Māori Television Service Bill

It is quite interesting to stand here and debate Part 3 of the Māori Television Service Bill, which will establish the Māori 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?

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?

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 Māori 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.

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 Māori 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.

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 Māori 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.

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 Māori 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.

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 Māori health.

💬 Pansy Wong: It doesn’t state that.

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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori Television Service is not operating on Sky, or why Māori television is not free to air alongside Television One and TV2.

💬 Jill Pettis: Which seat did the member win?

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!

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—Māori television is not on that satellite. Why is Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori television not on that? Why is Māori 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 Māori have taken up te reo? I have the horrible feeling that Māori have once again been set up to fail.

I am concerned at the proposal in this part to terminate the Te Reo Māori Television Trust. It seems to me that the replacement, which is the channel itself together with Te Pūtahi 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori Television Trust to look at the broad perspective of how we promote te reo on nationwide television.

I note that in the New Zealand Māori 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.

The essential point, if my friend was listening, was the termination of the Te Reo Māori Television Trust.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, the member is correct. He is sticking to the part.

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 Pūtahi 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 Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori caucus would be told about that te reo course, because we were confining it to them.

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 Pūtahi 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 Pūtahi 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 Māori 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 Māori Television Service, but of this legislation, in accordance with the terms of reference set out by the Ministers.

There is nothing in the Māori 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.

I move, That the question be now put.

It gives me great pleasure, once again, to speak on the third part of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori 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 Māori and tikanga Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori Television Service in achieving an objective difference in the number of Māori 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 Māori, I think immediately of the kōhanga reo organisations and kura kaupapa Māori 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 Māori immersion education; and (ii) all persons learning te reo Māori.’ ” It is absolutely essential that we remind ourselves from the very beginning that that is what this bill is all about.

I move, That the question be now put.