te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5015] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments in relation to the purpose clause clause 3. I am pleased that Minister Turia is in the Chamber because of all the Maori members on the other side of the Chamber she is the one who thinks most deeply about the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I know she was not in the Chamber earlier when I made my remarks about the lack of clarity in the preamble as to whether the establishment of this service is in satisfaction of a treaty obligation or of some social obligation that the Government has tried to import into this whole arena. 
The purpose clause states: “In recognition that the Crown and Maori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori …” then it sets out certain purposes. I ask the Minister or any Maori member on the other side of the Chamber this question: where in the treaty is there an obligation on Maori to preserve protect and promote te reo Maori? Of course Maori are going to do that anyway. In the face of the denigration of te reo for the last 163 years Maori have doggedly insisted upon protection of te reo. I want to know why when certain Crown obligations are being imported into legislation the Government suddenly also imports an obligation on the part of Maori to protect it. What statutory governance or sovereign powers do Maori hold that give them an accountability for the protection of the Maori language? I refer again to page 3 of the preamble. Under the heading “Background in English” paragraph (2) states: “In the litigation that culminated in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council … the Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori …”. That is the Crown’s obligation. 
The whole purpose of Maori taking litigation before both the tribunal and the courts was to prove an obligation on the part of the Crown and in the Waitangi Tribunal report on te reo and in the litigation to the Privy Council that was proven by the Maori litigants. Now when this Government comes to set up a Maori Television Service it is somehow important to that background to have without any just cause an obligation on the part of Maori. So there is a sort of partnership going on here and it puts the obligation on both parties—Crown and Maori together. There is no such obligation on the part of Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. I want the Minister to take a call and say how he can sit there allow this legislation to go through the House and somehow be part of importing into it an obligation on the part of Maori to protect the Maori language. 
This legislation is all about the obligations incumbent upon the Crown and let us not forget that. But that is symptomatic of the mishmash of obligations and responsibilities that are littered throughout this bill and that is why in one of my opening contributions this afternoon I raised the issue of whether the Government is sincere in suggesting that this is indeed in satisfaction of those obligations that the Privy Council found to be existing in 1993. As I say I want the Minister to explain that to us because it is not good enough. When the Maori Television Service came before the Maori Affairs Committee it raised that very issue of where the treaty imports an obligation on the part of Maori to protect the Maori language. Maori have been the victims of this non-protection of te reo ever since the signing of the treaty. So how does this make sense? I am suggesting that it does not make sense. It is importing into something an idea that is not there and has no right to be there.