Wong Pansy: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5067] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 This is very important legislation and I applaud the Chair for allowing more calls. There are two clauses in Part 2 that I would particularly like to speak to. The first one is new clause 28A which refers to the fact that the Maori Television Service will be broadcast on the UHF frequency. I read with interest the introductory speech on this bill by the Minister of Maori Affairs. He promised that the Maori Television Service would be encouraged to embrace sunrise not sunset technology. To that end the service had to broadcast according to the Minister in such a way that its programmes would be technically available throughout New Zealand. I do not see how this bill supports that. 
The National Party certainly will hold the Labour Minister of Maori Affairs to the promise he made when introducing this bill that the service would be broadcast using sunrise technology. But instead the Maori community will get second best. The platform for the service is only UHF. That means that all those people will have to pay $200 for a new aerial and the tuning of their television sets. I do not know whether the Minister has the mandate for that. Did he tell the Maori community and other people who want to watch Maori television that they will have to pay $200? I think the Minister owes this Parliament and the public an explanation of that. Who will pay the $200? I think that is a fair question. Can the Minister take a call to explain why he thinks UHF is sunrise technology? Why is the other platform not being used? The Opposition parties and the public are listening intently to this debate so the Minister owes us a duty to stand up and take some calls in order to answer some very serious questions. 
The other issue I wish to speak about is clause 28 “Duties of directors”. That clause states: “A director of the board when acting as a director and the board acting collectively must—(a) act in good faith honestly and with integrity;”. I would like the Minister to reflect take a call and explain to us the actions of some of the directors. For example what happened to the first appointee as pointed out by my colleague Katherine Rich? I have just learnt like most people that apparently the first chief executive Mr John Davy is in charge of some Asian hockey service. I wonder whether Mr John Davy can speak Chinese Korean and Japanese on top of his other skills? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Yes. 
PANSY WONG 
: The Minister reckons that John Davy is fluent in Chinese—as fluent as I am in the Maori language I bet! What happened to the board that appointed Mr John Davy who ended up in jail? The board was supposed to act with integrity. Where is the accountability? 
The situation becomes worse. After finding out through the media—and by the way the media has been doing all the hard work in finding out that Mr John Davy was not worth the paper that his name was written on—about Mr Davy he was not got rid of by the board but through an external source. Then the chairman of the board Mr Derek Fox started to interview for the next possible candidate for the vacant position. Mr Derek Fox sat on the selection committee and asked questions apparently making sure that none of the candidates came up to scratch. What did the board do? It had a 5-minute break. Mr Derek Fox left the room and we learnt that the board voted three to two with one proxy vote to appoint him as the chief executive. 
The Minister really needs to take a call and explain to the public whether that was an example of a board of directors acting in good faith honestly and with integrity. If it was we might have to re-write the legislation.