Estimates Debate — In Committee

The Māori television vote has increased from $30.59 million in 2002-03 to $37.983 million in 2003-04, which is an increase of $7.392 million. That funding increase was sought for the non-departmental output class “Māori Television Broadcasting”.

The chief executive officer of Te Puni Kōkiri has said that he has confidence in the ability of the Māori Television Service to ascertain its operational requirements. New Zealand First has queried that. We have questioned the estimated number of staff who are to be employed, and have asked for those positions to be identified, along with the skills and qualifications of the applicants, and the interview format that will be used—especially after the debacle over the appointment of Mr Davies.

According to the Māori television bill, the television service is to teach te reo, hopefully, to a standard of fluency, and to provide for the retention of protocol. If this form of learning through this medium is sufficient, New Zealand First will be asking how this learning process will be facilitated. New Zealand First would expect a review to see who has learnt the language fluently, and understands the nuts and bolts of the tikanga. I ask, as I did before, who will be facilitating the learning process of the viewers.

The sum of $37.983 million is a lot to account for. New Zealand First will expect nothing less than positive results in the administration of Māori television. I ask again what the cost to the consumer will be, and whether all Māori will receive this transmission. If the tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language, this had better happen. The public demands it, because accountability is required by the taxpayer. Te Māngai Pāho has been the laughing stock of the nation. Here we go again. The inadequacies of this organisation have been revealed in the House, along with the questionable reporting system. This has come to a cost of $10.57 million, with additional funds of $250,000 for staff training. This organisation had better get it right, because we are tired, and Māori are tired, of the adverse adjectives that the public freely throw about.

Would not all this money be put to better use in education, employment, housing, and health? Two weeks ago, my colleagues in New Zealand First and I spent a day at the Auckland remand prison and at the Paremoremo maximum security prison. I ask members to guess who the majority of the inmates were. Can we keep Māori out of prisons by giving grants for a skateboard club to redevelop a skateboard bowl, or grants to teach Māori how to break-dance without being injured? This is called capacity building, they say! Is this what we call capacity building? What is the process we are following? Is there any potential for positive development?

The time allocated to the consideration of the estimates referred to in the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill has expired. I am now required to put as one question the remaining votes and provisions of the bill, as per Standing Order 325.

The question was put that Vote ACC, Vote Child, Youth and Family Services, Vote Commerce, Vote Communications, Vote Community and Voluntary Sector, Vote Conservation, Vote Consumer Affairs, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Customs, Vote Defence, Vote Defence Force, Vote Emergency Management, Vote Environment, Vote Immigration, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Lands, Vote Local Government, Vote Māori Affairs, Vote National Archives, Vote National Library, Vote Official Development Assistance, Vote Police, Vote Racing, Vote Senior Citizens, Vote State-Owned Enterprises; Vote Statistics, Vote Tourism, Vote Transport, Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Defence), Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Social Development), Vote Women’s Affairs, Vote Youth Affairs, the preamble, clauses 1 to 13, and schedule 6 be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you ruled earlier on the issue of leave to extend the estimates debate I did not hear you give a view on my request that you take some time to look at the whole issue of how the 8-hour estimates debate is allocated. I am not asking you for a decision; I am asking for your formal consideration of the problem that we have just faced.

The Standing Orders deal with that. There is a Standing Orders Committee. I am perfectly happy to have time set aside at that committee to consider the issue, and I think that is the appropriate place to do it. I invite the member, if he so wishes, to make a short submission to the committee, and I will ensure it is heard.