Māori Television Service (Te AratukuWhakaata Irirangi Māori) Bill

As I rise to speak in the third reading of this bill, I think it is worthwhile going over some of its past history and some of the developments in the area of Māori television since this Government has been in office. The House may recall that in February 2000 the then Minister of Broadcasting, Marian Hobbs, told this House that she would sort out Māori television and make some decisions on it pretty soon. From that point on we saw delay after delay after delay, and here we are in 2003, seeing the passage of this legislation through this House tonight.

The intention behind this piece of legislation is a very good one. The intention of this bill is to assist in the preservation of te reo. That is a very worthy intention, but I have to say that the vehicle of a Māori television service is a misguided one. It is unlikely that this channel will do anything to preserve the language. If one thinks it is going to preserve the language, one is making an assumption that large numbers of New Zealanders, large numbers of Māori, will watch the channel, enjoy it, understand it, and use it as a method of improving their knowledge of te reo. But if we look at other ethnic television channels around the world—for example, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network in Canada—we see that even though legislation insists that television companies must carry that channel on their platforms, less than 1 percent of the population watches the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network at any one time.

That is the result when the law requires that a channel be included in the remote control. New Zealanders have a choice. Broadcasters here have a choice. Sky has a choice whether the channel will go up on the Sky platform. We do not know what the answer is as yet. If it does not go up, then the chances are that very few New Zealanders will actually be able to get this channel. If they do get the channel, very few people will actually choose to watch it.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: They’ll turn it off.

Many will turn it off. It is interesting to look at the sorts of programmes that have been commissioned to date. One of the things that we have come to expect from the charter is that we will see a higher standard of television on Television New Zealand. Yet if we look at the sorts of programmes that have been commissioned to go on the Māori channel, we see they are the sorts of stuff that many New Zealanders do not like on TVNZ. Things like DIY Marae will just be a Māori model of some of those home renovation shows that we see on TVNZ every night. According to Mr Ryall, another show will be a karaoke show. Once again, it is a reality-style television show, which is probably not the best sort of television that we imagined could be shown on a new channel.

If we look at the progress of this channel, though, we see that there has been delay after delay after delay, and that a lot of controversy has swirled around those delays. We saw some pretty dodgy tendering processes. We saw a closed tendering process where only certain people were invited to tender for certain contracts. There has been the whole debacle surrounding the search for a chief executive officer. I do not need to remind members of this House that the two words “John Davy” still make that Minister walking across the House shudder every time they are mentioned. John Davy reminded us how important it is to check the CVs of people who apply for Government positions. The only truthful piece on his CV was that he was a Canadian.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: And his name.

That is quite correct. In excess of $120,000 was spent on searching for a new chief executive. In that process we saw one company go by the wayside—Millennium People, a fine company that was totally trashed by members on that side. It was totally decimated as a result of some comments that were made about its business and its interaction with the Māori Television Service.

In excess of $120,000 was spent on trying to find a new chief executive officer, and, after all that time, guess whom the board decided to appoint? It appointed none of the candidates, none of the applicants, but within 24 hours of the board deciding that none of the last set of applicants was able to be appointed, none other than Derek Fox was appointed to take on that chief executive role. After that global search for a chief executive, and after all that money had been spent, within 24 hours of deciding that none of the candidates was suitable Derek Fox was appointed.

We also looked at some of the rather questionable decision-making processes when the board was searching around for new premises. It did not look at low-cost areas in Ponsonby, or at other areas where there are already television studios paying good rates. It went to none other than the middle of the Viaduct Basin, with views of the America’s Cup area, to lease potentially one of the swankiest television studios possible. Luckily, the board did not go ahead with that. When Wayne Walden came in, luckily some common sense was brought into the management of the business, and from then on we started to see a few things come into line.

But is it not odd that millions and millions and millions of dollars are budgeted for this channel, and we still do not have an on-air date? There is no way that we would ever find any private sector company or project spending such a large amount of money with no start date in sight. I do not think that is good enough. When the public is spending some $55 million per annum, people at least want to know when we can turn on our televisions and see something more than the test pattern. We should be able to see something more than that.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: So let’s get on with it.

The member over there says we should get on with it. We all know that the lack of this legislation has not actually held anything up. We have an organisation that has no legal status, that has been under the umbrella of Te Puni Kōkiri, and it has been continuing to spend money like it is going out of fashion. After 3 long years, legislation is only just now coming through the House.

There are big expectations, I think, within the country—certainly, within Māoridom—of what this channel is going to deliver, and I am concerned that it is probably not going to deliver on many of the expectations that have built up. I do not think this channel will have any role in preserving the language, if people decide to switch it off and not watch it. The challenge for those who are involved is to put programmes on air that people want to watch, that encourage people to turn on the television, and that, hopefully, develop among people some interest in learning the language. Without people showing an interest in the language, without more people picking up and speaking the language, it will die.

I say that the $55 million could have been spent more effectively in other areas. Can members imagine how many teachers $55 million could have paid for? Can they imagine the difference that $55 million might have made to local kōhanga reo—the difference that it might have made to what local language nests do in the community?

The challenge for those who are involved is to ensure that from here on there are no more scandals. We have seen enough scandals to last the project’s entire lifetime. I am sceptical that the service would be able to have any more scandals without further concerns being raised by this side of the House. But, at this late stage, we do wish those who are involved in the project well, because it would be a travesty if we spent $55 million and the result amounted to zip. As we come to the final part of this third reading, we say that we still have severe reservations about the ability of this project to deliver for Māori.

Tēnei ka tū au ki te kōrero mō tēnei pire e kīa nei ko te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori. Ahakoa te poto o tēnei kōrero, māku te wā e whakamāramatia te take ka tautoko ana mātou i tēnei pire. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Māori Television Service Bill. Although my contribution will be short, it is really to outline some of the reasons that members on this side of the House, who are part of the Government, support the bill.

Nō reira, ka huri au ki te take i tukuna mai tēnei pire kei waenga nui i a tātou. Mēnā ka huri ki ngā kōrero whakataki i te tīmatanga o te pire nei, me titiro tātou ki ngā e rua o ngā wāhanga. Ko te wāhanga tuatahi, e kīa nei kia kaha ake te ūtanga o te Karauna ki te tiaki i te reo Māori. Ka whakaae te Karauna ki ēnei whakatau. If we look to two paragraphs in the preamble to this bill, we will have an appreciation of the context within which the bill sets out to establish the Māori Television Service. In the clause that I cited, I referred to the findings of the tribunal, which found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language. The Crown accepted those findings.

Nō reira, me huri atu ki te wāhanga tuarua. Ka whakaae te Karauna, he here mutunga kore tā ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki te pīkau, kia pūmau tonu te manaaki i te reo Māori mā te whakamahia o ngā mahi pāpāho reo irirangi, whakaata irirangi anō hoki. In paragraph (2) of the preamble to the bill, we read 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:”.

Nō reira i te wā i haria mai tēnei pire ki waenganui i a tātau, ka tūtū mai ētehi ki te kī, ehara tēnei pire, he pire pai mō tātau te iwi Māori. Ko tāku nei, he tīmatanga tēnei, he tīmatanga. Ko te mea nui, kia rongo ai ngā whānau katoa i tō tātau nei reo me ngā ngako kōrero. When this debate came into the House, there was a lot of toing and froing, with discussions about the virtues of the bill and what it will or will not achieve for Māori. I can say that it is really important that our people hear our language, and the essence of the language as conveyed, whether it be by radio or television.

Ki ahau nei, ahakoa te poto o tōku nei kōrero mō te pire nei, ko tāku nei, ko te wawata mō ngā whakatipuranga hei whakarongo ki tō tātau nei reo, ahakoa torutoru noa iho i te tīmatanga, a te wā ka whakawhānui atu ki tētehi atu, ki te motu whānui kia mōhiotia e rātau te ātaahua o tō tātau nei reo engari, kia mōhio rātau kei te ora tonu, kei te ora tonu mō ake tonu atu. Tēnā koutou. Although mine is just a short contribution, and a bilingual one, it is important that this bill go ahead. At the outset only a small number of people will be exposed to programmes in te reo Māori via this bill, but it is our aspiration that that exposure extend out in time. It can only be good to hear that ours is a living, flourishing language that will live on in all our communities for ever. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

ACT regards this piece of legislation as racist. We see it as having no justification other than racism. It has no reasoning other than of drawing distinctions between New Zealanders on the grounds of race or ethnic origin. We are going to make sure that the taxes raised from all who earn or buy goods: in other words, taxes raised without race distinction—other than the recent amendments that the Minister of Finance has pushed through to give privileges to Māori companies—are now to be allocated to broadcasting on a race basis.

Members have referred to the alleged duty to promote te reo. First, there is no such duty. The interpretation of taonga, and including language as a taonga, is, on the face of it, a patent nonsense. Article 2 promises exclusive enjoyment and protection of taonga. [Interruption] I ask Dr Cullen—that fantastic historian who has just given the Labour Party an elucidation of the treaty—whoever heard of exclusive enjoyment of a language? It has somehow slipped his mind that to have exclusive use and possession of language is an absolute nonsense. How could anyone who had anything to do with the drafting of the treaty ever, in their wildest moments, have thought that someone would say that a language could be exclusively used and possessed—unless it was some kind of secret, cabbalistic language; a kind of Latin that only the initiated were allowed to use. Dr Cullen, of course—that wonderful historian descended from the academic clouds to lift the Labour Party out of its bog—did not even try to find a way out. Instead, he just dug its members in deeper. He pointed to the Māori text as though that made a difference. That does not get the Labour Party out of its problem. It is still applying a completely spurious view of a document that is actually very straightforward—that said that 19th century English property rights were to be extended to all the citizens of New Zealand equally.

Having looked at the background, let us ask what this bill actually does. This bill sets up a service that will in fact ghettoise Māori in this country. At the moment we have a lot of mainstream programming. We have Marae, Waka Huia, Te Karere, and Pukana. There is a whole range of programmes that, quite correctly, are being broadcast at times when other New Zealanders can enjoy seeing them. We have programmes that make Māori language and culture seem attractive, and that is the only way that a minority language has any long-term prospect of surviving. It survives if it seen as an elite and high-status thing to do—as a way of asserting membership of a privileged group, and that is just what has been happening. When we see people wearing greenstone tiki or bones around their necks, we can laugh, but that is a way of giving the culture a status that means that it will actually survive. By giving Māori money and telling them to go and play in their own sandpit, Pākehā have discharged any sort of requirement to pay attention to that part of their culture. Then, of course, it is highly unlikely that we will see it survive.

That is assuming that the openly acknowledged ambitions for this bill are the actual ambitions. Sadly, of course, they are not. The treaty as a living document is a political excuse. If the Government really wanted to advance te reo, it would have been looking at simple things like market research to see how much of the target audience has UHF, and at how many of the target audience will actually watch this station. How many of them will switch off Sky to go that channel, which hardly any of them are equipped to look at? If the Government really wanted to advance te reo, it would also have looked at the relative benefit of spending $55 million on this ghetto station, as opposed to spending $55 million to buy prime-time programming on Television One.

If that were the real objective, that is what the Government would do, but that is not the objective. In descending order of decency, there are three other objectives. First, there might be an argument that Māori and their culture have been insufficiently reflected on State broadcasting, and that this initiative is redressing an imbalance. That is pretty patronising, but still does not answer the problem that this initiative might be the least beneficial way of doing that—though it is, perhaps, an underlying argument that would be worth debating if someone wanted to raise it. A more sinister reason was exhibited even during the period when the channel was being set up: this is a financially corrupt measure to ensure the employment of small elite. It establishes a slush fund to hand out goodies to people who can swank around producing programmes at a cost far in excess of normal commercial rates and be protected from competition by their connections. This is a device to ensure that there is a supply of money that can buy off the potential challenge to the political elite that has hogged power in the Māori seats for so long.

This is a gross source of patronage, and, worse, a source of political corruption. This bill sets up a service that enables the Labour Party to try to protect—I imagine vainly, as I think New Zealand First will take them despite this effort—the stranglehold that Labour has on Māori seats. There is nothing in this bill that even starts to protect the political neutrality of the Māori Television Service. Even Italian State radio has a requirement that the board be appointed with the consent of parties from both sides of the House, to at least try to ensure that there is some pretence of political neutrality. Instead, this bill allows Ministers to set up without any kind of system to protect political neutrality. This bill can turn the Māori Television Service into propaganda for any cause it likes.

There is no requirement for the service to be politically neutral, balanced, or secular. It is directed to create programmes that reflect vague things like “cultural and spiritual values”. There is no requirement to combat superstition. It is only a short time in New Zealand’s history since Māori and Pākehā politicians were supporting legislation like the Tohunga Suppression Act. The Labour Party is now establishing a television channel—the most influential medium we have—that is not only free to, but encouraged to, go out and promote superstition.

There is no requirement in the charter to uplift, or educate, or be objective. There is no requirement—no power, in fact—to insist upon quality programming. It is all left to a set of political compromises between Government Ministers and the electoral college. At a trivial level, there are no effective protections against conflict of interest. The board of this body is exempt from even the liabilities that ordinary company directors face. For example, unlike the board of almost every other body in New Zealand, this board does not face liabilities under the Building Act, the Resource Management Act, or the Health and Safety in Employment Act, because it has been given a privileged status.

That was the most extraordinary speech, which really summed up the wellspring of bitterness and hatred that that member has for anything to do with matters Māori. That was an extraordinary speech. He described the setting up of a Māori television service to promote Māori language and Māori culture, in both Māori and English, as racist. Does this mean that the British Broadcasting Corporation is racist because it is there as part of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom culture? Is it true that the United States Public Broadcasting Service is racist because it is about the United States? Racism is something that is not Pākehā, as far as that member is concerned. If it is not Pākehā, it is racist. That is the most extraordinary drivel I have heard in a very long time in my life and in this House.

We were then treated to the spectacle of the member trying to deal with what the treaty says in article 2, by combining parts of the words in English with parts of the words in Māori. We can do almost anything with a document if we care to get a bad translation from a rather peculiar form of the indigenous language into another language, then combine one bit with another bit and say that this cannot be true. What a particular piece of drivel from the member that was!

Then we were told that the Māori language can survive only if it acquires the status of being some kind of unique, elite thing that people treasure because it is an elite means of advancement in society. I thought ACT’s complaint was that Māori was an elite means of advancement in society these days, under a Labour Government, but never mind about that particular inconsequentiality on the part of the ACT party! How on earth does the member think the English language survived in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, if it was supposed to be an elite language? It was the language of the conquered—conquered by Normans. Which side does he claim descent from, with a name like Franks? I assume from neither, in that particular respect, but if he descends from either of them, it has to be the Normans rather than the English. English survived because it was a language treasured by those who were downtrodden. Anglo-Saxon was kept alive and became the dominant part of the English language. We do not go back and study French to study the roots of the English language; we go back and study Old English and Anglo-Saxon—or, at least, we used to in the time that I was at university.

All the member’s arguments added up to one thing: he hates Māori, he hates anything to do with Māori, he sees them as some kind of excrescence on the New Zealand body politic, and he says that one of the worst things about this channel is that it will promote superstition, which apparently means anything other than neoclassical economics, which is what I call superstition. Anybody who believes in that in the 21st century is truly superstitious.

Let me first give an expression of support for the last contribution for its elucidation of the important issues, and say how grateful the Greens are to hear other Pākehā standing in this House in defence of issues surrounding Māori.

The Greens support this bill. We are very pleased to have a dedicated television channel established where te reo will be a high-priority language, where the Māori perspective on local, national, and international issues will be aired, and where images of Māori from every area of life will be shown and valued. We believe that this channel is a clear example of how a treaty right—that is, the protection of te reo through broadcasting—can contribute to the development of the whole nation. This television station is sourced primarily in the community of this country, and opens huge opportunities for much broader analysis and dissemination of New Zealand – focused news and current affairs. That can only contribute to a much better national understanding of ourselves as a community and a nation.

The broadcast of information about tikanga Māori will also increase the nation’s understanding of Māori values and concepts. Māori continue to be used as a political football and, often, as a weapon to alarm. I think we can point very directly to the contribution from the ACT party this evening as an example of the way that Māori and Māori issues are used as a weapon to increase concerns and fears amongst the New Zealand public that have absolutely no basis. This television station will help to alleviate in some way some of those fears, which are driven by a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of both traditional and contemporary Māori existence. I need only point to the ACT party’s previous contribution from Deborah Coddington. Her aggressive and derogatory comment during the Committee stage about tikanga Māori was a further clear illustration of the levels of ignorance and fear expressed by some people on Māori issues.

We are also delighted that the Greens’ amendments to the bill have been incorporated, so that there now is much greater protection against political interference in the programming, and greater protection of delivery of the service should it be provided by a third party in the future.

Finally, we are very pleased to vote in favour of this bill, and look forward to its eventual establishment. Kia ora koutou.

I wish to rise in support of the bill, and say that I believe that it is about being a New Zealander. I am very proud of this bill. I am absolutely appalled that we should have members of Parliament making speeches like those the ACT party has made here tonight. I find it difficult to believe, as a New Zealander born and bred in this country, that other people who have the same heritage could make such speeches.

For those who were not listening carefully to that speech from the member for Hamilton East, I say it was one of the very few contributions she has ever made in this Chamber, and I hope that those who were listening savoured the moment.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Come to the bill.

I am entitled to make a brief contribution on that matter. Unlike members opposite, who appear to have nothing to say about this bill, I do have some things to say, because I think it is important legislation. The third reading is the opportunity to refer to the stages that have gone before, and to make sure that these matters are put on the parliamentary record.

First, I want to record the fact that the debate on this bill in the House tonight is a complete farce. We are dealing tonight with a bill that asks members of the House to solemnly approve legislation to establish the Māori Television Service, to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, to appoint a board for the Māori Television Service, to appoint a chief executive for the Māori Television Service, and to appoint an electoral college for the Māori Television Service. Anybody who has read a newspaper in recent weeks knows that each of those things has already been done. We are debating a bill that asks us to solemnly approve the appointment of a chief executive officer who has already been appointed, to debate and approve the appointment of a board that is already in place, and to approve the appointment of an electoral college that has been there for months and months. I ask what sort of farce it is when Parliament is solemnly debating legislation of this sort, when all those events have already occurred and many millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money have already been committed. The bill asks us to approve a process for the commencement of business, for the transmission process, and so on. All those matters, too, have been the subject of considerable action and expenditure, and still this Parliament is asked to keep a straight face when debating this matter tonight.

That is a more straightforward consideration in relation to this bill. There is another element of its genesis that I wish to put on the record tonight. The Minister of Māori Affairs should hang his head in shame. He told us many times in this House, and outside it, that Mr Derek Fox was going to be appointed to the position of chairman of the Māori Television Service, a very part-time role, for a total remuneration package of $36,000 a year. I remind members opposite that when this Māori Television Service was first being discussed, Mr Derek Fox had already announced his intention of establishing a new Māori political party. He had announced his intention of standing against the Minister of Māori Affairs in the Minister’s own seat. So Mr Fox got an invitation to afternoon tea from the Prime Minister. We do not know what happened when the Prime Minister and Mr Fox were sitting in the Prime Minister’s suite, but we do know that when he came out he had decided to accept the chairmanship of the Māori Television Service.

The Minister of Māori Affairs and the Prime Minister said that he could still set up his Māori political party, and he was still going to do that. He was still going to run against the Minister of Māori Affairs in his electorate. But I know, members know, and anybody who has read a newspaper knows that Mr Fox’s Māori political party has not happened, and that Mr Fox did not stand as a candidate against the Minister of Māori Affairs. We know that as a matter of public record.

I say to the Minister of Māori Affairs that that is a disgrace. Mr Fox was bought, and he knows it. I want to know how it was that Mr Fox moved from becoming the $36,000-a-year, very part-time chairman of the Māori Television Service, to become the very much more full-time chairman of the Māori Television Service getting $100,000 in the first year, plus $50,000 in expenses. I want to know how that happened, and how he then made the transformation to become the $160,000-a-year chief executive officer of the Māori Television Service—having been the chairman of the panel that interviewed the other candidates. Suddenly Mr Fox went back to the board and said: “We’re sorry, chaps, but none of these guys measured up.” Then he withdrew from the room so that the remaining directors could appoint him chief executive officer, on a vote of three votes to two, with one of those votes being a proxy. I ask members how we are supposed to have any respect for a process like that. Mr Fox, who is the sworn political opponent of the Minister of Māori Affairs, was able to be bought by the Government, and then was appointed chief executive officer on a salary of $160,000 a year.

The State Services Commission’s officials were saying: “No, no, no. This doesn’t look too flash. We’ve got a little problem here. Mr Fox is being appointed chief executive officer on the same job description as Mr John Davy had.” The Minister of Māori Affairs may not have noticed the distinction, but Mr Davy was a Canadian with no skills in Māori language and no understanding of tikanga. Yet, the same job description had seen Mr Fox, the former chairman, appointed to the same job. The State Services Commission pointed that out. Its officials said to the Minister of Māori Affairs that it did not look too flash, but the job description could not be changed because Mr Fox had already been appointed. So they asked what the Minister wanted them to do.

The Minister of Māori Affairs needs to tell us that, because every time that question has been raised in the House, as this bill has gone through its various stages and as the clauses have gone through the Committee of the whole House, the Minister of Māori Affairs has stayed anchored in his seat, refusing to answer or give a response to the House on those matters.

I say that this third reading is an opportunity for us to record that this has been a disgraceful process to validate actions of the Government that have already been determined, to validate expenditure of Government money that has already been spent, and to validate actions of that Minister, who has no answers to offer members in response to the very reasonable and sensible questions they have asked as this bill has gone through its various stages.

I say to the Minister of Māori Affairs that my colleagues and I will be vigilant. We know that this Māori Television Service will be a millstone around his neck, around the neck of the Minister of Finance—who made one of the more shameful contributions to this debate—and around the neck of every member of this Government. I say that we will vote against this bill tonight, and those members supporting the bill should remember that today they are making a commitment that will see them, in due course, held up to public ridicule. I make a commitment that I and my colleagues will be here to hold them to account.