Faafoi Kris: Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14925. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Taloha ni and tēnā koe to you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak to the second reading of theMāori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I follow the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Tau Henare who is obviously feeling a bit needy today. He wants to make sure that his select committee and the work that was done on this bill during the select committee process was good and thorough and that it asked the right questions. I say to that member well done to the Māori Affairs Committee for making sure that this piece of legislation has gone through. But as you asked questions we are entitled to ask questions as well.There are a number of questions that my colleague Clare Curran has raised about the analog spectrum that is about to become digital spectrum about the ownership and where that lies and about what profit and what moneys will come of that. They are very pertinent questions because basically that spectrum is being taken off Māori Television and being put in another entity and to what end? As Clare Curran says that one analog spectrum can create up to eight or 10 digital television channels. The ability for Māori Television to hold on to those and use those in the future could have allowed for huge revenue-gathering by the Māori Television Service. To sell those off or to lease those off to create more revenue to make sure that its goal of making sure that the Reo their language and their culture are enhanced through the Māori Television Service could have been enhanced by having the rights to lease that spectrum. But in this case it is being put into another entity at arm’s length from the Māori Television Service and weare not quite sure what that means for it. So I think they are absolutely valid questions that Clare Curran has put forward which were obviously criticised by Tau Henare. He can do that; that is his entitlement. But they are still absolutely valid questions being put by this side of the House.I would like to come back to this notion of questions because we have asked some questions around the appropriateness of the process around the appointment of a new chief executive at Māori Television. Just like the media have freedom to ask questions we too have the freedom to ask questions in this House and we have serious concerns about the process and the fairness in the process around the appointment of a new chief executive. There has been some criticism from the Māori Party and some others in New Zealand about the right of this party to ask questions. I would say to those people who criticise us for asking those questions: bad luck. We are the Opposition and it is absolutely our right. If we think there is an issue to bring to this House then we will ask questions. There is $36 million of taxpayer funding appropriated to Māori Television and we have to be absolutely clear that the person who is running that organisation is above board not just because of the money but because of the importance—and I think Clare Curran used the word “taonga”—the absolute importance of this Māori Television Service to the indigenous culture of New Zealand. We will absolutely ask those questions to make sure that that person is the right person for the job.Clare Curran also set the scene of the importance of Māori Television not just for Māori but also for non-Māori. I understand the vision of Māori Television. It is to make sure that the Māori language and culture is strong and that they have a voice and a face for the culture here in New Zealand so that they can influence celebrate educate and communicate with their people to expand the use of their language and to make sure that things that are very important to that culture are viewed around the country. I think many people would argue at the moment that Māori Television has become the default State broadcaster in New Zealand and I would have to agree with them to quite a large extent because if you have a look at some of the programming that it is running especially on special occasions—I can think of its huge Anzac Day coverage that it runs now—and of course a lot of sports that it is covering now it is certainly the default State broadcaster here in New Zealand.Māori Television has also come under fire for what I would call some hard-hitting journalism recently. There was some criticism in this House about that type of journalism. But I would ask that this House and those parties actually think about what they are saying because hard-hitting journalism—the likes of what we have seen onNative Affairs recently—absolutely can respect the tikanga of the Māori culture but also hold the values of journalism and good journalism about the way that they do things. I certainly think that what we have seen fromNative Affairs and the news department of the Māori Television Service is absolutely top standard and it is asking the right questions that need to be asked. If we do not like the way that the media are operating we can take some action against that. We have the right to complain but as a rule it is their job to hold us to account and to hold public office-holders to account. I think that they have done that very very well in the last month or two. We certainly know that the journalists from Māori Television are no soft touch. It may not suit everyone in this House but that is the reality that we have of living in a free democracy.So I think that Māori Television certainly ticks most of the boxes for what you can expect from a State-funded broadcaster. In fact in its statement of intent which the Minister of Māori Affairs who took the first call has mentioned today it says that one of the major outcomes that it wants over the next 3 years is to develop an independent Māori Television broadcaster that is relevant effective and widely accessible. I certainly think that it is doing that.The questions of who runs it and who the chief executive is are very important because that person needs to be fiercely independent and very importantly I think beyond political interference. I think that the situation we have got here at the moment—and it is yet to be fully proved but I think it will be in time—is that it seems that the process in appointing a chief executive at Māori Television and its independence and being beyond political interference is certainly under threat.There are some serious responsibilities under this bill that the Māori Television Service has to achieve. If I can just take this opportunity to read new section 8 “Functions of service”—because section 8 is being replaced—in clause 7 of this bill: “The principal function of the Service is to contribute to the protection and promotion of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga through the provision in te reo Māori and English of a high-quality cost-effective television service that informs educates and entertains viewers and enriches New Zealand’s society culture and heritage.” All of those things—Andrew Little: Different from TVNZ.KRIS FAAFOI: That is right. All of these things are very very important. So we have to have someone in that role who ticks a hell of a lot of boxes because they have to have a unique set of skills. They have to understand all things Māori whether it be the Reo whether it be the culture or whether it be the changing nature of the Māori population in New Zealand to make sure that the coverage that they put in their programming suits that audience. Obviously they also have to understand broadcasting have an eye on fast-changing technology they have got to grow the use of the language and importantly they have to be in charge of as I have mentioned roughly $36 million of taxpayer funding all up that is given to them each year. So all of those boxes have to be ticked very well and to not do that I think is doing a great injustice to the Māori Television Service.So we do have concerns about one of the people who was shortlisted for the chief executive job. The sources whom we have spoken to question the ability of that person to tick all those boxes I mentioned and particularly around two of those boxes which are independence and the ability of them to—I guess when you are looking at new section 8—cost-effectively run a television service. So they have to have very good financial skills and be cost-effective—so they have to have very good financial skills. So we do have some concerns around Paora Maxwell because we understand that he is a very close personal friend of the chair of the Māori Television Service who is the former National Minister Georgina te Heuheu.In the time line that the Māori Television Service gave in an Official Information Act request to the press gallery about the appointment process I think it said—and I am just going to try and hunt this down—that on 16 July Georgina te Heuheu put her hand up and said: “I have got a conflict of interest because someone on this list I know very well and is a good personal friend of mine.” Nowhere in any of the documents can I find anything to stack that up. So when on 16 July was that done? Maybe the Minister of Māori Affairs can help us there. I can find something from about 6 weeks later. But according to the Māori Television Service on 16 July Georgina te Heuheu said: “I have a personal relationship with this person. I am putting my hand up.” At least she did it.But we have also got problems with the previous employment of Mr Maxwell at Television New Zealand (TVNZ). Mr Maxwell can clear that up if he just says why he left. This can be easily concluded. Either TVNZ or Mr Maxwell can clear up why he left TVNZ.