Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4908] 
Maori Television Service Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Television Service Bill be now read a second time 
. The idea of a Maori television service has been around for some time. A Maori television service was given impetus as a result of the 1993 Privy Council decision in the broadcasting assets case. The Privy Council noted amongst other things that the Government had made a commitment by Cabinet agreement in 1991 to set aside funding for the purpose of promoting Maori language and culture in broadcasting part or all of which could be used to assist in the development of special-purpose television. This bill establishes the Maori Television Service. The bill also confirms the Maori Television Electoral College known as Te Putahi Paoho. The bill confirms the partnership approach that the Government and Maori have negotiated in relation to the governance accountability and general operation of the Maori Television Service. 
The principal function of the Maori Television Service is to promote Maori language and culture through the provision of a high-quality cost-effective Maori television service in both Maori and English that informs educates and entertains and in doing so enriches New Zealand society culture and heritage. The channel will assist in highlighting and promoting Maori success and will encourage the further achievement of Maori in education and in areas of social and economic development. The new channel will screen te reo Maori and Maori programmes in prime time. For the first time we will start to see Maori-orientated programmes at times when Maori and New Zealand audiences usually watch television. 
The Maori Television Service is a statutory corporation. It involves Maori and the Crown in the governance and accountability of the service. Similar accountability provisions to those in the Public Finance Act will apply. Those include the requirement for a statement of intent for an output agreement at the beginning of the financial year and for an annual report at the end of each financial year. The service will have a seven-member board with four directors appointed by the Maori Television Electoral College and three by the responsible Ministers. That arrangement is unique and reflects the interest that both the Crown and Maori have in the service. 
I would like to acknowledge the work of the Maori Affairs Committee. The select committee has proposed a number of changes to the bill including providing a new Maori translation of the preamble removing the Kaitiaki Trust from the bill requiring the service to foster where appropriate its broadcasting capacity through appropriate training and education and aligning the provisions relating to the independence of the service with a similar provision in the recently passed Television New Zealand Act. The select committee has also proposed the inclusion of a clause protecting the name “Maori Television Service” and a provision requiring that any failures by the directors to report conflicts of interest are specified in the service’s annual report as well as a tightened and clearer disputes resolution process. 
The select committee has advised that the service’s functions as set out in the bill generally provide an appropriate level of guidance to the service while still providing an opportunity for the board to draw its own interpretations. Members will also observe that the select committee has recommended that a number of the operational and administrative clauses be moved from the main body of the bill to the schedules. That will assist those who will be required to operate under the legislation. 
I would like to elaborate on a number of the select committee’s recommendations starting with the 5-year review. The Government and Te Putahi Paoho agreed during the course of negotiations on the Maori Television Service model that the Government would retain a short-term involvement in governance and implementation and an ongoing involvement in funding the service which could necessitate a review of the legislation at some point in the future. The select committee has proposed that that intention be taken on board by proposing that this legislation be reviewed after 5 years from the date it comes into force. The review would cover the operation and effectiveness of the legislation in accordance with terms of reference set by the responsible Ministers. The responsible Ministers will be required to consult Te Putahi Paoho on the terms of reference prior the commencement of the review. 
The select committee proposes that the review report be presented to the House of Representatives within 6 years of the commencement date of the legislation. That time frame will allow the service and the broadcasting industry as a whole sufficient time to get on with the establishment and bedding down of the service. I commend that proposal to the House as a practical means of being able to evaluate and assess performance and to identify changes that will improve the operational effectiveness of the legislation and the Maori Television Service. 
The select committee has also proposed aligning clause 10 “Independence of Service” with a similar provision contained in section 28 of the Television New Zealand Act. That more specifically excludes potential directions to the service by the responsible Ministers Te Putahi Paoho and directors acting without the authority of the board. 
The select committee proposes there be greater clarity of the disputes resolutions process for instances where disagreements occur. The proposed changes set out a more deliberate procedure for the resolution of disputes with mediation when both parties are unable to reach agreement. 
The Maori Affairs Committee also proposed the removal of the Kaitiaki Trust from the bill. The sole purpose of the Kaitiaki Trust was to receive the ultra-high frequency management right from the Crown and to transfer it to the Maori Television Service. The select committee identified the Kaitiaki Trust as being largely symbolic. The select committee’s arguments are well made. It is largely for the reasons it has given that I propose at the appropriate time to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will provide for the safeguarding of the ultra-high frequency right by Te Putahi Paoho. The Supplementary Order Paper will also propose a number of minor technical amendments to the bill. 
This bill provides for the establishment of the Maori Television Service. It may therefore be appropriate for me to briefly update the House on recent developments associated with the establishment of the service. The establishment board is at full strength with seven members. The responsible Ministers and Te Putahi Paoho recently announced the appointment of Mr Wayne Walden as the chair and Ms Ani Waaka as the deputy chair of the Maori Television Service Establishment Board. The service has recently appointed a provisional chief executive and is commencing the recruitment process for other key staff. It has moved into its studio and office premises in Newmarket Auckland. 
The Maori Television Service has moved significantly towards the signing of contracts for the provision of the ultra-high frequency transmission service and is in negotiations over a digital satellite platform. It has completed the identification of its studio and broadcasting equipment needs and is on the verge of signing contracts with preferred providers. There are hours of programming that have either been commissioned or are in the process of being commissioned. Arrangements have also been made with Television New Zealand to access archival material and the service has advised me that Television New Zealand is being very helpful in lending support to the establishment of the channel. 
The passage of this bill and the introduction of Maori television is long awaited by Maori in this country and by all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 As a member of Parliament and a Maori member of Parliament I am embarrassed to be associated with a bill that sets up a Maori Television Service that far from being the triumph for Maori that it should be has so far been an utter disaster and an utter debacle—and on current form is likely to remain so. That is a huge shame; it is hugely disappointing. This Government and particularly this Minister must take full responsibility for the debacle that has ensued over the last 3 years. The establishment of the Maori Television Service was a flagship policy of this Government when it came into power in 1999. The Government is now into its second term and we are still inching our way towards that service and there is no guarantee whatsoever that the proposals set out in this bill will achieve the objectives that have been set. 
That situation is also disappointing given that so much of the work as the Minister has pointed out had its background its genesis in a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in the early 1990s a Privy Council ruling in 1993 and a Government intention which was set out at that point to establish a service. The previous National Government did a lot of the preparatory work in the 1990s. Also while there were some mistakes we learnt from them. We should have all learnt from those mistakes but no. What has happened? In the 21st century after all the work that was done in the 1990s the mistakes go on and on. As I have said there is no guarantee that this bill will minimise mistakes in the future. This Minister is responsible for the Maori Television Service and he must make sure that what goes on from now on actually has the potential to succeed. 
The other pity about this situation is that many New Zealanders actually want this service to work as well. I am pleased to hear of the appointment of Wayne Walden. I know him reasonably well; in fact I have worked with him. The fact that he has agreed to be the chair says something about the kind of grunt and expertise he is willing to bring to the service and it says something about the kind of people who know him and respect his professionalism in the business world. They also probably want this service to succeed having seen his appointment as chair of the board. As I say many New Zealanders want this service to work. They want to know more about the Maori world. But what have they learnt in the 3 years since this Minister has had responsibility for the Maori Television Service? They have learnt that if there is a mistake—a big disaster a debacle or whatever—the Government will overlook it and will not call for full accountability. In fact nobody will take any responsibility for it whatsoever. 
We saw that in the debacle over the John Davy appointment. In the end who was shafted badly there? It was Millennium People. But did anybody in this House take responsibility for that debacle? No—and ultimately when we are spending taxpayers’ money someone in this House has the responsibility for that expenditure. This Minister did not take that responsibility—a Minister who says he is here to develop and grow Maori was willing to see this Government the Prime Minister and his colleagues shaft Millennium People just like that as if it was totally to blame for that appointment. We know that it was not. 
I come to the examination of this bill by the Maori Affairs Committee. Although some reasonable changes were recommended the problem is that a number of matters remain outstanding. They were in some respects cursorily addressed by the Government members of the committee. They are matters like the structure the functions the funding the control and reporting and something that I am pretty committed to: issues of ownership and the treaty. I ask whether the Maori Television Service is a discharge of the Crown’s treaty obligations or whether there is another rationale for it. That question was asked before the select committee particularly by the Maori Television Service and others. It was not answered though the structure and accountability mechanisms of this bill suggest that there is another rationale for the service. 
When the Government speaks of a social obligation one starts to think that this service is a muddle like most other things that this Government does. Yes it is being established because of the treaty but hello the dollars are to be allocated in the same way that the dollars for other projects are and there are no clear ultimate ownership provisions in this bill. So when we come to the Committee stage I will be asking the Minister to answer things like that because the submissions to the select committee from the Maori Television Service in particular were reasonable. Most of its submissions were ignored but that does not make the issues go away. Since they have not been addressed now those things will come back to haunt the Government. 
The issue about whether this service is being established in satisfaction of a treaty obligation is important for future Governments because the mishmash of this legislation is such that we do not know what the rationale for the service is. References to the treaty are littered throughout the bill—and particularly when we look at the background and the parts of the bill that state that it makes provision for cooperation between Maori and the Crown to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori—but with little effect. I do not know where in any of the cases where judgments were made in the early 1990s the obligations of Maori were referred to. But because it is a good thing for the Crown to look as though it is starting to discharge treaty obligations it says it is doing that on the one hand while on the other hand it is making others responsible for the service as well. 
So there is mishmash here. Who are the owners of this entity? There is uncertainty regarding the beneficial ownership of the Maori Television Service. What is the nature of the relationship between and what are the status rights powers and obligations of the electoral college and the responsible Ministers? Those are important questions. As I have asked already what about the funding? Are these Crown dollars or are they treaty dollars? I say to the Minister that there is a clear distinction in that regard and that Maori will come back to a future Government and say the Government did not actually discharge its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. That becomes a real concern for us in the National Party because we envisage that one day we will be sitting on the Government benches. There is no way that we will want Maori to come back to us and say they are going to the courts again because this service was not provided in satisfaction of a treaty obligation. The Minister cannot get away with the mishmash of provisions that this bill is all about. 
Neither can the Minister get away with pretending that the accountability mechanisms in this bill will work when the conduct of the Government so far has been to sheet home to other people all the accountability for the things that have gone wrong. The Minister in charge of this bill is the Minister in charge of the expenditure of this money and on current form this Minister has failed miserably. That does not augur well for the setting up of the Maori Television Service. 
In conclusion I say the now chief executive officer of the Maori Television Service Derek Fox came to the select committee on 7 November to give us a bit of a report back. The big concern at that time was the transmission platform. We know that the Government did not go with the CanWest TV4 option which those who know about it said would have got this service out to a bigger percentage of Maori homes. That is the stupidity of it as well—this is a Maori television service and there are homes that it will not beam into. Derek Fox said the service had to go with what it had. He said that the decision that was made on the transmission platform was not the best option for the service but the service had to go with it. I hope this Minister makes sure the service is a success. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This bill arises from an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi for cooperation between the Crown and Maori to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori or more particularly te reo Maori me nga tikanga Maori. So far so good. We learnt from the Privy Council decision that te reo was an endangered species that the level of te reo usage in New Zealand had dramatically decreased and that the Crown needed to take steps to protect it in compliance with its obligations under the treaty. To that end it is encouraging to see some members of this House taking a lead and participating in te reo courses so that they can improve their understanding of the language. 
I recently attended the opening of a school block. I was one of the guests sitting at the front of the crowd when the national anthem was played. The children sang the first verse in te reo Maori and the subsequent verse in English as is quite common these days. The trouble was that we were not given a song sheet to sing from. So we stood there needing to sing the first verse in Maori but without a song sheet to help. Fortunately because I had been attending te reo classes I coped fairly well but it made me realise that perhaps all members of the House and all leaders in New Zealand need to be faced with the situation where they are put in front of people and encouraged to demonstrate their knowledge or otherwise of te reo. Maybe if we did that we would find more leadership in New Zealanders as a whole learning te reo and advancing the language in that way. 
I would be very happy to see New Zealand becoming more and more bilingual. I certainly personally encourage that trend. But is this a good way of doing it? Is this a good way of promoting te reo? We know already that the initial establishment funding has been increased from $6 million to nearly $13 million. We know that $30 million has been allocated to Te Mangai Paho for programme funding the bulk of which is to go to Maori television and that that is to rise to $40 million per annum within 2 years. How much more will be ploughed into Maori television programming we are yet to see but there is certainly a real danger I think that we will see more and more money going into Maori television for te reo language skills. We have to raise the question therefore of whether the money is well spent. 
There is a suspicion already among a lot of New Zealanders that State-funded Maori enterprises have a propensity to fail. We cannot afford a situation where Maori television is simply another on the list of failures. We know that that is not always the case that in Ngai Tahu for example we see some very very positive Maori involvement and enterprise and that is to be strongly commended. What we need to avoid as we bring together Maori and non-Maori and move forward in this nation is enterprises that are poorly set up and then find themselves failing so that there is suspicion on future organisations and therefore New Zealanders become even more weary of State-funded Maori enterprises. It is my fear and the fear of United Future that this proposal and the Maori television scheme that is being set up comes within the category of being in huge danger of failing and simply adding to that situation. 
Already we have found that there are scandals within the television service and it has not even got off the ground. I do not need to go back over the ground of the scandals that we have seen happening but already there is a suspicion a black mark against the Maori Television Service. People are a little suspicious as to whether it will actually turn its act round and be a positive development and achieve both for Maori and for New Zealand as a whole. If it is a lemon if it is ineffective if it is simply a black hole into which money is poured with no real benefit to Maori or to New Zealand in general then rather than help the situation it will further hinder Maori - non-Maori relationships. 
There is the danger of that failure through three things. Firstly there was a lack of vision on the part of the Government. Where is Labour’s 10 year plan for te reo? Where is its assessment of the need for development of te reo and the alternatives that are available to it? We do not see that. There is no vision. There is confusion among Government members in terms of the direction they will go. Secondly where is the research as to the likely viewer audience for this Maori television station? If we are going to have a dedicated television channel who will watch it? Is anybody going to watch it? 
The House will be aware of the exchange which was publicised that I had with Derek Fox who is now the chief executive officer of Maori television during the Maori Affairs Committee discussion on Maori television in October last year. I asked him what research had been done to establish the likely audience demand from the Maori television channel. He said that everybody he had talked to thought it was a good idea. I asked him whether that meant that no outside research had been done about the likely potential viewership. His reply was that I myself had said I was “Ngati Pakeha” and that I did not understand Maori. He attacked me rather than answering the question. I spoke to him afterwards and asked him whether any research had been done. He said he would send it to me. I said that unless United Future saw it we would not support the bill. We have still not seen any research whatsoever to demonstrate that anybody will watch that television channel. 
What did my understanding of the situation have to do with the fact that he said I did not understand Maori? Was it that Maori like to act spontaneously and do things without planning? Was it that Maori will take money given to them especially other people’s money and not expect to be accountable for it? Was it that Mr Fox is building an empire for himself and he does not like people standing in his way as he creates it? I do not know but I would be concerned if any of those things were proved to be true. I notice that there was even an argument from the service that Mr Fox heads to suggest that they should not be accountable. 
The select committee report states: “In its submission the Service argues that accountability requirements fetter the ability of its board to meets 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.” I am pleased to say that the select committee which was made up of a majority of Maori rejected that suggestion. That gives me hope that his view is not a view that most Maori hold that there should be a lack of planning and enterprise and a lack of accountability. The select committee states further: “The Service will be largely funded by the Government for the foreseeable future. The responsible Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for that funding. Accountability requirements are therefore necessary.” I certainly concur with that. But there has to be a lot of concern that when the service itself questions whether there should be accountability for funding we will not get the accountability we need. 
I am also concerned about Labour’s contradictory stance in terms of the furtherance of Maori - non-Maori relationships. We see on the one hand suggestions that there should be unity—the reconciliation and the treaty settlements process are examples of that. On the other hand there is the segregation of Maori from non-Maori a division within New Zealand—separate Maori voting on local authorities is an example of that. 
Is this a unifying or dividing bill? Will this unify New Zealand or will it separate Maori into a segment? I think from the tone of the bill that it is a divisive bill that puts Maori to one side and separates them. United Future will not support the bill for that reason. We see that it is creating a separate television channel that Maori will watch and that New Zealanders will not be encouraged to watch it and develop their own te reo. I would like to see all New Zealanders have access through regional television Maori programmes on regional television and even national television to encourage them to use te reo. That would be a far more healthy way of approaching and furthering the interests of te reo than creating a separate structure. So because of inadequate planning the danger of wasted resources a black hole the high probability of failure due to inadequate research and monitoring and because it is divisive United Future will not support this bill. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I had not intended to take a call in this debate. I simply sat here this afternoon to support my colleague the Hon Minister of Maori Affairs during the second reading of the bill. But then I listened to one of the previous speakers from the National Party the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and I thought to myself that people obviously have very short memories or they just do not want the Maori Television Service to go to air. 
I remind that member that there used to be a television service called Aotearoa Television. It went through some difficult times and then disappeared off the face of the earth. I say that a lot of the responsibility for that has to go to the previous regime the previous Government. [ 
Interruption 
] Not only did National underfund this television service it refused to give it the support that it required. I am surprised to hear the interjections from the Hon Brian Donnelly who should be standing in this debate to support what I am saying. Members from his party bit the dust because the commitment and the support were not there. I am very very surprised to hear his interjections at this point in time. 
I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on the commitment he has put into this entire process. It has been difficult. It has been marred by a number of highly contentious matters. The Maori Television Board did its best to conduct a transparent process when it came to appointing a chief executive officer—so much so that it sought outside advice. But that advice was not sound and as a result a mistake was made but the appropriate actions were taken thereafter. So some people have very short memories. Millennium People had to accept the blame for the mistake but that is business. When a firm gives bad advice it suffers the consequences. In this case that is exactly what happened. But the board lifted itself up and got on with the business. Here we are today in this House debating a very very important bill. 
If the National Party spokeswoman on obviously everything cannot handle this television service going to air then the problem is hers or the problem is theirs. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who hired Millennium? 
MITA RIRINUI 
: There goes that member from up north again—the Hon Brian Donnelly—interjecting with something that his previous colleagues were very very supportive of. Maybe he should read the  
Hansard 
 not me. 
I stand to take a very very brief call to support this bill to support the Minister of Maori Affairs and to congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee on bringing the legislation to the House for debate. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has questioned the funding and programming of Maori television especially when the items that affect Maori—like education housing health and employment—should be the priority. Those are the matters that concern New Zealand First. We hear day in and day out about the statistics to do with Maori because those are the things that affected Maori in the past and affect Maori today. In the case of the Maori television channel is the transmission available in the north of the North Island likewise on the East Coast and north of Gisborne including Gisborne? What is the cost to consumers? Are they in a financial position to have that transmission? If they are unemployed how would that be financed? What is the housing situation? That sector of the community is struggling. With regard to education what is happening with the truancy situation and the skill base of Maori? What about employment and the social atmosphere out there including law and order? What will be the quality of the programmes that Maori television will utilise in order to encourage education across the board? Will this programme—if and when it gets started—and the coverage it will receive play a large part in the direction that Maori take in retaining te reo me nga tikanga or will it be strictly entertainment? 
New Zealand First believes that the money that will be spent and will continue to be spent would be put to better use by improving the environment of positive education outcomes improving housing and employment and vastly improving health. Meeting those needs should be the priority. Until those matters are seen to how will a sector of the New Zealand community survive to enjoy those treasures which we hold dear to us within the bounds of a free society? The language will truly flourish when it is stress-free. The social structure of this country has changed. New Zealand First is not against promotion of the language and tikanga but let us prioritise settle the immediate needs first then work towards those goals in an amicable manner that will benefit all. We are well aware of the Crown’s responsibility as far as the treaty goes but let us also be aware of the Government’s responsibility to the immediate needs of the people—that is to govern wisely. 
New Zealand First opposes the Maori Television Bill because of the glaring needs of this sector of the community whose statistics provide proof of where the concentration of efforts should be placed. At a meeting of the Maori Affairs Committee I asked Mr Derek Fox whether education would be included in that television programming and the answer was a straight no. I was sad to hear that. I asked why and he said that it is strictly to entertain. He said that if one needed education there is an organisation called the Ministry of Education. My question to him after that asked whether he would utilise the resources of the Ministry of Education if they were available to promote education. He answered no. What is the glaring need of Maori today? It is education. Education will contribute to Maori looking after themselves becoming independent and being independent of the State. We need to realise that when Maori have the skill base they will be able to take care of their affairs in health employment and housing and they will be able to contribute to our economy whether locally or internationally. 
I always remember the saying of Sir Apirana Ngata. He said: “Hold onto those things that are dear to you as far as our language and our tikanga is concerned as a top knot on your head but also take the weapon of the Pakeha which is education.” What do we have today? Our people who were once a proud people are putting their hands out rather than putting them up. Those are the issues that we need to face today. The millions that the Government is going to put into television will not solve the challenges and problems that our society has today. They will not and I can guarantee that in 5 to 6 years’ time—or whenever there is a review of Maori television—what will still be there will be those statistics that are always being brought up in this House. So what is the answer? Is the answer Maori television? If we ask Tongan Samoan or Chinese people about their language and why they have retained it they will say that they have retained it because they are taught it in their homes. They watch television but they have retained their language because they are taught it in their homes. 
I attended an education conference in Napier when I was a lecturer at the polytech. A guest speaker talked about how successful kohanga reo was. During the break I asked him how many of those young people still retained the language when they went to State schools or any other school. The answer was : “Very few.” I asked why and I was told that it was because the parents do not speak Maori. When children go home to their families the language spoken is English. What has been done since then? Parents have been encouraged to learn the language so that they can speak with their children at home. The parents were embarrassed because they did not understand what their children were talking about. Those things are right; they have been recorded. 
I say to the Minister that we oppose this bill. We are looking at the common sense of it and at where our priorities should lie. Once those priorities are sorted out I will support him 100 percent on having Maori television. But members should not forget what is happening out there. I was questioned yesterday in Morrinsville and I know that this issue is causing division amongst our people and amongst the citizens of New Zealand. Do we want that also? That is all I have to say. New Zealand First opposes the legislation for the very reasons I have given. I am sure that Maori will contribute to our society more positively when all those other things are sorted out. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I congratulate that member on his excellent speech and on his reasons for opposing this legislation. I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this legislation also. There is no reason that taxpayers should be forced to fund a separate Maori television service and one that this Government has set up to fail. We all know that this is just a vote-buying exercise. It is interesting to look back on the election campaign when this television service was promised. In fact one could look back further than that to when Derek Fox stated that he would set up a separate Maori party which this Labour Government knew would challenge it because Mr Fox said that the Labour Government had not done enough for Maori. 
That caused great nervousness in Labour’s ranks so it cobbled together the Maori Television Service as a sop first to Derek Fox to get him on side. Of course the Maori party was abandoned. 
Look at the sad tale that the Maori Television Service has been since then. It was meant to be up and running months ago—it was meant to be going by June last year. Then we got the John Davy debacle and the unseemly scrap in Cabinet between the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Broadcasting over how Maori television would go to air—would it be VHF or UHF? 
We all know that Derek Fox made it quite clear that he preferred the TV3 option whereby the Government would swap a radio FM frequency with TV3 for channel 4. If the Government had done that the Maori Television Service could have gone to air almost immediately. It could have been out there now. Moreover it would not be dependent on the State for handouts. That option would have given the Maori Television Service the opportunity to operate as an independent commercially viable stand-alone television channel that would not be dependent on the State for funding. It would have been a bit like Mai FM is now in Auckland which constantly challenges the top-rating radio broadcasters because it is commercial. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How did it start? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes it started with taxpayer funding but with the way the Maori Television Service is now being run it will be dependent on $13 million a year just to operate the service and a predicted $155 million a year by 2005 just to make the programmes. The Minister of Broadcasting did not want that option because he wanted the Maori Television Service to be broadcast through a channel provided by BCL which is now the stand-alone company from Television New Zealand. As someone else pointed out those who want to receive Maori television will now have to pay hundreds of dollars to tune into it and if they live in an area where it is difficult to get reception—for example behind a hill—they will have to pay to get extra aerials. 
As I said the Minister is setting up Maori television to fail. The Government is pandering to the Maori vote and more than that I predict that this will provide ammunition for those rednecks out there who want to bash Maori because this television service will hoover-up taxpayers’ money. In the end it is doomed to fail. 
My colleague Rodney Hide has already revealed a huge wastage of taxpayers’ money which has been handed out to make television programmes for Maori television and that has been used on booze-ups for Ministers. As we see more taxpayers’ money wasted I predict there will be a repeat of the Aotearoa Television debacle and that is so unfair because New Zealanders who oppose this will just turn round and say: “Look at Maori. They can’t run business. They are constantly propped up by the taxpayers.” Of course it is in this Government’s interests to keep Maori dependent on Government handouts so that it can get the Maori vote at the next election. I gave a lot of interviews last year to iwi radio stations and they were totally opposed to the way this Government will broadcast Maori television. They knew it was being set up to fail and they dreaded the backlash that will surely result from it. 
Georgina te Heuheu raised a very good point when she mentioned the repeated intrusion of the Treaty of Waitangi into this legislation. I also predict that the Maori Television Service will be strangled by this Government’s passing of the Treaty of Waitangi buck into this legislation especially when this Government cannot even define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and instead just claims that it is a nebulous living breathing document that is alive and well in Margaret Wilson’s office. How on earth is a television broadcaster meant to operate when it is strangled by the intrusion of the Treaty of Waitangi into the legislation that is set up to run it? The only good thing that has come out of this is the appointment of Wayne Walden who will hopefully inject some accountability into this television service. 
It is also interesting to note that this television service has resulted from litigation to the Privy Council—the same Privy Council that this Government will deny New Zealanders the right to appeal to. In its creeping move to republicanism it will remove the right of appeal to the Privy Council which is the same Privy Council that saved so-called precious te reo. I notice members are all very silent on that and looking the other way holding their heads in shame. Where would te reo be without the Privy Council? We have heard much cant about the need for members of this House to have lessons in how to speak Maori and I notice that that arrogance always emanates from the bleeding-heart white apologists. It would be really gratifying if members of this House took some lessons in English for a start before they started to think about being bilingual. 
As I say the ACT party opposes this legislation. It is doomed to fail. If this coalition Government really wanted to do something about education and prosperity for Maori it would give Maori parents some choice and as Bill Gudgeon has so passionately said it would bring up some standards in education. It would do something about the appalling rise in suspensions and stand-downs among Maori students. An alleged 4000 students are truanting and nothing has been done about it. It would reform welfare so that young Maori women would not be leaving school with no qualifications to bring up their babies on welfare. Where is the Minister of Social Services and Employment when a poor woman is crying at 4 o’clock in the morning because the washing machine has overflowed from all the sheets that are dirty and the baby is vomiting and she has no one who will put his or her arms around her and give her a hug while she has a big howl? What is the $13 million and the $155 million doing to raise the standards of education for women like that? 
If the Government wants to do something about education and prosperity for Maori it should not spend all that money on an entertainment channel which is doomed to fail and which is fodder for the rednecks. The Government should do something about giving choice back to Maori parents—and all parents—and power in their children’s education. We oppose this legislation. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I stand with pleasure to take a very brief call. In response to the previous speaker I have to observe that she will have the luxury of thinking about some of those deep imponderables that she confronted us with while she is in Cambridge in the UK for 3 months at the taxpayers’ expense. I tell Ms Coddington that I am not at all jealous I am just a bit befuddled by the double standard that the ACT party continually exhibits. Like other members of the House I note with great irony that the one Maori member of the ACT party seems conspicuously absent from the Chamber for the debate on this bill. I recommend this bill to the House. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to say that we support the second reading of this bill but we have some concerns that we hope will be dealt with in the Committee stage. We are very happy that the bill has finally come before the House; after spending some 12 months on the Order Paper it is a long time coming. As has been mentioned previously the whole issue concerning te reo as a taonga was first acknowledged by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1986. In 1993 the Privy Council made its decision which was one of very few it did make in support of Maori issues. In that decision the Privy Council again supported the funding of a special television service for the protection of that taonga. In 1996 we had the establishment of Aotearoa Television as a pilot which then ended somewhat messily in 1997. Since that time it has taken 6 years to finally develop legislation and a process for the establishment of a Maori television service that enables the Government to meet its treaty obligations. It is very overdue and we are pleased to see it finally before the House. 
The provision of a high-quality service focused on te reo and tikanga will make a huge contribution to both Maori and non-Maori communities. I am appalled to hear concerns that such a service will be divisive given that those kinds of accusations are certainly not levelled at Television New Zealand which concerns only one language in this country and which is broadcast primarily in that one language. Its commitment to te reo and to tikanga has come about only in recent times but of course that is not considered divisive. Yet when Maori are able to be reflected in one of the most important media opportunities that we currently have that is considered divisive by some people. 
They are wrong. This is not divisive. This is a way to enable all New Zealanders to have their views concerns and issues reflected in a television service that is primarily concerned with New Zealand concerns and views. It will be the only television service we have in this country that is primarily concerned with this country and its people and that is where its real strength lies. It is a clear indication of how in meeting treaty obligations and recognising the importance of te tiriti the Government and others can provide a contribution through that treaty obligation to all people in this country and help and establish community awareness and recognition of different values—values that are reflected in Maori and non-Maori communities. So we are very pleased to see this initiative coming to effect at some stage. 
However we do have some issues with the bill that I need to outline this afternoon. For us—and Sue Kedgley mentioned this in her first reading speech very well—the issue of the independence of the service from political interference is a serious concern. Although the Maori Affairs Committee did make some minor changes to the wording of the bill none the less there are still provisions in the bill that will undermine the political independence of the service; issues such as the level of financial accountability that the service will have to Ministers and to the Government if every time it wants to buy a stapler it has to get permission to do so. We believe that that kind of level of accountability could undermine by political interference. We believe that financial independence is crucial for a member of the fourth estate. 
So we will be putting forward an amendment during the Committee stage that will address that issue and ensure that in no circumstances are Ministers or any individuals whether or not with the permission of the board able to influence the programming the content or the management of the service in that respect. Maori services whether this service or some such body as the Waitangi Tribunal need to be accorded the same respect—the same standing—as any other similar body in our constitution. The protection of the fourth estate its independence in what it reports and the content of its reporting is very important to us so we will be putting forward an amendment during the Committee stage. 
We are also concerned about the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has put forward particularly in relation to clause 28C in terms of the leasing of the UHF right to third parties to ensure that any third party that may use that spectrum does so completely committed to the purpose of the service. We will be putting forward an amendment that makes some minor changes in wording but none the less is a significant step in ensuring that any third party that takes on the spectrum will not only be committed to providing and promoting te reo and tikanga through the television service but that it is also committed to ensuring that it will broadcast primarily in te reo at prime time ensuring that at other times a substantial proportion of its programmes are in te reo ensuring that in the presentation of the service the needs of children and adults who are learning te reo are recognised as far as possible and technically available and also ensuring that practical access to the service will be maintained. 
For us it is not just about the content of the service but also about the delivery of the service that is essential. We look forward to putting forward our amendments at a later stage. 
Finally late last year we raised the concern about the spectrum and the choice of the Government to go with UHF instead of with the TV4 option. That is a very serious concern for us because the success of the service relies very much on its ability to access communities and for communities to see themselves reflected in that service. We are deeply concerned about that. Although it is very difficult for changes to be made to the bill at this late stage we would like to see some kind of commitment from the Government to ensure that at least for example marae are able to access the service and that there is funding provided for them to purchase aerials if they need to in order to ensure a high-quality level of service. 
If we start providing a Maori-focused television service that suffers from really bad reception or interference from other television receptions it will be considered to be bad quality. It will be undermined as being not as good as other television and will not get the support from the communities that it is supposed to support. It will not get the kind of recognition and standing from other non-Maori communities on which it can have a great impact in encouraging the relationships ethnic understanding and relationship development between all peoples in this country. 
So something like funding for marae would be extremely useful as some indication from the Government that it is committed to ensuring that all people get access to the television service. We look forward to discussion during the Committee stage and we are pleased to support the bill at its second reading. Again we would like to reiterate that we consider that the service is essential to this country it will be an excellent way to recognise te reo as being the only official language in this country and not at all divisive but as a way of bringing together communities—an essential issue in the 21st century. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. I believe that it is very good legislation. I congratulate the Hon Parekura Horomia and also members of the Maori caucus and the Maori Affairs Committee on bringing the bill back to the House. This bill is an important bill and the Maori Television Service will be an important part of the cultural flavour of our country. I speak as a younger member for whom te reo Maori and tikanga Maori is not some sort of strange abstract thing. It is something that we have grown up with and something that I think all New Zealanders will enjoy. I do not agree with members who say that this will be divisive between Maori and Pakeha. Within the Pakeha community there are a growing number of people who want to enjoy and understand more of Maori culture and have that intertwined in their life. There is no doubt about that. 
I was very interested to listen to the subscription figures on the radio on Sunday for  
Mana 
 magazine where half of the subscribers to that magazine are Pakeha. This legislation is about New Zealand. It is about two peoples. This is a bicultural bill and I think members will be quite surprised how much support there is in the community for it. I come from a generation that does not need to look at the words of both languages of the anthem of our country. It is something we instinctively know. This legislation is something that members will look on I believe with pride when they cast their votes for it. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 This bill which is being reported back from the Maori Affairs Committee is a huge and lasting monument to the incompetence of the Minister of Maori Affairs and of the Government. As my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has told the House the National Party will be voting against it. I tell the Minister that on the basis of the vast array of political riches that have been forthcoming from the Maori Television Service to date I look forward to many many happy hours in the select committee in parliamentary question time and in dealing with the media at his expense. Because that has been the track record of this bill to date and it will no doubt be the track record of this legislation in the future. 
It is worth reminding the House today that the Minister of Maori Affairs announced the launching of the Maori Television Service on 11 November 2000. He said that during the next year—2001—we would see the Maori Television Service. Well we have seen a few changes a few modifications and a few updates since that time. Indeed the major one would have had us believe that the service would be on air in June of last year. Now we are told that if we are lucky—if I might use that word—we will see something at the end of this year. Whichever way we look at it—whether we look at the funding the governance the appointment of management the programming or the transmission—it is hard to imagine a bigger cock-up than this bill at any level. 
I tell the Minister that I do not think his stocks with the Prime Minister will be looking too flash because I recall something that the Prime Minister said on 18 February 2001. She said: “I saw it was going round 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.” That is what the Prime Minister said about the Maori Television Service on 18 February way back in 2001. Over 2 years ago she said: “We want some options—and fast ... I want some decisions. I want to be in a position to make decisions instead of seeing the issue go round in circles at a bureaucratic level.” That is what the Prime Minister said about this legislation and about this service over 2 years ago. 
We now know that the Minister in whose name this bill sits before the House today has piece by piece had most of the decisions taken off him and given to the Minister of Finance. The reason is that the Prime Minister has been losing confidence in the Minister who is in charge of this bill as has this House. 
My colleagues and I in the National Party believe that this has been a very sorry saga and I thank Deborah Coddington for reminding the House today of the genesis of this service. She reminded the House that the starting point for the bill was in the plan of Mr Derek Fox now the chief executive previously the chairman to set up a new Maori political party to challenge the Labour Party in the Maori seats and that he personally—Mr Fox—was going to challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs in his own electorate. Then the Prime Minister who could see the Government’s hold on the Maori seats looking a bit shaky decided to invite Mr Fox to afternoon tea—and a very nice afternoon tea it must have been indeed as Ms Coddington has reminded the House because Mr Fox walked out of that afternoon tea a very happy man. He was told of the wonderful prospects that lay ahead for him as the chairman-to-be of the new Maori Television Service. 
Perceptive members on this side of the House said: “Ah there’s something rotten going on here! This sounds like something that should happen in one of those Third World African countries not something that should happen in New Zealand. It looks like this man has been bought off.” We were told by the Prime Minister: “Oh no no! Mr Fox is still going to set up his new Maori political party and Mr Fox is going to be paid only $36000 a year for a very very part-time job as chairman of the Maori Television Service.” We thought that maybe we were wrong that maybe this was kosher after all. But revelation after revelation in documents that came out under the Official Information Act told us that our original suspicions were right. There was something very very rotten indeed in the genesis of this Maori Television Service. The intention was to buy Mr Fox off from setting up his new Maori political party and the $36000 which was the maximum fee he was going to get turned into a very much larger director’s fee. Then it got topped up again by a new consultancy arrangement so that he was to receive $100000 near as damn it and $50000 in expenses on top not even for a full year either. 
So members on this side of the House scratch their heads and say in amazement that they were suspicious initially about this arrangement but that in no way did they envisage things could go as far and as badly wrong as they have done. Having gone through the saga of the Davy appointment we now have the very same Mr Fox on $160000 as the chief executive. I have been flicking through some of the papers that have just been released as the State Services Commission was asked to comment on Mr Fox’s contract. These are indeed revealing because there is a requirement for the State Services Commission to comment on these contracts and in particular on the job descriptions. I quote Mr Dave Cox on the job description for Mr Fox: “I am a bit worried about the job description. If as you say it is the same as used for Davy then defending the Fox appointment on the grounds of te reo intimate knowledge of the establishment process so far and broadcasting background could be problematic. Will you line Davy up against these criteria?” . 
What he is saying is that the appointment of Mr Fox could not possibly be the result of the application of the job description to his particular set of skills. It goes on: “However if the job description were now to change it is even worse as Fox has already been identified as the preferred candidate. An alteration of the job description after the event is a no-no.” That is what the State Services Commission told the Minister’s own officials who signed the cheques and okayed the process. It said that there was no proper basis in process for the appointment of Mr Fox as the chief executive that the job description that got Mr Davy appointed was the same job description that got Mr Fox appointed and that one could not possibly line up both those candidates and justify both of their appointments under the same job description. Then it went on to say that of course changing that job description was a “no-no” so we have a little bit of a problem on our hands in terms of process. 
Finally because the directors decided to push the announcement out anyway the Government had to go along for the ride. I say to the Minister today that as I vote to oppose this service I promise him that in the select committee in the questions process in the House and in the other avenues under the Official Information Act that are available to members I will be very vigilant about this service because I know and he knows that the Government’s motives in passing this bill are entirely political. They are entirely concerned with propping up the political fortunes of the Labour Party and with ensuring that Mr Fox is taken out of the play as a candidate and as the leader of a new political party and we will hold the Government to account. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I remind the Labour Party that the idea of having a Maori television service has been around since I was in about form 2 when television was available to the masses in New Zealand. Certainly we kids from the poor side of town had to wait longer than others before we got to have television in our own homes. But the idea of a Maori television service is not new at all and I am delighted that we are now seeing real progress on the provision of such a service. My pronunciation of Maori words is abysmal. I keep working on it and I know there are a lot of people who similarly want to improve their pronunciation. In fact at 6 a.m. this morning I was watching  
Te Karere  
and listening very carefully. I am also aware from the other part of my heritage of languages that were dying such as the Welsh and Celtic languages where those countries very wisely invested time in their languages so that they would be preserved for future generations. It must be an absolute tragedy for people to know that the language of their forefathers and foremothers would possibly be lost. 
This is important legislation. I cannot understand the—I was going to say covert but I will be frank and say overt—the overt opposition with unpleasant undertones behind it from some of the members of the Opposition. We need to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is about reflecting the New Zealand that we want to see for the future. Our children support this kind of legislation. The things being said by some members of the Opposition just makes them look like dinosaurs. Let us get on with this bill. It is a very good progressive piece of legislation. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I will just take a short call on this bill. My fellow MP Mr Gudgeon has obviously covered all the good ingredients. I will cover some of the good and some of the bad. We all know that New Zealand First will oppose this bill on these very important points. This proposed channel has already suffered some credibility problems with regard to the appointment of Mr Davy and the recent restructuring of all that. 
Firstly I want to look at coverage. Obviously this is a concern in the Wairarapa and on the East Coast. As we have already heard a large number of iwi in north Auckland will not be able to get coverage. If that is correct then why are we going ahead with this thing? I have spoken to some of the people on the East Coast and to Ngati Porou and there will be a problem up there. 
I feel a bit whakama for the Minister sitting there all on his lonesome. Where are the other Maori MPs? Why are they not here supporting the bill? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: They are at the tangi. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: That is fine but I am very surprised that they are not sitting around the Minister supporting him in respect of this important channel. 
The other thing I want to touch on is te reo. New Zealand First is not against the pronunciation of Maori and the resurgence of te reo. If I did not support it my mother-in-law would clip my ears when I got home tonight so I have to support it. 
The other issue is cost. To be a member of this particular channel will put pressures on some of the families who subscribe to it. I remember visiting Hawaii driving past some of the back parts and seeing a receiving dish. I think the dish was more expensive than the house and the car. We do not want to see that sort of thing emerge here in Aotearoa. 
I have some real problems with this budget. Wayne Walden who came in to restructure this project after the debacle with Mr Davy has a credible background. He was the chief executive officer of Deka and has a lot of experience on how to make a dollar but—and this is the “but” part of it—Mr Walden and his team were asked to put a new budget together and also asked what they would need to take this thing to the next part of the proposal. They came up with a figure of about $12 million. But what did the Labour Government offer them? It offered a lot less than $12 million. How often will the Government keep doing that? As I have just said this channel is already behind the ball because of finance and is on the road to destruction. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Way behind! 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Yes way behind! During the Maori Affairs Committee hearing I asked Mr Fox what this channel would require now that it was hopefully getting itself back on its feet. He mentioned that they would have to look at new technology offshore. I am sure that the $12 million that Mr Walden budgeted for was part of that. I have some concerns about the technology that will be put in place. 
I now want to touch on the issue of failure. If this project fails who fails? The Government will not fail but once again Maoridom will fail because the appropriate measures have not been taken to make sure that this thing stacks up. 
With those short words New Zealand First will oppose this bill—not for some of the reasons that have been mentioned but for good reasons and on good common-sense issues. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the a 
mendments recommended by the Maori Affairs Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes63 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Television Service Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time.