Māori Television Service Bill

I am pleased to see that my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has handed in an amendment on the basis of a suggestion that I made. I now understand that Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First has made a further amendment, and also that there is a further amendment from the Government. If that is correct, could the Minister nod? I understand the Government will move an amendment, also.

The ironic thing about this situation is that those amendments have come about as a suggestion from a non-Māori of this Committee

💬 Hon Member: Does the member mean a New Zealander?

A New Zealander who is not of Māori descent.

💬 Hon Member: The member has a Māori name.

I have a Māori name only by adoption. It seems strange to me that suddenly we now have three amendments: one from the Government, one from New Zealand First, and the best one, naturally, from Georgina te Heuheu. That had to come about as the result of a suggestion from someone who was not involved in the Māori Affairs Committee, but who sat here tonight and thought it was very odd not to have a Māori title for a bill that is all about issues that relate to Māori. Other bills pass before this Committee that are not directly related to Māori issues, such as the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. That bill had some additional Māori wording that I cannot pronounce properly, so I will not try to do so. It has become a habit to have an English and a Māori part of a title.

I am absolutely amazed that this bill was just named in English the “Māori Television Service Bill.” I am staggered that the Minister, for example, who said that this bill is intended to teach people about the Māori language, has used English to describe it. That is quite extraordinary. I would have thought that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, would at the very least have wanted to say that this bill is all about teaching people the Māori language, so therefore surely the first thing that people should see when they pick up the bill is some Māori wording. They should also hear it when they turn the television on—which, of course, is something that the Minister will have to learn. However, we will teach him that on the way through, as well—it is the “on” button.

But I would have thought that the Minister would have wanted to present this as the Māori Television Service Bill, with that title then followed by—or even preceded by—the very good wording put in by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu. It surprises me that this bill was sent from the Minister to the select committee. I find it very strange to think that other members of the select committee did not even click on to the fact that there should have been some Māori wording in the title.

It is interesting that that has now suddenly become a fad. In fact, three or four of us might end up putting in amendments to the title to make sure that the Māori language is properly recognised. That is important. If the purpose of this bill is as the Government says it is—to allow New Zealanders to learn the Māori language—then surely to goodness that should be reflected in the title. I say to the Minister, as I have said before, that I am not certain whether we will achieve that. We will have further debate on that when we get into the parts of the bill with amazing deficiencies, and debate the lack of accountability there will be as a consequence of that. The $55 million of taxpayers’ money that will be spent on not achieving anything is an issue that we will be debating.

But, right now, we are in the narrow debate on the title, and I know that the Chairperson will be calling me back shortly to talk about it. So I thank him; it is good to see that he responds to prompts like that. I say to the Committee that when we are debating the title of a bill, it is important that the title reflects the intent of the bill. I believe that when somebody picks this bill up, that person will not see this title do that. It states “television”, but not “learning”.

Mr Carter’s speech took the words out of my mouth. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that the Government would provide a bill that is meant to advance te reo Māori, and not have a Māori title for it. It is quite laughable that the Government should omit from the title the very thing it says it is trying to promote. I see that we now have a very rushed amendment from the Government, seeking to correct that situation by coming up with a name, though I note that name is different from the name the Hon Georgina te Heuheu came up with. That now creates some confusion, in terms of which one of those names is the correct Māori translation. I understand there is a translation of Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori, but we do not have a translation of the Government’s version of the title. So now we are left trying to work out the correct wording in Māori for the Māori Television Service.

I think that is rather strange. I was trying to look for an explanation of why that had occurred. Going back to the preamble, it seems to me that we should compare it with the comments the Minister made prior to the dinner break. He referred to the Privy Council’s decision and the preamble—which stated that 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 Māori by the use of both radio and television broadcasting—and he said that he saw the provisions of this bill as fulfilling that obligation. I get the impression that, basically, the Government feels a sort of obligation arising from the 1994 decision of the Privy Council, and is therefore putting this bill in as a sort of a cop-out, out of a feeling that it is fulfilling its obligations by putting this bill together. Therefore, the Government is simply saying it has signed that issue off now and has completed its obligations to preserve te reo Māori through television and radio by putting this bill in. Now that it has done that, the Government thinks it can throw that issue out of the way.

As I mentioned previously, I think the Government has simply sidelined the issue, and, effectively, sidelined the whole advancement of te reo through radio and television broadcasting, by putting te reo into a separate television station that nobody will watch and that will then have a very limited viewership. I reiterate that there is absolutely no data to suggest how many people will watch this station, but given the debate over the broadcasting frequency the service will use, it appears that people will have to buy television aerials in order to watch it, so that will mean it is very isolated.

The Minister has it wrong when he interprets the Privy Council’s decision as stating that the Māori Television Service is necessary in order to comply with that decision. That is not what it states. It states that the Government—in fact, the Government accepted an obligation to use radio and television—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must speak to the title.

I am speaking to the title, because I am speaking to the amendment that was put in to include a Māori version of the title.

I think that the word “Service” should come out of the title. I accept that it is “Māori Television”, but I do not think that it is a service, at all. Instead of using the breadth of radio and television throughout New Zealand to promote the Māori language, we will have one station that very few people will be watching, and all the money for te reo advancement that is coming through from the Government will be directed into the programming for that station. So we will find a situation where there is no money for national and regional television to promote te reo Māori, because it has all gone to this television channel that nobody will watch. That is absolutely farcical.

The Government is, effectively, doing a huge disservice to Māori and to te reo Māori, by isolating and segregating it, instead of encouraging New Zealanders as a whole to learn te reo and encouraging its use within the whole sphere of New Zealand, through regional television in particular, but through national television, as well. There are far, far better ways for television and radio to be advancing this cause, so I do not think there is a service here, at all. In order to have a service, there needs to be people to serve. Therefore I do not think that this is the right title for this bill.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to address the title. Let us look at the date on the title—2001. It is now April 2003, and that reflects this Government’s commitment to preserving the Māori language. If we go back through some of the history of the Māori Television Service, we can see from nga korero o te wa that it goes back to September 1997. It states that a Māori television network was proposed by an Auckland-based tangata whenua television company. It stated that Te Māngai Pāho would be replaced by a seven-member Māori broadcasting commission, which would set and monitor standards. It would be a Māori-owned limited liability company that would run a national channel. Funding at that stage was to come from a 10 percent cultural tax on radio and television advertising and the Te Māngai Pāho share of the broadcasting licence fee. The Minister might like to take a call and tell us what happened to that cultural tax. Thank heavens it never saw the light of day.

We were looking forward to a Māori television bill being passed in 1997. In October 2000 the same people were still involved—Robert Pouwhare, Hone Harawira, Joanna Paul—and a number of others: Tainui Stephens, Hone Edwards and a trust group under a banner. It said it was now tweaking the proposal to make it ready for the new Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member should not be talking about the principles of the bill. The debate on the title is a very narrow debate.

I am focusing on the date in the title, which is 2001, and the time that it has taken to get the bill to this stage. The story comes back to 2000, when the bill was still going to be passed. It is now 2003.

I move on to the wording of the title. I notice that elsewhere in the bill—and we will debate this later—the Government has proposed the protection of the title and a Māori translation of that title. But I agree with the National member Georgina te Heuheu that it is extraordinary that it took her to table an amendment providing that the title should have a translation. If we look at the current craze for translating every title into Māori, we see the Inland Revenue Department is named Te Tari Taake, for example. The names of all other Government departments have Māori translations. We even have the Race Relations Commissioner suggesting that private companies should translate their names into Māori. So it is indeed extraordinary that there was no Māori title for this bill.

But then again, maybe that is not extraordinary. Maybe it is a reflection of the true spirit of this Government—that did not bother to provide a translation of the title, even though we have had the debacle over the translation in the preamble. By the time that the Government got to the title, it could not be bothered to provide a translation of it. That reflects that it is just paying lip-service to its alleged commitment to protecting Māori language and culture.

If the Government were really true to its principles, and if it really believed what it says about protecting the language, it would have used the resources that were used to provide the translation in the preamble to provide a translation of the title—not pages further on, not buried somewhere in the bill. It would have made the effort to provide a translation of the title in clause 1 if it were really true to its commitment to protecting Māori language and culture.

I move, That the question be now put.

In speaking to the title of this Māori Television Service Bill, I find it somewhat astonishing that the Labour Government forgot to put a Māori title on this bill. Not only did the Labour Government forget, but the Māori Affairs Committee forgot. Let us just have a look at what the main provision of the bill is supposed to do. The bill establishes the Māori Television Service and sets out its functions, which include, as its “principal” function, to promote te reo Māori. I repeat, its “principal” function is to promote te reo Māori. Just 24 hours ago, we were debating the National Library bill, and what did the Government have to say? It said the bill provided the Māori world with a presence within the National Library by including the existing Māori name of the National Library. Why is it that the Minister of Māori Affairs forgot to put the name in Māori, and it took my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to bring an amendment in tonight to satisfy the principal function of this bill? I certainly endorse the timely and appropriate amendment that she has made.

I might say that there is a considerable and somewhat colourful background to this bill. Indeed, the title should perhaps reflect some of the other things that have gone on. Maybe it would have been appropriate to have called this bill the “Helen Clark and Dr Ross Armstrong Memorial Bill”, or perhaps even the “Labour Government (Support a Canadian Fraudster) Bill”. I say that because on 15 March 2002, one Parekura Horomia said of John Davies: “He’s the best person for the job.” Speaking about applications for the job, Derek Fox went on to say that there was no perfect answer, but that the board had come down on the side of strong financial and management control. Derek Fox said: “I am confident the guy will deliver.” So there is another alternative—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please come back to the title.

—or perhaps we could just call it the “Derek Fox Fund Bill”. Speaking strictly to the title, I say that because on 26 October 2001 the chairman’s fee was set at $36,000. A year later, on 22 September 2002, one Derek Fox was paid $84,000 as a pay cheque; $50,000 in expenses. But the other and final alternative—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I bring the member back to the title.

—this is going to the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is a very narrow debate.

It could be just the “Parekura Horomia (Let’s put the Māori Title in at the Last Moment) Bill”, because that really is the point of it. We have had three amendments in a couple of hours about something that was so plainly obvious. This is the bill that has as its principal function the promotion of te reo Māori. It took my colleague—fortunately, conscientious and studious—to remind the Committee that that vital function should actually be adhered to in the title of this bill.

I must say I was interested to hear Dover Samuel’s somewhat shrill concern that he had forgotten to place the Māori translation to the title of this bill. He did bring up the difficulty that he was prepared to give the Ngāpuhi translation, but that that could possibly be different from the Tuwharetoa translation. So when the Minister gets around to talking about why he failed so miserably in the first instance to place a Māori title to this bill, I am hoping that he will be able to accurately describe his title.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): In the hope that the next speaker is more relevant and speaks to the title, I am going to call the honourable member Jim Peters.

“Relevance” is the real issue in this title—the relevance of time, the relevance of intention, and the relevance of where we are now in 2003. This bill looks at a period of optimism right back in 2000, when there was a brave new world out there for those sitting on the other side of the Chamber. In their ignorance, they thought that all things were possible, and in a buoyant economy, it seemed that all things were possible. Most of all, they thought they could remedy the previous Government’s inability to translate the 1993 decision into action. The title of the Māori Television Service Bill reflects that exactly It reflects the optimism of members over there, and the expectations they had of somehow accomplishing the intention that the Privy Council had put before them—which was also the feeling amongst Māori television people and the industry.

Sadly, although there were 10 submissions—nine of which were heard—and 3 hours of committee consideration, a year later we sit here with an unfulfilled intention with regard to the title of the Māori Television Service Bill. Therefore, in view of the discussions that have already gone before, I rise to support my colleagues’ very firm intention that—unlike the members opposite, who somehow got it wrong—we on this side of the Chamber now have two alternatives. Each one of them recognises in its language and spirit what those members should have recognised—that this title deserved to be not the Māori Television Service Bill, but something that would truly reflect the aspirations of those who look to have the language in a secure place, and in terms of their original desire—one that would be placed in the perspective of our airwaves and before our eyes visually, which is one of the marks of modern television. I support my colleagues’ intention in terms of the pathway, or roadway, to the whole world that this visual demonstration, which is our modern television service, can and ought to open up.

I am mindful of the fact that where I come from, 18 percent of people will never see this television station, because that is the reality with regard to the choice of frequency that this bill will put into place, should present plans go ahead. In our district, 18 percent will never see this channel, and that is a shame. That is a real issue for the Minister to consider.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is good to see the member doing his homework. I refer him to Standing Order 301, which states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” I now wish to continue the voting. As members are aware, there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to add a new subclause (2). That amendment is now out of order, because the Minister’s amendment has been agreed. Her amendment is therefore inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendment is in the name of the honourable Bill Gudgeon. That too is out of order as it is also inconsistent with the decision that has already been taken with the passing of the Minister’s amendment.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is a very strange ruling. The fact is that the Committee has certainly made an amendment. It now accepts the Minister’s amendment, but that does not mean to say that the Committee, if it were of a mind, could not make further amendments to the bill. It is not inconsistent. I know that there are times when an amendment is inconsistent as a consequence of a decision made, but this is not inconsistent. It means that if Georgina te Heuheu’s or Bill Gudgeon’s amendment were accepted, that would then become the name of the bill. It does not mean that there is an inconsistency; it just means that the Committee has since moved on and changed its mind. It is not a matter of whether there is a conflict; it is a matter of the Minister’s amendment being one form of wording and the Committee deciding whether there is to be another form. In that case, I think we should be putting Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment. If that is passed, then we might want to consider Bill Gudgeon’s amendment, and the Committee will decide on both accordingly.

💬 Jim Peters: A consideration of the Minister’s amendment, alongside that of my colleague Bill Gudgeon’s, in regard to the language used, will show a similarity of purpose and language intent. Therefore, there is no inconsistency. In view of that, not being inconsistent with the Minister’s intention, there seems to us to be no reason that Bill Gudgeon’s amendment cannot proceed, and that there is nothing inconsistent with the language that is used with regard to the total meaning of the Minister’s language.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I again say that the Committee has decided on the title, and it cannot go back over that. It means therefore that the other amendments are inconsistent. It is a longstanding tradition that where that happens, that is what takes place. I am the sole judge of relevancy.