and calls himself a self-made man. 
You know this has appeared in such books as  
The Undercover Economist 
 a famous economics book out of London. It mentioned the shambles of New Zealand’s broadcasting service which was presided over by the man who is not paying enough attention to this speech as you are up there—but he is not because he knows better! 
We think it is appropriate that all the areas set out in the bill should be given due full consideration. In particular we support the provision that the bill allows for future reviews of the operation etc. 
Let me say one thing— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This member used to be good. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no the best is yet to come. New Zealand First has always viewed Maori Television as one alternative amongst a number available for the improvement of Maori economic and social performance. It is one alternative of expenditure. We have never viewed it in an uncritical politically correct way. We have in short never been sickly white liberals who say: “Oh we are too scared to confront what’s there and we’ll just dish out the family largesse.” For example for the expenditure— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s a phrase from the past—“sickly white liberal”. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Listen to this—listen to this. For example for the expenditure and the money that has thus far been spent on Maori Television every Maori family in New Zealand could have been housed. That is an alternative. For the money the $67 million or $70 million a year every year spent on Maori Television in these last 10 years we could have housed every Maori family. 
For example there was no justification for Maori Television bidding for TV coverage at the last Rugby World Cup. We ended up with five television stations covering the Rugby World Cup. What was that about? It is just a misuse of money. 
Hon Dr Pita Sharples 
: Enterprise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh enterprise? The Minister of Maori Affairs says it was enterprise. No it was not enterprise at all; it was nationalism spent in the guise of the taxpayers’ largesse when there was no justification at all because most Maori I know—and they watch a darned sight more rugby than most people in this place do—all watched it on nationwide TV or Sky. No Maori Television bid millions of dollars and got the bid and it was a waste of money. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This member used to be young. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This is just one alternative area—yeah the fact is the great thing about being around Maurice Williamson is that you will always look young. If you move around Maurice and talk to him you will always feel young and look young by comparison. This is just one alternative area of expenditure with a uniquely important or critical need for consideration. 
I want to say this too. In all fairness in the last election Maori Television was by far the most balanced and fair presenter of the issues and the political parties. There is no doubt about that so I give it full commendation for that. Then when it came to the Gallipoli commemorations it was streets ahead of anybody else. So I give credit where credit is due. It is in these things that we seek Maori Television to be focused; as it should be right now on the question of enrolment at census time—which is too late; it has gone by—but on the future enrolment whether it is going to be for the Maori seats or otherwise. So in short stick to the things it should be sticking to. 
We believe there is likely to be keen public interest in the bill and would encourage public submissions but we are mindful that this is not the time for a blank cheque. Whatever Maori Television does deliver it must deliver value for money. If Maori Television is doing its job it will deliver on its charter and it will deliver content that is relevant and appealing to a wide audience across the entire spectrum of New Zealand. If it does that it can escape some of the political correctness that so far has confused so many people about the engagement of this service and it can get on and do its job properly—first of all for the country but in particular for Maori and the Maori language.