Māori Television Service Bill

Part 2 of the Māori Television Service Bill sets out the provisions relating to the appointment and duties of directors, the accountability of the service—and we have heard a little bit about that this evening—and the establishment of the entities related to that service. On that issue, my colleague Murray McCully was absolutely right to point out that this service has been operating for 2 years and doing all sorts of things—appointing directors and spending taxpayers’ money—without any legal right to do so. The pity about this legislation, which Stephen Franks made reference to, is that even when this bill becomes law, there is still no clear accountability or ownership mechanism, and no clear process of giving instructions. I certainly agree with him on that. It is an attitude that says this is just a Māori organisation anyway, and it does not matter too much. That is just not good enough for the Māori service, for the Māori audience, and for New Zealand. The Ministers have discharged their responsibilities over the Māori television service in the last 2 years by inferring the same sort of attitude, which is: “Well, OK, they made this mess up here, but what the hell—let’s just box on!” It is true, Minister. That is just not good enough for Māori, for the service, and for our expectations of where we think Māori ought to be going.

I refer to the issue of the appointment of directors. It is the issue about dual accountability. To me, that is part of the mishmash of the whole service that has been set up. Who are those people accountable to? I have criticisms, obviously, of the way the board has been operating in the last 2 years, but in a sense one has to have a little sympathy for the interim board. On the one hand, it has an electoral college, and on the other hand, it has the Crown. It is required to have a broad viewing audience, which suggests that its functions are to reach all of New Zealand, yet, at the same time, the service is to broadcast mainly in te reo Māori. So the board has that sort of conflict: it has huge responsibilities, but has that niche responsibility, as well. In addition to that, the board is accountable to two bodies. That in itself throws up the issue I raised earlier about who owns the service.

In this legislation, Māori are consigned to a second-hand, second-rate format. It is doomed to fail, unless the chairman, Wayne Walden, leading Māori businessmen—which is the one thing this Government has done right, and I commend it for that—can make a gold purse out of a sow’s ear. I commend the service to Wayne, because it is all on his shoulders. What we have here is a lack of clear accountability, and a lack of knowledge of who the stakeholders and the eventual owners are. There is no certainty of funding, because we do not know what sorts of dollars are tied up in it—whether they are treaty dollars or welfare dollars. Knowing this Government, I suppose that they are probably welfare dollars, and it might or might not appropriate the sum in any year. On this side of the House, we have some anxieties about funding, but, on the other hand, there is no certainty about it, so somehow the chairman has to perform a miracle. This is a greenfield service starting from scratch with responsibilities that are given to no other service. There is a broad audience, and a niche market, and a big undertaking.

Clause 62 in Part 2 refers to “a report on compliance by the Service with its policy of being a good employer (in the context of the purpose of the Service), including a report on its equal opportunities programme;”. What is the Minister’s definition of a good employee? Is that found out in the initial interview, or will the employer wait to see how well the employee works? Clause 62(2)(e) states: “a report on the number of employees who, during the financial year, received remuneration and other benefits in their capacity as employees ...”. We are looking not only at remuneration, but also at the performance of employees. What about the report on the total value of remuneration and other benefits received by each director of the board during the financial year? How will their performances be evaluated? In my last employment as a lecturer at the Waikato Institute of Technology, I remember that for every course taken, we as tutors and lecturers were evaluated on our performances. By whom?—by the students we were involved with; we had no part in the decision on that. Where does this legislation cover the employees and the directors? I want the Minister to take a stand on that.

New Zealand First will insist first on identifying how many people will learn the language; and secondly, asking how many people will participate in the viewing of daily programmes. How many people will participate if there is a programme on learning te reo? What about the cost-effectiveness of the programmes and the accounting for the millions spent? We are driving a wedge home here in relation to being accountable—an audit of all employees from the chief executive officer down; of their performances, and how they respond. If there are problems, what are they? If there are successes, what are they? What is the level of achievement? We are holding the Government to account.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Oh, get a life!

That is why the Government is where it is. Has the programme met the need of every tribal area; if not, why not? The Government says it is providing a programme for learning, and for the retention of te reo and the teaching of tikanga. Have all those considerations been taken into account?

There will be feedback from the tribal areas, because it is their language, their tikanga, and their protocol that is being taught in the programme. If there is no degree of satisfaction, they will tell the Government what to do with that programme. What would happen to the face of Māoridom again? The publicity would say: “There they go again!”, so we are asking the hard questions. We want more accountability; we will ask what the result is of such-and-such a programme, how the staff performed, or, except for the chairman, are they there because of cuzzie-bro?

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: What about the board of directors, bro?

The directors are all included, because in the end, those people do not take it; it is the general public of Māoridom who are criticised and told: “There your people go again!” So I ask the Committee to please take into account clause 62 in Part 2, in respect of reporting on the performance of everyone involved with the programme. If the programme fails, I will say: “I told you so.”

Once again, it is a great pleasure to follow the honourable Bill Gudgeon, who made a very important point. The preamble states that the purpose of the Māori Television Service is to promote the Māori language, te reo. But where is the requirement under any of the outputs to measure that success and that promotion? There is none. I can explain to Mr Gudgeon why there is none. It is because this Government knows that that television service will not achieve the broad, grand objective set for it. That is the reality of what is revealed when one reads the contents of the output agreement.

I want to take members to clause 28, “Duties of directors”. It states that a director must: “(a) act in good faith, honestly, and with integrity;”. They are great words. I am very pleased that the Hon Trevor Mallard is here, because we have had a Māori television service before. The Hon Trevor Mallard—as an Opposition MP, and with the support of Dover Samuels—shot that television service to the ground. I would like him to reflect on his duties as a member of Parliament when day after day he attacked Tuku Morgan in this Chamber for short-term political advantage, destroying the Māori television service of the day and setting it back years—and Dover Samuels went along with it. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to reflect on the fact that day after day after day Tuku Morgan was attacked for the simple reason that New Zealand First had chosen National over the arrogance of Labour. When those now Ministers were dealing with a Māori television service back then, did they act in good faith? Did Trevor Mallard act in good faith? Did he act honestly? Did he act with integrity? I think that Trevor Mallard might say—[Interruption] Dover Samuels does not realise that that far back it was the National Party, with New Zealand First, that was in Government. Back then, Trevor Mallard shot down the Māori television service with the support of the Māori MPs.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: No, no.

Dover Samuels is saying that Trevor Mallard did not have his support. I am pleased to hear that, because I have to say that that remains the most disgraceful display that I have ever seen in my time in Parliament.

We now have these Ministers making pious statements about the Māori Television Service and the Māori language. They should look in the mirror when they wonder why we are so many years behind in terms of that Māori Television Service. That party is against the Māori Television Service. We were against it then, and we are against it now. It was a poor show when for simple politics this Government shot down the Māori Aotearoa Television Network. Government members do not answer the questions. When they come along here with a statement of intent, do we see that it is Māori language output, or that it is Māori people listening?

The Minister of Defence, who is trying to interject, always has to pipe up. I would like him to know what role he played in supporting Trevor Mallard in shooting down the Māori Television Service at a cost to the taxpayer of millions and millions of dollars. Do we see anything in here that will address that problem?

💬 David Benson-Pope: Fiji or Waiheke Island?

What is that man talking about? He comes all the way from Dunedin each week, flies up here on a plane, then all he does is sit there, and every now and then he calls out: “Fiji or Waiheke Island?” It must be rather sad that that is what one comes all the way to Wellington for—to sit there and talk about Fiji and Waiheke Island. It must be a code for something.

This is a very important part because it sets out the code of conduct for directors. It also sets out the appointment process and the process that directors have to follow when they resign. Had this legislation been in place, this part would have been a very important part, and it would have been used many times with the game of musical chairs that has been played by the directors of Māori television. They have lost so many directors in such a short space of time that I have lost count.

While we are talking about the conduct of directors, I think it is worthwhile spending a bit of time talking about the code of conduct in general at Māori Television. Māori Television has spent quite a bit of time developing its code of conduct. I am reading from the code. It states that Māori Television recognises that the conduct and effectiveness of its organisation are highly dependent upon the quality of the people who comprise it. One would say that that would be correct. The code goes on to say that Māori Television should demonstrate high standards of integrity in all phases of its business. The next points made in the Māori Television code of conduct are that it must not intentionally cause Māori Television’s books and records to be incorrect in any way; must not create or participate in the creation of any records that are intended to conceal anything that is improper; must volunteer knowledge of any untruthful and inaccurate statements or records, whether intentionally or unintentionally made; and must bring to the attention of its supervisors transactions that do not seem to serve a legitimate or commercial purpose.

The writer of this document finishes by asking the people at Māori Television to read the code of conduct with the great care it deserves because Māori television, and their reputations, depend on it. Can members guess who wrote it? John Davy wrote this code of conduct, which is dated 4 March 2002. In it he says that they must all demonstrate high standards of integrity in all phases. That document was downloaded from the Māori Television website. Funnily enough, it is not there any more. One of the other great pieces of creative writing that I downloaded from the Māori Television website was John Davy’s CV. I would like to quote from that: “Canadian born,”—that is about the only truthful bit of his CV—“John Davy brings over 25 years of international business, finance and entertainment experience to Māori Television ... hired as CEO/CFO for an emerging company in the field of virtual internet and consumer e-commerce.’’ That sounds pretty glam. His CV states that he was former chief executive officer of an Asia-Pacific investment advisory company, had lots of offshore portfolios, and was involved in network marketing. According to his CV he was a telecommunications specialist, worked with joint-venture companies, had an MBA from Denver University, and is a certified financial management accountant. But get this—John Davy “has over 35 years experience in the entertainment and sports industry.”, and, apparently, is a composer, a singer, and a songwriter. Now we all know that that was an exercise in creative writing and bore no relation to his skills.

But I get back to the bill. I am interested in the code of conduct of the directors, because I do not think that some of the directors understood what their obligations were. One of the provisions in this clause is about the method that directors must use to explain conflicts of interest. A director must disclose to the rest of the board whether he has a financial interest in, or could benefit in any way from, some of the transactions as a result of the Māori Television business. There were some dodgy dealings going on, on that board. There were some contracts that almost went ahead—there was the Sony contract that nearly went ahead, and the lease for the Viaduct Basin that was nearly signed. Quite clearly, some directors did not know what “conflict of interest” meant, or what the difference was between having a governance role and a management role. In terms of setting out quite clearly what directors are supposed to do, I think that that is a pretty important step, but, of course, there has not been much continuity on the Māori Television board. Directors have left with alarming regularity, so there has been very little consistent management of the board, and very little consistency in decision making. Now we are in the position where the chairman has become the chief executive.

Part 2 deals with issues of accountability. I note that there are 19 clauses in this part—clauses 47 to 65—setting out all sorts of accountability on paper, which the Māori Television Service is expected to meet. It seems to me that that is a very Pākehā way of doing things. Setting things in statute with great detail is the way that Pākehā try to make sure that there is some accountability. I am not sure that that is a Māori way of doing things. In fact, we have already had a huge number of signals throughout this debate about the Māori way of doing things, and I think that the Māori way of doing things is really revealed in the very beginning of the bill.

I see that in clauses 47 to 65 there is an obligation on the Māori Television Service to provide a statement of intent. There is an obligation on it to provide an output agreement, an annual report, a statement of responsibility, and a financial report. Those are all pretty standard things to see in legislation in terms of accountability as we understand it, but what can we actually expect the Māori Television Service to do about them? The signals are very, very clear. The report of the Māori Affairs Committee states: “In its submission, the Service argues that accountability requirements fetter the ability of its board to meet its obligations (set out in clause 8). It says a preferable structure would be to establish the Service under the Companies Act 1993, which it argues would remove many of the accountability requirements.” So we can see there exactly what the service thinks in terms of the provisions that require it to be accountable, and there are ways of doing that that we could examine. We could put our thumbs to our noses, and there are some other things that have happened up at Waitangi from time to time that also demonstrate what Māori think sometimes when Pākehā try to tell them what to do.

The select committee said in response that the service will largely be funded by the Government for the foreseeable future, that the responsible Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for that funding, and that therefore accountability requirements are necessary. That is true. But the service has already told us very, very clearly what will happen. We can have all the words we like, all the words in the world—we can have all 19 clauses stating that the service has to be accountable—but at the end of the day, I know what will happen. The sort of information that we will get out of this from the Māori Television Service will simply be a waste of time. The clauses provided are pretty general, and I am sure that the Māori Affairs Committee will find, year after year, that the service will come back with inadequate reporting. I look forward to what the Audit Office will say about its reporting. I think it will be a bit of a hoot, frankly. The service will come back and waffle around, and, effectively, we will not get any answers. United Future knows about that, because we did not get any answers when we were asking for some sort of indication as to viewership—who was going to listen to this channel. We could not get an answer. We were just told: “You’re Pākehā. You don’t understand Māori.” I can see that exactly that sort of thing will happen every time the service is asked to be accountable. I refer to the clause 50, “Contents of statement of intent’, and I notice that subclause (1)(j) states that there have to be some “performance targets or measures by which the performance of the Service and its subsidiaries may be judged:” I look forward to seeing those performance measurements. We have not seen any yet. This is a service that has already had millions and million of dollars put into it. There is a commitment for $30 million, and for $40 million in 2 years’ time. It has had all those commitments for funding, but where are the performance measures? Surely the service has been going long enough to be able to give a pretty precise account of what it is going to do with the money it has already been funded. But what do we see? We do not see a word, and we cannot find out. The service does not even know how many people are going to watch this television channel, yet all it does is complain that, because the channel is UHF, people will have to buy licences. Only a small proportion of people are actually going to see it, let alone the rest of the country.

There are no statistics and there is no research. Nothing has been done to tell us what is going to happen with this channel. There has been no clear statement from the service in terms of how it will spend this money. We can see very clearly from the way that the Māori Affairs Committee has already been treated, and from the responses it has received from the service, that the service will simply thumb its nose at any indication of being accountable for the money it has—so we can simply forget it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to run through three further amendments that we are putting up on Part 2. These amendments are amendments to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 77, in which there are provisions relating to the UHF right and the potential to lease or to transfer that right to third parties.

The primary changes we are suggesting are to replace the words “principal function” with the words “functions as set out in section 8”, and those changes are to clause 28B and clause 28C(4) on the Supplementary Order Paper. In addition, in clause 28D(1) we are adding the words: “to be used in fulfilling the functions as set out in section 8.” The purpose is to ensure that if the UHF right is leased to some third party because the Māori Television Service is no longer using it—because it no longer needs it, or has closed down, or for whatever reason—it gets used for the purpose of promoting te reo and tikanga Māori, and also that the delivery of those services is also an obligation on that third party.

Clause 8 sets out the functions of the service, and subclause (1) describes the principal function of the service as being to promote te reo and tikanga Māori. That is the phrase that is used throughout the Supplementary Order Paper. We are seeking to change that so that the further functions that are set out in clause 8(2) are also included as part of the obligation on any third party. These amendments put a brake, in our view, on any third party who intends to acquire the spectrum and provide only the minimal amount of te reo and tikanga in content, and only the minimal amount of service delivery to the New Zealand public.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.