Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5065] 
Maori Television Service Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 April. 
Part 2 Key provisions relating to appointment and duties of directors transfer of UHF right accountability of Service and establishment of related entities ( 
continued 
)  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I was just explaining to the Committee the amendments that the Greens are putting forward to Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia and I will continue with that. The amendments that we have put forward will mean that any third party who may lease the UHF spectrum will have to commit to prime-time broadcasts primarily in te reo so that te reo is not relegated to obscure times when no one is watching the television. At other times te reo programmes will have to be prioritised. Any third party will have to commit that the service delivery takes into account the needs of te reo learners both children and adults and ensure that practical access to as many people as possible is made available. 
Those amendments reflect our concern about the current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments: that those commitments do not adequately protect Maori broadcasting. We know that a request has been made to abandon funding for Maori broadcasting. There remains a GATS reservation in respect of Maori broadcasting but the limits of that reservation are not clear. There is no reservation to prevent foreign ownership or delivery of te reo programming. For example the reservation may protect the funding of Te Mangai Paho but not necessarily the use of the spectrum for Maori broadcasting nor the service delivery of Maori programming to the country. 
The Greens’ amendments will ensure that any third party will be required through its business plan to prioritise te reo and to commit to delivering a broadly accessible service. That is an essential protection in this legislation. We urge all parties in this Committee to vote for those amendments. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of this bill. Once again I say that for something that was supposed to be a flagship project for this Government the Maori Television Service has been an utter shambles from the very beginning. Almost every step that has been taken towards the provision of the Maori Television Service has faltered. It seems to many members of the public that this group of people just cannot get anything right. We have seen director after director—a virtual game of musical chairs in terms of directorships—move on and off the board with alarming regularity. The service has been an absolute embarrassment. 
Nobody has really explained how the television service will play its part in preserving the language. On the Opposition side of the Chamber we feel it is vital that work is done to preserve the language but we would argue that if we took that $55 million per annum and put it into teachers Maori-language programmes and school programmes in particular the whole country would be much further ahead in terms of learning the language. If members compare the Maori Television Service—which is being based on a Canadian model the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network—with that network they will find that even though Canadian cable broadcasters are forced by legislation to carry that channel under a “must carry” clause in the legislation only about 1 percent of Canadians watch the channel. I would like the Minister to answer this: how can this New Zealand channel play a part in preserving the language if nobody will watch it or if very small numbers of New Zealanders will watch it? Broadcasting into the ether is not enough. There is no way that the language can be preserved if the service is on an obscure part of the Sky remote and nobody watches it. 
I turn to clause 47(3) which states: “The Crown must not incur any liability to the Service or expend any money for the use of the Service under an appropriation by Parliament unless—(a) a final statement of intent has been presented to the House of Representatives by the responsible Ministers; and (b) the responsible Ministers have agreed to the output agreement prepared by the board …”. To the Minister sitting in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia I say that that clause is a bit late because we on the Opposition side of the Chamber would like to know what has been happening within the Maori Television Service for the last 3 years. Certainly a number of liabilities have been incurred under that Minister’s responsibility when in fact the Maori Television Service has had no legal status in relation to the law at all. 
We have seen a lot of high-profile liabilities being incurred heard a lot of debate about directors’ fees and seen some programming projects that have gone bad. In just the last month we saw that Slightly Upbeat Productions has not paid any of its bills. It has left a lot of people with unpaid bills and those people have incurred a lot of costs when it came to producing programmes. We are about to hear about another one of those issues. A number of programmes that Te Mangai Paho has funded are open to question. I say that that particular clause is quite late because the Maori Television Service has been going out and spending a lot of money signing leases signing programming contracts and signing up staff. 
While we are on the subject of staff I would like to get back to another high-profile staff member. I would like to read from the Maori Television Service’s website. This is the part I did not manage to read the other night. Reading from the website notes I learn that Mr Davy is an accomplished recording and video producer. He is a composer a songwriter and a musician. He has extensive experience in drafting and managing international licensing and royalty agreements. He has authored two books  
The Platinum Formula 
 and  
The Art of Record Producing. 
 Would members believe that neither of those books exists? This bit is very interesting: “His non-conflict directorships include being founder and commissioner of the Asian Hockey Association.” I say to Mrs Wong. 
Pansy Wong 
: Really? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Yes. Mr Davy is “a member and adviser of the Middle East Round Table for International Relations. He is also a member and adviser of the BC Securities Commission.” Of course the only truthful thing we know about Mr John Davy is the fact that he is Canadian. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Deborah Coddington. 
Rodney Hide 
: I hesitate to say that there is bias. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What rule was the Chair applying in calling Deborah Coddington before me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hide you may not remember this but you had a call yesterday on the same part of this bill that we are now debating. 
Rodney Hide 
: Oh that is right. I got it in before I was thrown out of the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. You had a call at 9.36 p.m. last night. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to Part 2 and to continue from where Katherine Rich finished off. She talked about the clause that mentions the statement of intent and said that it was 3 years too late. It is actually longer than that. If we go back to 1997 we find that taxpayers’ money was being spent on setting up the Maori Television Service and commissioning programmes doing research and consulting huge numbers of the Maori community. That was all being done without the benefit of legislation like this which enables that to happen. 
The other area where this part is too late because we have already gone down this road and blundered into trouble is clause 28 which deals with directors having a conflict of interest. I suggest that that is also too late. We should go back and look at some of the people who were involved in the steering groups back in 1997 for setting up a Maori television network and then look at some of the companies that have received funding from Te Mangai Paho. Let us not forget that the Maori Television Service and Te Mangai Paho are interconnected in that the funding of $13 million a year for the television service is only for the actual running of it and the $155 million that will be spent by 2005 is for the making of programmes. Many of those millions of dollars have been spent on programmes before this television service has even come within cooee of going to air. 
But I will come back to the issue of a conflict of interest. I put some questions to the Minister about the full list of grants that have been made for funding. It is very interesting to look at the companies that have been given millions of dollars to make these programmes. If we look at the companies and then do a search at the Companies Office to see some of the directors behind those companies well lookee here we find they are the same people who were involved in advising the Government on setting up the Maori Television Service and the same people who have been given money from Te Mangai Paho to make a lot of these television programmes. 
Iki Animation Ltd is just one of them. It has received several million dollars. Cinco Cine Film Productions appears again and again. We have no idea about the quality of those programmes. The only way that we can judge them is by looking at what has already gone to air before the Maori Television Service was set up. If we take the judgment of some of the people who watch those programmes I would say that they will not be terribly successful. 
What are the boundaries within this legislation for the quality of programmes when we have a conflict of interest which really just amounts to snouts in the trough—the restrictions on the same people appearing again and again who are involved in both the setting up of the service and lining up for the funding? That is already happening. It has been happening for several years and I really do wonder why the Minister even bothered to put this clause in. We will address schedule 2 later on—I know that—but nevertheless Part 2 refers to that schedule. 
I have received some correspondence from a young 18-year-old Maori person who was in the gallery the other night watching this debate. She emailed me and stated that as a young 18-year-old Maori who is studying politics she is very concerned about the Maori language. She is appalled by the standard of spoken Maori on some of the shows like  
Pukana  
and  
Mai Time.  
She said that the language is poor including that used on the Maori news and the current affairs shows. The presenters come across very poorly and unprofessionally and she said that they represent a really fake attitude to Maori things. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 The main thrust of this section is the purpose and part of the purpose is the Treaty of Waitangi obligations. I say to our Minister that obviously there is some attraction to the Treaty of Waitangi but I believe that will just be a fuzzy feeling for our Maori people—just another fuzzy thing to try to entrap our people into something that is going down the wrong track. 
I want to touch on the teaching of te reo. I ask our Maori members why we do not leave it to the kohanga reo to the kura kaupapa and to all the programmes the polytechs currently run. I know that there are private te reo classes running here there and everywhere. I mention my fellow MP’s korero last night about learning from television. I am not an expert in that particular area but I think the information he gave last night is very important. I do not believe that this is the right forum for our young people or people like myself to learn te reo. I give an example: my daughter Renée who is currently at St Joseph’s College did not go to kohanga reo as a baby or as a 5-year-old. She went straight into kura kaupapa Maori and is now a very fluent speaker of te reo. All I am going to say to the Minister is that it was already happening in a qualified way in those particular areas I have mentioned. 
I want to talk about the directors. We have heard this afternoon and we have heard through the papers before all the negativism towards Mr Davy who I think had a job somewhere in the world—whereabouts was it? 
Rodney Hide 
: Afghanistan. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: It probably was Afghanistan but through the grapevine I did hear: “Haere ra John Davy!” which means: “Get on your way there is no more work here for you!”. With regard to the directorships of this particular television station let us not get into the nepotism. Let us keep away from that. If this bill goes through neither we nor the Minister want that landing on our heads like it did on Mr Davy. I want to spell out some things here. Mr Davy had an advance on his salary. He had an impeccable CV. If I had been sitting on that board the first thing I would have asked Mr Davy is if he was that good where was his credit card to get an advance on his rent and on his car? Quite frankly the directors did not smell this man coming so I advise the Minister to beware who he puts on the board. 
I want to touch on the quality of the programmes. I have seen some of the previews of those programmes. I hope there is some te reo that matches the korero they are speaking. With those hop-pop ideas they have I am sure that there will be some real quality te reo. I will be interested in Mr Gudgeon’s interpretation of some of the te reo they will be putting in those programmes. Let us be aware that we are using taxpayers’ money. Let our whanau across the floor be aware that there are other important things. There is marae development and I must say that New Zealand First in coalition with National put $3 million—only a snippet—into marae development. That can be trebled because that is the foundation of our people and that is where we must build our strength from—not from some television station. That should come later not now. 
Land development is an issue but I want to talk about membership. The member from I think National talked about that issue. Membership will cost something like $200 but who the hang will be able to afford to pay that? I know what they will join up to. Because Super 12 is here they will join up to that. They will not join up to this. 
I am just looking back through the bill and I might just be moving quietly aside here but let us talk about banking. Why is the Government putting the banking with the Bank of New Zealand? Why is it not going with Mr Anderton’s big bank the Kiwibank? 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I have great pleasure in speaking on Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori and I am looking forward to the Minister taking a call and explaining to us exactly what— 
Rodney Hide 
: We’ll be waiting a long long time. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is right. We might be waiting a while but it is absolutely relevant. I am very glad to be using the new name prompted by the fine member for National Georgina te Heuheu. The contribution by Edwin Perry was an absolutely relevant and excellent one. 
Ron Mark 
: It was a gem. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It was indeed a gem because he asked why we are using the medium embodied in Part 2 of this bill as the flagship to promote te reo Maori and tikanga Maori. I asked the question yesterday. What is the evidence base behind this medium being the one that will make the huge difference in promoting Maori language? From the report of the Maori Broadcasting Advisory Committee I pointed out just how perilously precipitous the fall in the usage of te reo has been over the years. It might be very well for the Minister not to listen to this but I would like him to take a call and tell the Committee about the evidence base behind using $55 million on a Maori television channel that has a body corporate structure and clearly has had so much difficulty over the past 2 to 3 years. Will the Minister take a call and tell us what the evidence base is behind using this very important resource on this very important question? I go over it again: in 1973 the status of te reo was that 13 percent of Maori had high fluency in it. In 1995 it was down to 8.1 percent of Maori with high fluency in te reo. By June 2000—probably at the beginning of this Minister’s position as Minister of Maori Affairs—we heard that only 4 percent of Maori had high fluency in te reo. 
 As Edwin Perry was saying there have been some wonderful results through the kohanga reo movement. The question I have to ask is why we are spending all that money on a television station that is very unlikely to reach a large number of Maori for the reason that he said which is that there will be a cost of $200 and for many that will be prohibitive. As my colleague Pansy Wong so rightly pointed out in respect of clause 28A the Minister was the very one who said that he would encourage sunrise technologies not sunset technologies. Surely those sunrise technologies are the ones that would be relevant and of high quality and ones that had been developed through time that would hit the right target—those young Maori between 0 and 5 or 0 and 10. That is the crucial time. 
Simon Power 
: 0 is young. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The whole point is that instead of a television station that will not reach such a large portion of Maori can the Minister give us the evidence base that this extremely unwieldy structure will be effective. I really would like him to take a call on this point because it is absolutely crucially important. If we look at clause 24 “Appointment of directors” it was on 15 March 2002 that the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia— 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the 
following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to new clause 28C(4) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to omit from new clause 28C(4) the words “principal function” and substitute the words “functions set out in section 8”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put t 
hat the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to new clause 28D(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to add to new paragraph 28D(1)(b) the words “to be used in fulfilling the functions set out in section 8”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that 
 the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Pursuant to an agreement of the House yesterday we will now proceed to voting on Part 1. 
The question was put 
that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) of clause 10 and substitute the following subclause: 
(1)The responsible Ministers or any other Minister or any person acting by or on behalf of or at the direction of any Minister or Te Putahi Paoho or a member of Te Putahi Paoho or a director acting without the authority of the board must not direct the Service or any subsidiary of the Service or any director officer or employee of the Service in respect of-- 
(a)a particular programme; 
(b)a particular allegation or complaint relating to a particular programme; 
(c)the gathering or presentation of news or the preparation or presentation of current affairs programmes; 
programme standards. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 87 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand National 23. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 15(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “sections 16 and 17” from paragraph (b) and substitute the words “section 16”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendmentsbe agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Provisions for termination of Te Reo Maori Television Trust (Te Ahwiorangi) transitional arrangements for establishment Service etc provision for review of Act and amendments to other Acts 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It is quite interesting to stand here and debate Part 3 of the Maori Television Service Bill which will establish the Maori Television Service and spend approximately $55 million per annum at a time when in my home town seven of our 10 hospital theatres have been closed down because they do not have any money. 
John Carter 
: How many? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Seven of our 10 hospital theatres have been closed down because we do not have any money to do operations. 
John Carter 
: Is that recent? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is just in the last couple of days. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What has hospital wards operating got to do with Part 3 of the Maori Television Bill? There used to be some rules in this place about relevance of debate. It is bad enough that we have the debate on every part as a second reading debate. Now it appears to be a second reading debate about a completely different bill. I know that the member has not been here very long but there are some rules about relevance in the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am ruling on the point of order. The member will keep to the part. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. It has been a convention if we are talking about conventions that members are allowed a lead-in to a debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. The member has had that. 
John Carter 
: She has had only a few seconds Madam Chair. If you look at your clock you will have a better record of that than I. It is not unusual for a member to have some lead-in and then come to the bill. The member was talking about the money that has been spent. It is quite normal for that to happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has had 2 minutes to do that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Are you speaking to the same point of order Mr Mark? 
Ron Mark 
: No. It is a new point of order. There are those of us in the House who would have thought that that was quite spurious. I ask you to consider that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member calling the ruling spurious? 
Ron Mark 
: No. It would be very helpful if a man could be allowed to get two words in without a woman interrupting. I am looking at Jill Pettis. I know that it is a habit that is hard to get rid of but the member should try. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Ron Mark 
: My point is that we do note that the Committee stage is an important part of the debate. It is an opportunity for the Opposition to put its arguments against the various clauses and for the Government to respond in kind. I am a little concerned that the only contributions we have had from the Government in this debate are contained in points of order and I ask that members be advised that they should make their contributions as 5-minute contributions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Leader of the House spoke about the generality of the debate. I have given two speeches in this debate and on both occasions I addressed myself specifically to technical points and asked for guidance or comment from the Minister as I invariably do in the Committee stage on points that I believe are proper points of inquiry. The problem that I have if the Leader of the House is correct that in fact one should confine oneself only to those kinds of points is that there has been no response and that if one does that one actually makes a boring speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a point of debate about Government members speaking or not speaking. A lot of members have spoken on this bill and will continue to speak on it. They do need to restrict those speeches to the part concerned. 
Stephen Franks 
: Madam Chairperson you did not let me finish my point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order. The member cannot raise a point of order about whether the Government participates. That is a point of debate. It is the Government’s decision. 
Stephen Franks 
: It would be very helpful if there were an indication that we were likely to get more than one speech per part which is provided for in the Standing Orders. It is at the discretion of the Chair. Those of us who endeavour to confine ourselves strictly to the technical clauses in the bill end up with our comments on the part as a whole never being heard because we simply get closed down. Given the concern of the Leader of the House about the way we are addressing the bill I invite him to consider that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point but the Chair is the sole judge of relevance. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: As I return to the point I was making as we stand in the Chamber and debate Part 3 it is a sad indication of this Government’s priorities that we are debating the Maori Television Service Bill at a time when seven out of 10 of the hospital theatres in my home city have been closed down due to lack of funding. Each month there are usually 20 operations for grommets; now there will be only 10. But getting back to Part 3 as I continue with my speech— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You were distracted but the member has just carried on talking endlessly about grommets operations and hospital wards in Dunedin. That has nothing to do with Part 3. If she cannot speak on it I suggest that she leaves it to Stephen Franks who can speak on the details of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Committee stage is the nuts and bolts stage. The bill is considered provision by provision—[ 
Interruption 
] There will be silence while I am on my feet and speaking. The bill is considered provision by provision to determine whether the details of the clauses are drafted properly and incorporate the principles of the bill as agreed to by the House. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 88/3. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I understand that when there is a debate during the Committee stage if members refer to a part and the clauses within that part they are still allowed to make comments regarding those clauses. The point I was making during the debate on Part 3 of the Maori Television Service Bill is that it is a sad indication of the Government’s lack of concern about the real issues. It is setting up a television station at a time when seven out of 10 of our hospital theatres are being closed down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Those are matters that should be addressed in the second reading. I have made a ruling on this matter as to relevance. I ask the member to continue. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
John Carter 
: Absolutely and that very question brings me to a second matter that I want to raise with you in a minute. I am concerned about the conduct of the Committee. You have correctly ruled that when there are points of order they are to be heard in silence. We often hear interjections from the junior Government whip. Indeed you just had to remonstrate with her and tell her to stay silent. You made the point that members were to be silent during points of order whereupon the Deputy Prime Minister then uttered an interjection across the Chamber. Also when Katherine Rich was standing and he wanted to raise a point of order he yelled out: “Sit down it’s a point of order.” It is not for him or the junior Government whip to run the Committee it is for you Madam Chairperson. We support you in doing so and so you should. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his assistance. He is absolutely right. This is about the third warning during the debate on this part on points of order being heard in silence and rulings being heard in silence. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is interesting to see the way members opposite have conducted themselves during the Committee stage of this bill. They have not liked many of the points we have raised in this debate. They have not liked us to mention names like “John Davy” or for us to say words like “Viaduct Basin”. They do not like mention to be made of any of the disastrous decisions the board has made in regard to the Maori Television Service. Government members have lost all signs of a sense of humour as they sit there with totally sombre sour faces. They do not like it one bit. 
In terms of Part 3 though there are some pretty interesting clauses. One of those clauses is clause 76A “Review of Act” which states: “(1) The responsible Ministers must as soon as practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement day—(a) commence a review of the operation ...”. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he really thinks that that channel will be up and running in 5 years for a review to be undertaken. At the moment as it has taken a good 3 years just to get the legislation into the House as far as this I wonder whether when we turn on our television sets in 5 years’ time we will see any channel at all. Certainly the signs are not good. It is doubtful whether the channel will be watched by a large number of New Zealanders. Frankly I think that that clause should be reviewed and amended so that a review is done in 12 months’ time. In 12 months’ time the House will want to have some significant questions answered about the way the television channel has conducted its business in the interim. 
It is very interesting looking at the clauses that relate to the protection of trustees. There is a very long long clause that basically indemnifies all trustees from any liability any failure or any mistake made in terms of putting the bill in place. I am not surprised. Those who were to consider being trustees or directors would want every indemnification possible because the chances are that this thing will not work and if it does not work they will be in the gun. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to focus a little more on new clause 76A. If I read that clause correctly it tells me that if this bill is enacted it will require the Minister to review the entire operation 5 years out from the commencement date. That surely must mean reviewing the structure the costs the uptake of te reo and the outputs—that is the number of people who will be speaking te reo that can be directly attributed to the performance of this television channel. Hopefully the review will also look at the appropriateness of spending the money on this programme as opposed to other programmes like Maori health. 
Pansy Wong 
: It doesn’t state that. 
RON MARK 
: But one would say that it should. I hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia or even the Minister of Finance who is here in the Chamber now will take a call to explain something to me. I have a fear that in reviewing the set-up of the service they will find that Maori have once again been set up for failure. Why do I say that? I will put some information out here in the Chamber that I have had put to me and I will leave it to the Minister to stand on his feet and tell me whether it is true. I have not heard his speech. We will publish the speeches from the Labour Party members on all these bills come the next election so that Maori can see just how much work that party did in the House or Committee on any day and what Labour members did to earn their money. 
I want the Minister to talk to me about why the Maori Television Service is not operating on Sky or why Maori television is not free to air alongside Television One and TV2. 
Jill Pettis 
: Which seat did the member win? 
RON MARK 
: That woman cannot help but interrupt men. She has to chip and chip away. She should sit down. I have been told that there is a satellite floating around up there in the sky called—I ask her to listen and learn something—the Optus B1. 
Jill Pettis 
: Not from you! 
RON MARK 
: The member should not be so nasty. It may be close to the adjournment time but that member should take a pill or something. The Optus B1 satellite is floating up there and I understand that Television New Zealand is operating on frequency 12456 symbol rate 22500 on a Forward Error Correction of three-quarters. I understand that TV2 is operating on exactly the same basis. I also understand that Sky is on that same television satellite. There are eight channels there for Telstra Saturn. 
The chap who pointed that out to me asked why given that Television One and TV2 are on the same satellite—which is free to air on those frequencies and symbol rates—Maori television is not on that satellite. Why is Maori television not operating off that satellite free to air in the same way as Television One and TV2 are operating and why does it have to go on UHF? The Minister knows why that is; he has some answers there. I would like to have the answers to that. I am told that if we were operating Maori television in the same way that Television One and TV2 are operating then the coverage would be nationwide. There would be no blank spots and there would be no issues of Maori sitting up in Northland and knowing that whilst $150 million will be spent on this project they will never get to see it. So I would like the Minister to talk to me about the Optus B1 satellite. 
I would also like him to talk to me about the failed Government bid. I understand that Television One and TV2 planned to form a contract with Telstra Saturn to stop Sky from ruling the satellites. That whole contract fizzed out. It was due to happen in August/September of last year but it did not. Sadly the Government folded and failed to keep up the pressure to stop Sky Network Television from freezing out other competition. However Telstra Saturn had a legal obligation to pay for two Optus B1 satellite transponders—that is TR4 and TR8—for the next 7 years. Part of that agreement set aside half the 54 megahertz transponder for TVNZ to distribute free to air. Why is Maori television not on that? Why is Maori television to be set up at a cost of $150 million ready to be chastised at the review in 5 years’ time—provided for under clause 76A—for blowing money for not having achieved its targeted outputs and for not having been able to identify how many Maori have taken up te reo? I have the horrible feeling that Maori have once again been set up to fail. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I am concerned at the proposal in this part to terminate the Te Reo Maori Television Trust. It seems to me that the replacement which is the channel itself together with Te Putahi Paoho is focused too much on this particular proposal in terms of the advancement of te reo by television. I envisage that the Te Reo Maori Television Trust would take—and it does take—a far broader approach to the issue of promoting te reo on television generally. That is what we need here. We need a body with Maori on it that looks at the wider issues of how te reo is best promoted on national television. 
As I indicated before I am simply not convinced that we should isolate Maori television and te reo education if that happens on a separate channel that hardly anybody will watch and that not very many people will have access to by the sound of it. That will simply isolate the language and put it to one side. In fact it will be destructive of te reo in New Zealand rather than helpful to it. We really need to have a trust such as Te Reo Maori Television Trust to look at the broad perspective of how we promote te reo on nationwide television. 
 I note that in the  
New Zealand Maori Council 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 case which the Government tells us is the foundation for why it is promoting this service the comment was made that it is necessary for there to be mass exposure to te reo throughout New Zealand. That is how we will advance te reo in New Zealand—through mass exposure to the language not by the restricted and confined exposure that will occur when we simply have one fringe channel that is watched by a minority of people and that may or may not deliver education. The Government is sidelining te reo; it is not promoting te reo amongst the general New Zealand population. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask the same question about relevance that was previously asked by the Leader of the House. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: The essential point if my friend was listening was the termination of the Te Reo Maori Television Trust. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member is correct. He is sticking to the part. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I note also in new clause 76A that a review is talked about to occur in 5 years’ time. I do not have the optimism of my friend Ron Mark who thinks we will have a wide-ranging review because if he looks at subclause (2) in new clause 76A he will see it states: “Prior to commencing the review referred to … the responsible Ministers must consult with Te Putahi Paoho on the terms of reference for the review.” It states there that the Minister who now has an obligation in terms of the promotion of the Maori Television Service—in the way that the Government wants to promote it through that restrictive channel—has to consult with the body that will in fact head the review on the terms of reference. I can see that those terms of reference will not be terms that will look at wide-ranging issues like whether we still need the television channel because we are asking that body effectively to look at voting itself out of existence. 
I am not confident that the review procedure in the legislation will provide the sort of wide-ranging review that we will need. I do not think even the Government is confident of that because we have already seen previously in clause 28C on Supplementary Order Paper 77 a sort of expectation by the Government that the UHF right will cease to be used. There is almost an expectation of failure for the service because the Government has now put in by way of that Supplementary Order Paper all those provisions that set out what happens if the service does not require the UHF right ceases to use the spectrum licences or proposes to transfer the UHF right to a third party. What does the Government envisage in such provisions? How long will this channel keep going? 
I think this review is not broad ranging enough and if we still had the Te Reo Maori Television Trust operating then it could continue to assess whether this proposal of the Government continues to be the most effective way of trying to get as many New Zealanders as possible familiar with te reo and more and more fluent in it. That will not happen. I and some other members are attending a te reo course at the moment. This bill is like saying that only members of the Maori caucus would be told about that te reo course because we were confining it to them. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I hope that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is listening to me because I think there is a matter that he would have a close interest in. Clause 72 “Protection of trustees” has a provision in subclause (2) that is deeply confusing. It appears on first reading as though it states if a trustee officer or agent refuses to help set up this legislation—the words are: “ … fails or refuses to act in order to prepare for or assist in the implementation of this Act”—then he or she cannot be held liable. The other interpretation is that if he or she does fail or refuse to act in order to prepare for or assist in the implementation of the legislation—in other words if he or she does something in order to assist—then he or she cannot be held liable. I think that anyone whether a lawyer or non-lawyer who reads subclause (2) will see two completely opposite meanings for that subclause and there is nothing in the grammar or context that really states what it is that the Government is trying to do. 
Clause 72 is about the protection of trustees. I assume that they already have a protection in their trust deed. I would be very surprised if they had taken on the trustee exposures if they did not have a protection in their trust deed. So the provision in clause 72 must be intended to add a new kind of protection for them. But is that a protection for trying to delay block or change some aspect of the legislation or is it a protection for not doing one of those things? I can see no indication from the context about what was intended. 
The second point concerns clause 74 which states that the directors of the service must be appointed as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of this legislation “in accordance with section 24.” I turn to clause 24 and see it simply states that the board must consist of seven directors four appointed by Te Putahi Paoho and three by the responsible Ministers. To understand what is going on we then have to go to schedule 2 where the appointment provisions are set out. When we go to that schedule and try to imagine what clause 74 will mean in practice we find that that clause is a very covert discreet signal that we then have some joint action by the Ministers and Te Putahi Paoho. An almost hilariously detailed set of definitions has been set out. 
Clause 74 is a little 5-line clause but behind it lurks pages and pages of definition—on suitability conflicts of interest financial probity tests and the whole 9 yards. All of that is implicit in company law and would be totally unnecessary if clause 74 simply stated: “The directors shall be appointed as if they were directors of a company and have all the duties responsibilities liabilities and requirements of directors of a company except that—” and the Government might then have been able to tell us quite clearly why it was that this service was not a company. But nothing in Part 3 tells us that. Indeed nothing anywhere else in the bill tells us why the service was not made a company. 
I think we can then find out why the service will not be a company. It is because this legislation is a carefully cobbled-together set of compromises that are entirely political and are set up to allow the Ministers in fact to control the outfit without alerting Maori to just how deeply they are being patronised. New Subpart 2A which contains new clause 76A “Review of Act” underscores that. Clause 76A(1) states: “The responsible Ministers must as soon as practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement day”—in other words 5 years from now—“(a) commence a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act …”. It is not to be a review of the Maori Television Service but of this legislation in accordance with the terms of reference set out by the Ministers. 
 There is nothing in the Maori Affairs Committee’s report that tells us what it is up to here. Clearly someone said this legislation was a dog and someone else said the committee should not worry about that because the legislation would be looked at in 5 years’ time. That is the most amazing code of acceptance of failure. Even with that little safeguard the Government was so hopeless in the drafting and presentation of this bill that we have had a shambles today concerning which amendments go forward and which do not. This legislation is an abject failure. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure once again to speak on the third part of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori Bill. I take up the point that my colleague from ACT Stephen Franks made about Subpart 2A concerning the review of the legislation. It is quite extraordinary that new clause 76A(1) states: “The responsible Ministers”—it does state “Ministers” not even “responsible Minister” and we would hope that there will be clear accountability there—“must as soon as practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement day—(a) commence a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act in accordance with the terms of reference set by the responsible Ministers;”. 
I am here to try to help the Minister on this occasion. I have put in an amendment that I hope will be a useful contribution. In my last speech I did ask the Minister where the evidence base is that this television service will increase the knowledge of te reo Maori and tikanga Maori on an objective measure in the future. We have seen a dramatic decline in those areas since 1973 and it is absolutely important that the success or otherwise of this station be measured. Consequently I have suggested an amendment to add a new clause 76B which would state: “The responsible Minister must ensure from the beginning of the establishment of the Maori Television Service”—not 5 years later but from the beginning—“that operational research be carried out in order to continuously monitor and measure the efficacy of the Maori Television Service in achieving an objective difference in the number of Maori who are fluent in te reo”. 
I hope that the Minister will take the time to treat that amendment seriously. All too often we lack the operational research needed to assess and monitor whether a particular piece of legislation is indeed effective. Knowing the scarce resources and knowing the various alternatives that are available—as was enunciated by Edwin Perry just a little while ago—to increase the use of te reo and tikanga Maori I think immediately of the kohanga reo organisations and kura kaupapa Maori initiatives in the schools which surely must be extremely pivotal to increasing the knowledge of the matters that this bill is all about. Surely it must be important to have some effective objective measurement right from the beginning of the legislation when it comes into being. I hope that the Minister will take this amendment seriously and will take a call to comment on it. 
When we think of what has happened in the last few years in terms of the television service unfortunately we realise it has been a litany of one mistake after another. If we can ever rescue something out of the unmitigated conglomeration of disasters that have occurred over the last few years—and I will not go over them—it is to make sure that we do such monitoring and measuring right from the start. 
I note that clause 78 “Amendment to Broadcasting Act 1989” states: “Section 53E of the Broadcasting Act 1989 is amended by adding the word ‘; and’ and also by adding the following paragraph: ‘(f) the needs and preferences of—(i) children participating in te reo Maori immersion education; and (ii) all persons learning te reo Maori.’ ” It is absolutely essential that we remind ourselves from the very beginning that that is what this bill is all about. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 71 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12 ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.