Gudgeon Bill: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Gudgeon Bill: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5108] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to look at the history of Maori involvement in business. There have been many failures in Maori business because of non-accountability. New Zealand First has already expressed its opposition to Maori television because of the process and the steps that have been taken. One of those steps has been touched on by Mr McCully—the appointment of the chief executive officer. I remember when that person was asked in the Maori Affairs Committee what he was getting paid as acting chairperson as he was at the time and he specifically quoted the figure of $36000 although I will stand corrected on that. 
I refer to the process that has taken place in relation to the appointment of the chief executive officer. How can a person who sat on the interviewing committee all of a sudden be appointed to the position of chief executive officer? I am sure that some very competent people applied but at this stage I am not aware who the applicants were. Maoridom has been tarnished with the brush of incompetence and failure in business. Why is that? Is it because we are following along that same pattern of appointees—patting each other on the back and saying: “You will do the job.”? Why is it? That is the question I ask. The commentary on the bill talks about “Issues beyond the bill” and “Security and level of funding”. In relation to someone being appointed to the very responsible position of chief executive officer of Maori Television—if and when it gets off the ground—it states: “Several submitters proposed amending the bill to provide security of funding to the Service …”. If there are concerns about security of funding to the service why are we still continuing to pass this bill? 
The commentary on the bill continues: “Submitters are concerned that funding for the Service is contestable with other broadcasters. Submitters also have concerns about the level of operational funding allocated to the Service. We consider that issues relating to funding of the Service are outside the scope of this bill.” Are we not destined for failure when there is a question about the funding for this bill? Are we on the same track that led to the failure of other business corporations in the past? What and who would that reflect on? Here we go again—money is spent and there is no accountability. The viability of this bill is doomed. We in New Zealand First do not want to be associated with anything that is a failure for Maori because we feel that Maori have a great part to play in our community in our nation and internationally. 
Mita Ririnui 
: So why not on television? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: So if we are going to talk about Maori television as I have just heard—if or when it gets off the ground—how are we to say: “Yes Maori have learnt from that media or that type of learning to retain the language and the tikanga.”? As I have asked before who will facilitate the learning when people look at the screen? The bill is saying it will help retain the language yet all of a sudden a person who was on the original interviewing panel has been appointed chief executive officer. Who were the people who applied for this position? Did they or did they not have the skills?