Māori Television Service Bill

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 Māori 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 Māori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori, …” then it sets out certain purposes. I ask the Minister, or any Māori member on the other side of the Chamber, this question: where in the treaty is there an obligation on Māori to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori? Of course, Māori are going to do that anyway. In the face of the denigration of te reo for the last 163 years, Māori 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 Māori to protect it. What statutory, governance, or sovereign powers do Māori hold that give them an accountability for the protection of the Māori 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 Māori …”. That is the Crown’s obligation.

The whole purpose of Māori 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 Māori litigants. Now, when this Government comes to set up a Māori Television Service, it is somehow important to that background to have, without any just cause, an obligation on the part of Māori. So there is a sort of partnership going on here, and it puts the obligation on both parties—Crown and Māori together. There is no such obligation on the part of Māori 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 Māori to protect the Māori 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 Māori Television Service came before the Māori Affairs Committee it raised that very issue of where the treaty imports an obligation on the part of Māori to protect the Māori language. Māori 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.

It is very interesting to see the reference to the year 2001. Quite simply, it is a case of wishful thinking on the part of the Government to have ever thought that this bill would be passed during 2001. I do remember standing here and asking the Minister when he thought the Māori Television Service was going to be on air, and he told the House that he hoped it would be by the middle of 2001. Well, here we are, a couple of years later, and we do not even have a start date for this television station. What project would we ever find in the private sector that would invest millions of dollars per annum without a project start date in mind? It would not happen in the private sector. This project is the flagship project of the Government, and it has just been an absolute disaster from start to finish.

This part deals with the establishment of the service. Let us just remember a few facts about the establishment of the service. It is a little known fact that the Māori Television Service has been acting without any official status whatsoever, and that is why Te Puni Kōkiri has been largely responsible for every decision, or lack of decision, that has been made by the Māori Television Service over the last 3 years. Let us just remember the appointment of Mr John Davy. When it transpired in the New Zealand Herald that there were some concerns about Mr Davy’s qualifications, what did we hear from Derek Fox? He said that the appointment process was “robust and correct.” [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Running commentaries are out of order. The member might like to have a look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5.

He said that Mr Davy was doing “a great job” and that there was no reason to question his qualifications or to look behind his degree, which, if I remember rightly, was from the Ashland School of Business, a university that exists only on the Internet. So what did the Government do next? It bagged Millennium People and its management of the appointment process. Michael Cullen stood up in the House and said that Millennium People was a “bunch of amateurs” and that the whole process was an absolute shambles. That poor company is no longer, as a result of the negative comments of the Government.

This part sets up the accountability framework of the Māori Television Service, and that, I think, is something that all members of the Committee are very interested in. We have been wanting to know for a long time how accountable the Māori Television Service is in terms of its expenditure. One of the key things that the directors seemed to make up their minds about was the level of their fees and an increase in their fees. In terms of accountability, because they have no legal status, some of the decisions that have been made quite clearly would not stack up in other circumstances. I refer to things like questionable tendering processes—the idea that one can have a closed tender and invite only a few friends to put in a tender for certain equipment and buildings—and looking at swanky premises down at the Viaduct with views of the America’s Cup. No television business in its right mind would set up in the most expensive real estate in Auckland, overlooking, I might add, premises in other areas of Auckland city that are less expensive.

I am glad this part deals with the whole issue of conflict of interest, because some really quite unusual decisions were made by some board members, such as the whole idea that a tender could be let to Sony—and, miraculously, one of the directors on the board just happened to be an employee of Sony. The whole project, from start to finish, has been mishandled, and I think the Minister knows that. Things have happened within the Māori Television Service that, quite frankly, would not be acceptable in any other Government department. But things have been allowed to muddle on. We do not have a start date. That is an absolute shambles.

Part 1 mentions the commencement. The question is, when? What are the delays, and why? Is it funding or the lack of it? Who is responsible? Is it management? The taxpayers are asking questions. When will the bill receive the royal assent? Those are the questions that are out there, and amongst us in this Committee. Why, where, and what? How? Who is responsible? Millions of dollars are being invested in this programme, but nothing has happened yet.

Part 1 sets out the purpose. It describes the purpose as recognition that the Crown and Māori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve, protect, and promote te reo. The purpose of this Act is to provide for the establishment and functions to protect te reo Māori. That is what the purpose should be about. It is all about how, what, where, and why. What will the outcomes be? Will it just be another form of entertainment? As I said before, would it not be interesting to conduct a survey to see how much of the language will be learnt through this form of media? When this programme gets going, will there be facilitators who will help assist those learners of the language when they view those programmes? That is the real crux and challenge of that programme. The Government says that it will hold fast to the Treaty of Waitangi obligations of the Crown, and it says it will protect the language so that people will learn their tikanga and those things that are dear to them in the language, especially. Yet, where is the provision for assistance when that programme gets going? For example, what if my people say: “I don’t understand what’s being said on that programme. How am I supposed to learn when there is nobody there to facilitate?”. How are they to say to us that the vowel sounds are not right—that it is not “a, e, i, o, u.” but “ah eh, ee, o, oo” in order to be precise on the pronunciation of the language? That is the challenge. If $55 million is to be spent on this programme each year, it had better have very, very positive results, otherwise people will be saying: “Plastic Māori, waste of time, waste of money.”

My challenge to the Government, and to the Minister, is to have those programmes in place so that the purpose—which, I hope, is the Government’s idea of promoting and learning about the language—will be fulfilled. If they are not, where does it stand as a party? That is what it is all about. If the money is being provided, produce the goods. Let us see the outcome. Let us hear the outcome. I am expecting a big rise in the percentage of people who will be able to speak Māori. I will not be satisfied until that proof is before us and we hear it. That is the challenge. Where is the purpose? What is that purpose? Is it enough to say that the Crown has fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi by providing a television channel for Māori to be heard? What about the language being learnt? That is what it is all about. Otherwise, the taxpayers will want to get rid of it. We have a say in this country about what happens to that money and how it is being spent.

I rise to put forward a very non-controversial amendment that I am hoping all members of the House will support. Indeed, I am expecting even the members from ACT to support this amendment, because it seeks simply to strengthen the political independence of the Māori Television Service. It is extremely important that we ensure the preservation of the independence of that service, because it is more or less totally dependent on Government funding. Hopefully, there will be some advertising and the ability to enter into some agreements with other interests, but basically it will be totally dependent on the Government. So it is important—because we know the old expression about he or she who pulls the purse strings—that we try to include in the legislation as many provisions as we possibly can to preserve the independence of the Māori television service.

There is an existing section on independence in the existing Act, but it is extremely weak. It asks only for the responsible members of Te Pūtahi—I am sorry, I am having to think with my colleagues chatting loudly next door. What I am saying is that the existing provisions may look all right on the surface, but in fact they would enable many other persons to give directions to the service. What the legislation states is that responsible Ministers must not direct the service, but it does not refer to any other Minister directing the service, or any person acting by, or on behalf of, the direction of the Minister, and so forth. All I have done is to take the provisions about political independence that are in the Television New Zealand Bill, and included them in an amendment that will make it clear that it is not just the responsible Ministers who may not direct the service with respect to a particular programme and so forth, but also any other Ministers, or any person acting by, or on behalf of, or at the direction of, any Minister.

It is important, because I think there is real potential for political interference in Māori television from the “person who pays the piper”. There may be a temptation to try to pull the strings, and so the potential would exist for political interference. All that the amendment seeks to do, very non-controversially, is to strengthen the provisions so that they are virtually identical to the provisions in the Television New Zealand Bill, so that a Minister will not be able to interfere with a particular programme, allegation, or complaint in the gathering or presentation of news, or preparation of current affairs, or programme standards.

The amendment is focused on protecting the editorial content of Māori television programmes from political interference. It is not talking about other issues like financial issues. It is simply saying that there may not be ministerial interference in the editorial direction of a particular programme, the gathering of news, the preparation of current affairs, or programme standards.

I see that the Minister of Education is looking extremely worried over there. I point out to him that those provisions, basically, have been taken and modelled on the provisions in the Television New Zealand Bill. We have sought official assistance with our amendment, so I think he should cease to be worried. It is simply an amendment to ensure that there is no potential political interference in the editorial content of Māori television. That is extremely important for all of us to ensure in this bill.

I just want to ask the member who has moved this amendment a brief question. That is: was it her intention to open up, as a result of this amendment, the ability of board directors to direct on editorial or presentation matters? That is what this amendment does.

💬 Sue Kedgley: No.

I take this opportunity to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, to explain some matters to members of the Committee and members of the public who are interested in this bill before the House tonight. The part before the Committee at the moment establishes the new Māori Television Service. That is contained in clause 7. The functions of the service are outlined in clause 8, and the powers of the service are outlined in clause 9.

Clause 9 is an important clause because it fundamentally changes the way the Māori Television Service will be able to transact its business. Members of the public who are listening to this debate may be staggered to know this, but for over 2 years, in the establishment phase of the Māori Television Service, as contracts have been entered into, executives have been appointed, directors have come and gone, the affairs of the Māori Television Service have been transacted through the Ministry of Māori Affairs, Te Puni Kōkiri. In that regard the signature of the Minister has been sought on many matters, and the signature of the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri on many more because the absence of provisions like clauses 7, 8, and 9, particularly clause 9, has meant there has been no lawful body available to transact the affairs of the service.

So what we have before the Committee tonight is a very important part of the bill, but it is also a very important opportunity for members on this side to ask the Minister to account for the way in which those powers have been used by his department, and by himself, to date. The first thing I want to do is ask him why that state of affairs exists. Why is it that a bill that should have been passed 2 years ago—a bill that the Prime Minister said publicly, over 2 years ago, she was getting pretty hacked off about the delays on—a bill that is so important to the Government and to the Minister, has taken so long to come to this Committee? Why is it that clauses 7, 8, and particularly 9, have taken so long to come to the Chamber so that the affairs of the Māori Television Service can be transacted by the directors and by the chief executive?

Until this bill gets its final reading, those matters will be discharged by the senior officials of Te Puni Kōkiri. I quoted to the House yesterday, I do it again today, a statement from the Prime Minister on 18 March 2001. She said this of the Māori Television Service: “I saw it was going around in circles and so I raised it at cabinet and what we’ve done is brought a group of officials together to get the clear options up to the cabinet. We just weren’t getting any proper advice to be honest”. The Prime Minister said that 2 years ago. I ask the Minister in the chair tonight why it has taken 2 years to get from that point of absolute frustration on the part of our Prime Minister, to today, to even have these important clauses in Part 1 come before the Committee. The Prime Minister, also 2 years ago, said this: “We want some options—and fast ... I want some decisions. I want us to be in a position to make some decisions instead of seeing the issue go round in circles at a bureaucratic level.”

Opposition member:: When was that?

Two years ago the Prime Minister said that. And for the last 2 years the Minister who sits in the chair tonight has prevailed over a scene of absolute chaos. I want the Minister to stand and take a call and tell us why it is that these important clauses to give effect to the legal entity of the Māori Television Service have taken him as long as this to get to this stage. The Prime Minister was annoyed with him 2 years ago, and I want to know how annoyed she is with him today. I have a pretty fair idea about that. [Interruption] I know that Mr Samuels is pretty annoyed with the Minister as well, and rightly so. He is a man who no doubt supports this bill—I do not. If we are to have a Māori Television Service, then the legal framework should be in place that is contained in Part 1.

I heard the speech of Bill Gudgeon early tonight, and I must say he is somewhat of an optimist in hoping that, in fact, the service will deliver. There are plenty of signs now, for anybody who wants to look at it, that this service cannot possibly deliver. In Part 1 we see another example of why the service will not deliver what it is intended to. I refer to clause 8, which talks about the functions of the service, and states: “(1) The principal function of the Service is to promote te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori through the provision of a high quality, cost-effective Māori television service, in both Māori and English, that informs, educates, and entertains a broad viewing audience, and, in doing so, enriches New Zealand’s society, culture, and heritage.” Subclause (2)(c) states that part of the functions of the service is to “ensure that, in its programming, the Service has regard to the needs and preferences of—(i) children participating in te reo Māori immersion education; and (ii) all persons learning te reo Māori”.

This afternoon a member who was part of the select committee told us that they questioned Derek Fox, the chief executive officer, about what his intentions were in regard to television, and whether it would educate. According to the select committee, he said no, definitely not, it would not be an educational channel, it would be there to entertain. Now we find that in terms of furthering te reo, and despite what the Act says, effectively what will happen to the money that is put into Māori television is that it will be for entertainment programmes. I wonder just how effective entertainment programmes will be, in order to educate New Zealanders in te reo.

The Act says that. The wording is there to say that it must educate, but most of us know Derek Fox, and most of us, I think, appreciate that Mr Derek Fox is not a person who listens particularly well. He is a person who has very firm ideas of what he is going to do, and no amount of words, in my view, will change what he does. If he says to the select committee that this television channel will simply be to entertain, not to educate, then I would rather believe him than believe what the Act states. The Act is simply the principle. It is what happens on the road that is important.

We will get a situation where we have a channel that is simply pouring all this money into an entertainment system that will not provide for te reo, and te reo education, in any meaningful sense. I go back to the point that firstly, now, we have a situation where funding is simply going to a marginal television station with a viewership that nobody can predict, that nobody knows, nobody has any idea how many there are. Certainly we know that the vast bulk of New Zealanders, and I think even the vast bulk of Māori, particularly given that a lot of Māori cannot even get the channel, will not get the benefit of that.

Coupled with that is an even more serious situation, that the bulk of funding will go to Māori television, and funding for the furtherance of te reo will not be available for any other television or radio station. I look at the press release put out by Te Māngai Pāho on 21 February 2003, which said Te Māngai Pāho had called for an urgent funding increase—note “an increase”, and the channel is not even off the ground—to enable it to cope with the new demands created by the Māori Television Service. That was in February—now it is April and we still have not got one. But at that point in February it still had inadequate funding for the television service that at that point did not exist. The Māori language, television, and broadcasting funding provider made the plea when it appeared before the Māori Affairs Committee at Parliament yesterday. Te Māngai Pāho board chairman Toby Curtis told the committee the level of television funding channelled through the agency had increased by more than 100 percent in the past 3 years. Te Māngai Pāho was administering 29.4 million dollars’ worth of television contracts this year, and that figure will rise to $40.3 million within 2 years. Almost all the funding—and that is $43.3 million—will go towards programmes to screen on the new Māori Television Service. If nobody is watching those programmes, what will we do?

The Minister has probably not been in the situation of a small boy in the playground who is confronted by a big guy who says: “I can beat you with my hands tied behind my back.” As I look at the clauses in Part 1, that is the situation I see. I sympathise with the Minister, because that is the situation that this television service is in before it has even begun. It illustrates all the worst features of paternalism, and all the worst features of years and years of a partial pass-over, but not real authority. Why is that? The Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, is not remotely responsible for this service. Part 1 makes it very clear that that responsibility is shared with the Minister of Finance. So I am in great sympathy with the Minister of Māori Affairs before he even starts, because his hands are well tied, right up behind his back.

The funding for this service is not sufficient. I could go through some of these clauses concerned with administration—which, as we all know, are not sufficient—but the most frustrating part relates to the doubtful passing to the Minister of any proper responsibility. [Interruption] There may be laughter; time will tell. Despite what has been said by the previous member, the pitiful amount of money that has been put into the service is already on record. Those members over there may comment, but they should be ashamed of themselves because, with all the expectations that were there in 2000, and with all the intentions behind the submissions that were made to the select committee just over a year ago, they have allowed this bill to come to the Committee in an emasculated, reduced form, where the Minister in the chair really has no responsibility. Unlike my colleague Rodney Hide, who last week found out that the Minister is responsible, I say that, in terms of Part 1, it is very clear that the Minister is not responsible.

That is a way out, and the Minister of Finance will not bear the public burden for the fact that the Minister of Māori Affairs will not get this service going at all. Anyone who has been working in the television industry, and those who have come to the Committee with an understanding of the efforts of the previous Māori television service, will realise that exactly what I am saying will prove to be correct. That may be the reason the Minister’s amendment to clause 3 states that there could be a flick-off before the service has even started, and before we will retrospectively correct the malpractices of the past in regard to Mr Davy and others.

Clause 3 allows for the rights or the spectrum licence of the safely guarded and much cared for UHF spectrum to be transferred to a third party other than this service. Why is that? Is there an expectation that somewhere down the line, or in the very near future, this will not work, and that the very carefully selected frequency will not be able to be used in the long term? I would like the Minister to pick that matter up, if and when he chooses to rise. I would like to know why clause 3(ca) is there. Clause 5 very carefully sets out the intent for that frequency to be for the sole use of this television service.

Parts of the expected protections in regard to the appointment of directors will be difficult to achieve in the Māori world. No one working in Māori television will not have a conflict of interest. Nobody at present on the board does not have a conflict of interest, apart from the newly appointed chairman. From our side of the Chamber, I have to say that the new chairman does bring some semblance of conformity, experience, and expectation to the service, although this party does not support the furtherance of this bill.

Why? Again, I say that Part 1 gives no confidence in regard to who will have responsibility. Over the years to come, it will be a big drawback for the Minister to have his hands tied behind his back. It is the Minister of Finance who holds the portfolio, not the Minister of Māori Affairs.

I seek the leave of the Committee that at the conclusion of the debate on this part—whether it comes to an end, or by the acceptance of a closure motion—we move to Part 2 of the bill, and that the votes on Part 1, and any amendments thereto, be taken on the next day that this bill is considered, without debate

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Was that the closure motion—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, it is not a closure motion. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

There is some really worrying wording in Part 1 of this bill. If we look under the heading “Key provisions about Māori Television Service”, at clause 8(1), we see that: “The principal function of the Service is to promote te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori”. If one goes to the interpretation, one sees that “ngā tikanga Māori, for the purposes of this Act, means Māori custom, practice, and law”—not just “custom”, but “practice, and law”. Then if one goes to clause 9, “Powers of Service”, one sees that “For the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Service—(a) has full capacity to carry out or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction;”, and so on.

The principal function of this service is to promote Māori custom, practice, and law. That makes this legislation really political, because nowhere in the Privy Council ruling did it say that the Crown was required to promote Māori law. What is Māori law? Under this sort of legislation, Television New Zealand could be required to promote English law—and I would actually like Television New Zealand to be required to promote the English law that I favour. How come we have allowed it to slip through in this legislation that we will use taxpayer-funded public broadcasting to promote what this bill defines under ngā tikanga Māori? Until now, I understood that te reo Māori was the language, and tikanga Māori was custom, but, for the purposes of this bill, ngā tikanga Māori is taken to mean not just custom, but practice and law. There is considerable Māori practice in law that would be abhorrent to most New Zealanders—and I refer to historic, and not current, practices—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: What’s that?

Eating people, and capturing and enslaving people. I am not saying that they are contemporary practices, but there are things that people would find abhorrent, so why are we allowing taxpayers’ money to fund the promotion of Māori law?

Furthermore, will this bill override the powers of the censor, who would find some Māori law or customary practice objectionable to the public? I am not saying that the Māori Television Service will promote that, but this legislation enables Māori television to promote Māori law. I think that is highly questionable.

I invite the Minister to take a call, and—to use the same words he used earlier tonight—to say quite clearly what is meant by that, and to reassure this Committee and the people of New Zealand as to what the principal function of this service will mean. Under Part 1, it seems to me that the powers of service of the Māori Television Service are very wide indeed. They are boundless, and could encompass anything that Te Pūtahi Paoho deems fit. Te Pūtahi Paoho is another bottomless pit for taxpayers’ money, which will be funded out of the consolidated account, and not out of the appropriation for the Māori Television Service. The setting up of that comes in under Part 1, too. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us what the exact role of Te Pūtahi Paoho is.

I move, That the question be now put.

I thank the Chair very much for the opportunity to speak on Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori Bill, which I believe this bill now is. I am delighted that that is the case. We are speaking on Part 1, but I must say that even though it was belated, we looked forward to the translation from the Minister. It is good that this bill is in line with, for instance, the National Library bill that we talked about earlier.

But I want to talk about aspects of the purpose of the bill. The purpose clause states: “In recognition that the Crown and Māori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori, … ”. If one goes to the commentary on the bill and looks at the background to it, one sees it states that that is the key principle behind it. This bill stems from the Waitangi Tribunal’s 1986 te reo Māori claim Wai 11, which found that te reo Māori is an essential part of Māori culture, that it must be regarded as taonga, and that the Crown is obliged to take active steps to protect it.

I have just been reading a most excellent article by Moerangi Vercoe on the Privy Council’s decision. I understand that in litigation relating to that decision in 1993 the Crown accepted that te reo Māori was in a serious state of decline. Just to demonstrate how serious that was, I note from the report of the Māori Broadcasting Advisory Committee in 1973 that the status of te reo was that in the order of 13 percent of Māori had high fluency in te reo, but that by 1995, 8.1 percent of Māori had high fluency, and one then goes on to find that in June 2000 only 4 percent of Māori had high fluency in te reo. Now that may be something to do with the demography and the high fertility rates of the Māori population, but nevertheless that is the background. In that litigation by the Privy Council, the Crown outlined a time frame for addressing that issue that included the development of a special purpose Māori television service.

I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to the Committee whether there was ever an evidence base as to why television is the best way to promote te reo Māori or tikanga Māori. Is there any real evidence to substantiate that? Will the Minister take a call and substantiate why the flagship policy arising from that decision should be the establishment of a body corporate to run a television service, as is embodied by this bill? That is an absolutely fundamental issue, and I do not believe there has ever been an explanation of that. I wonder if that is the reason that this bill has been, as my colleague Murray McCully describes it, a sea of absolute chaos ever since it was in the hands of the Minister, Parekura Horomia.

Indeed, I note that there is no clear commencement date. On 11 November 2000, Parekura Horomia said that the Māori Television Service would be launched early in the next year, in 2001. He said it would use only the Māori language in 2001, and then said that using only the Māori language would make the channel unwatchable for most Māori. That is what he said. It was quite fascinating that by 18 February 2001 none other than the Hon Helen Clark said that she saw the establishment of the service was going round and round in circles. This bill has no evidence base whatsoever as to its reason for being. After a year of the Minister saying it would be up and going, the Prime Minister said it was going round and round in circles and she wanted options, fast. She said that she wanted some decisions and wanted Labour to be in a position to make some decisions, instead of seeing the issue go round and round in circles at a bureaucratic level. It was not until 25 February—

I move, That the question be now put.

The Greens are very pleased to support this bill, but we have some amendments that we indicated in our earlier speeches on the bill. One of the amendments that relate to this part, in addition to our first one, is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 77. In that Supplementary Order Paper the Minister makes an amendment to clause 3 of the bill by adding paragraph (ca). That paragraph concerns the safeguarding of the UHF right, and where that spectrum may be leased or transferred to a third party, which is not the Māori Television Service, for the promotion of te reo and tikanga in television.

The Greens are putting forward an amendment, fairly minor at this stage, to replace the words “principal functions” in that additional paragraph with the words “functions as set out in clause 8.” That amendment is intended to ensure that all the clauses concerning the transfer of the UHF right are related specifically to the entirety of the functions and the purposes of the Māori Television Service, and to make sure that all those purposes are integral to any service provider, whether it is the Māori Television Service or a third party. This amendment, minor though it is, will ensure that this clause will be consistent with later amendments that we will put forward on Part 2. The totality of those amendments will go in some way towards protecting the UHF spectrum right, while making sure that that spectrum is used for the promotion and protection of te reo and tikanga and also that the service provided is delivered in a way that maximises access for all people over the whole of the motu and has regard to the learners of te reo. I urge all members to support and vote for the amendment to that clause.

I find it very interesting to consider the Māori Television Service Bill so soon after we considered the Television New Zealand Bill. On looking through Part 1, I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I trust will be capable of reasonably straightforward answers.

In the purposes set out in Part 1, we have the first reference to the joint responsibilities of the chair of Te Pūtahi Paoho and the responsible Ministers, and to the process for the resolution of disputes between them. In fact, the provisions for the resolution of disputes are all set out in the schedules, so that is a minor technical mistake. But putting that aside, the bill sets up a structure that appears destined to cause grief. So often that is the case with matters affecting Māori, where the Crown ducks hard questions and, essentially, decides to use rhetoric or slogans in the law, and fails to apply the same standard of care and precaution to avoid future problems that it would apply to any other group in the community. Once again, it is that bigotry of low expectations.

The bill sets up joint responsibilities for the electoral college and the Minister, and then purports to set up a dispute resolution process that is not anything of the kind, but is instead a provision for mediation. Yet mediation does not settle disputes if the parties are at odds for very sound reasons; mediation just provides a way in which they can talk to each other. One would be very surprised if they had not already talked to each other until they were sick of it, before they get to the stage of appointing a formal mediator. The mediation outcome could simply be better-informed disgust, anger, and frustration with each other. I ask the Minister why we have a position whereby a body that is to receive $55 million in the first year, and probably much more later, is set up with no clear ownership and no clear, single way of giving it instructions. What we have here is evidence of extreme patronising of Māori, by establishing the form of Māori control and the reality of Māori frustration. This bill, in its dispute resolution process, is infinitely patronising. There may be a simple explanation for that, but it is almost a recipe for deadlock and frustration.

The schedules—I cannot address the schedules yet but they are, of course, referred to in Part 1, which we are debating—provide for the removal of directors. Clause 10, which is supposed to establish editorial independence and does not do so, states in a very obscure way that the responsible Ministers cannot collectively give directions to the service, but it does not state that Ministers cannot do so individually. It states that Te Pūtahi Paoho or a member of it—so that catches them both collectively and individually—cannot give a direction. Then it states that a director acting without the authority of the board cannot direct the service, but of course that means that the board can do so. What exactly is intended here by editorial independence?

Then the bill goes on to state in schedule 2, which refers back to clause 10(1)(a) to (d), that nobody can be sacked for a matter that is covered in that clause. What does that mean? Does it mean people cannot be sacked if they breach that provision? Or does it mean they cannot be sacked if they do not breach it but the body, Te Pūtahi Paoho, still believes they are not performing and delivering what they are supposed to deliver? I say to the Minister that someone must have thought through what that means, but it is completely opaque to me.

I am also concerned about the matter raised by my colleague Deborah Coddington: that the service has full rights, powers, and privileges to do anything it wants in the promotion of Māori custom, practice, and law. What does that mean in terms of te reo? It may well be that the greatest attention will come to this body if it actually carries genuine debate.

I move, That the question be now put.