Hutchison Paul: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Hutchison Paul: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4991] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this bill. Like my colleague Katherine Rich I too am somewhat astounded by the bill’s preamble. Certainly there is evidence of an emphasis on the “amble” bit because if we go to the commentary on the bill we find it is absolutely correct that what appears in the bill is probably an altered version of the translation originally submitted to Te Puni Kokiri. I note that there is a request that the preamble revert to the version originally provided and also that it be presented in adjacent columns with Maori to the left and English to the right. We do not see that in the preamble and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair Parekura Horomia would take a call and explain to the Committee why that simple request by the Maori Affairs Committee has not been met. 
There has been a huge amount of time in the genesis of this bill for it to be made simple for those who are not well versed in te reo. Surely that is one of the main aims of the bill. The Crown indeed has obligations to Maori to ensure that te reo and tikanga are preserved but surely they should be preserved for all New Zealanders. Undoubtedly there is an obligation to Maori to do that but as New Zealand evolves and as intermingling occurs it is just common-sense that a bill such as this should be easily understood and read by both partners to the treaty. So I hope that the Minister will indeed take a call and explain why that has not happened. 
My colleague Georgina te Heuheu mentioned that there is no clarity in terms of the Crown’s obligation in this preamble. After all we understand that the tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Maori language and in the ensuing litigation it became absolutely clear that it was appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori through its use both by Maori and in television broadcasting. But where do we see—and I hope the Minister will clarify what my colleague asked him to do—that clear obligation to Maori in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi? It is certainly not there. 
Again as my colleague Katherine Rich pointed out where in the preamble does it state that this stand-alone television service is an obligation under the treaty? Where is the clear evidence that this is the way and the preferable way to preserve te reo Maori and tikanga Maori? Where is the evidence that a stand-alone television service will do that? Where is the obligation to ensure that Maori can determine for themselves the way that this service is carried out? As I read the bill and its preamble there is nothing to suggest that Maori may themselves determine the direction of the service in discharging that very important obligation. 
I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee those absolutely fundamental and serious mistakes and deficiencies right at the very beginning of the bill. Also I want him to tell us why after so many years right from the genesis of the bill the Labour Government has failed so miserably to be succinct and clear in its obligations in terms of the recommendations that the select committee has made.