Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill

There has been much made in the discussion on the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill about the contribution of Māori Television to the broadcasting environment in New Zealand and its role over the last 10 years, and its position as a taonga in our broadcasting environment. I would welcome, during the course of this debate, the Minister getting up and telling us what he believes has been that contribution, what his vision is for Māori Television going forward, and where he sees this bill fitting in as part of that vision going forward, in particular in relation to the use of the spectrum, which is really fundamentally why we are passing this bill under urgency—to get that spectrum.

Because that spectrum has to be converted, the law has to change by the beginning of December in order for that spectrum to be converted. That is why we are rushing through these last parts of this bill right now in order for that to happen. There has to be the context, and the context is that the Māori Television Service—like Radio New Zealand, like New Zealand On Air, like every publicly funded entity that receives funding for broadcasting—has had its funding frozen for years now.

Four years—I think probably we are heading into the fifth year of no extra funding, and yet we are passing a bill today that transfers the analog spectrum to the digital environment, which is a necessary factor. We are heading into the 10th anniversary for Māori Television and there is no talk at all about what the development of Māori Television is going to be and whether that includes a vision for high definition. In that case, there will be a need for more spectrum because—Mr Chair, for your edification—in order for the high-definition channel to be developed, it requires a lot more spectrum than is the current amount of spectrum used for analog television.

This issue is actually at the heart of the bill. How that spectrum will be managed, who will manage it, what decisions will be made about it, and in whose interests they will be made are really the big questions that lie behind this bill. I think that the Minister of Māori Affairs, during the course of the second reading, will have received and hopefully taken note of those specific questions, and will get on to his feet and provide us with some explanation and discussion around that.

I would like to refer back to the briefing to the incoming Ministers—the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance. They are the Minister in the chair, Pita Sharples, and also the shareholding Minister, Bill English. They have been referred to on a number of occasions as ducking for cover on the appointment of the new chief executive at Māori Television. They had a briefing from Māori Television in 2011. That briefing referred specifically to the management rights and spectrum allocation and the impending change to digital television.

That briefing raised questions—in a very polite manner, but it still raised questions—about how that spectrum was going to be managed and who was going to manage it. It harked back to what happened in 2010, I think it was, if I am correct—and correct me if I am wrong—when there was a lessening of the amount of analog spectrum for Māori Television, which happened really under the noses of everybody and without much public comment. But there was a reduction in the amount of spectrum, where Māori Television had no say. It was a reduction from 32 megahertz down to 16 megahertz. There have subsequently been concerns raised about whether in the future that may happen again, and, if it did happen again, what role and what rights Māori Television would have to ensure that that did not happen and that it had some say in it.

The other absolutely critical issue is around the funding for Māori Television and how it can manage its future in this environment, in which funding has been frozen. We all know that the effect of funding freezes over a number of years actually equates to funding cuts because the service cannot continue to operate at the same level. I think we must put on the record that Māori Television and Radio New Zealand, in that environment of frozen funding, have both done exceedingly well in providing the service that they do to the New Zealand public in our straitened public broadcasting environment.

But if we are to look at going into the modern digital environment, where there are multiple platforms, where there is the possibility of higher-definition television—as we should be considering and as we should be having the debate around—what ability will Māori Television have to do that? What rights will it have over the ability to do that through its spectrum? How will it do that if there is no ability for its cost structures and sources of income to be increased or reviewed, and for it to actually take control of its own future?

Given that this is the 10th anniversary of Māori Television in New Zealand, I would like to get some indication from the Minister in the chair as to what his belief is, what his vision is, and what his ideas are around how Māori Television can take us into its second decade and perform that important role as a taonga in New Zealand.

I would also like to reiterate my concerns around the management of the spectrum under the Te Pūtahi Pāoho structure and the governance structure in the context that, as the Minister himself said in his second reading speech, it is in a state of flux. There are question marks around the composition of the groups that make it up and its ability to perform those governance functions effectively to the standard that we need to have at the electoral college—that relationship between the Crown and the electoral college. So I would like to hear more from the Minister on that. I think there is a question mark, and that question mark is in the commentary on the bill. It seems very ironic that we are passing a piece of legislation, which we have to pass by the beginning of December in order to transfer that spectrum over, where there is a huge question mark in the bill over the governance process of the management of that spectrum.

I think, as I said in my second reading speech, that the Government really should have had its house in order in terms of that issue. It came up in the Māori Affairs Committee only under questioning from members of the committee, on both sides. But it really did emerge only in the select committee, because it certainly was not in the officials’ advice to the select committee. It really did emerge only during the discussions. Why was it that it came up only then? What are the Government and Minister doing about it to ensure that we can be reassured that Māori Television can progress, can move into the modern era with the spectrum that is being transferred over, can move into an era of high definition, will have the amount of spectrum it needs to do that, will have some control over the way its spectrum is managed, and, more important, will have its funding reviewed and, hopefully, increased?

I know at home the eyes of the people listening to this debate, the Committee stage of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill, may be glazing over because we are talking about spectrum—

💬 Clare Curran: Oh!

—not necessarily in particular reference to the previous speaker, my colleague Clare Curran, but because we are speaking about spectrum. Maybe I should not have said that. Because we are talking about spectrum, sometimes—excuse the pun—that goes over the head of most New Zealanders. But what is important here is that because we are having what is called the digital switch-over on, I believe, 1 December, an analog frequency that was allocated to Māori Television will under this bill be allocated to another organisation called Te Pūtahi Pāoho. It will be that organisation that essentially gets to utilise that old analog spectrum. Where that spectrum becomes important is that it can actually be transformed into a digital spectrum. In that spectrum there is the ability for eight digital TV stations to be carried, so one old spectrum becomes a new digital spectrum in which you can broadcast eight TV stations.

Why is this important? Because in the future if someone wants to start up a TV station, and if the Māori Television Service had that spectrum, it would have the ability to lease out one of those eight stations to make some money off it. But because there has been a transfer of that spectrum from the Māori Television Service to Te Pūtahi Pāoho, it is taking away a potential revenue-gathering plan for the Māori Television Service. We have heard from my colleagues about the importance of making sure that the Māori Television Service has increased revenue. I think my colleague Clare Curran just made the point in her previous speech and Nanaia Mahuta made a reference to that in her second reading speech. So the question that I want to ask the Minister in the chair at the moment, the Minister of Māori Affairs, is: why? How will the proceeds of Te Pūtahi Pāoho’s management of that spectrum benefit the Māori Television Service, which is forgoing the right to that spectrum? So if he can answer those questions, that would be very useful.

I think that the Māori Television Service would feel a little bit hard done by if it had this asset that is no longer going to be used, but that could be used in a different way to make some revenue, to host other broadcasters, but that has now been taken off it. So to the Minister in the chair—and this specifically refers to paragraphs (c) and (ca) in clause 4(2), about the spectrum management rights—I ask: how is it going to be utilised by Te Pūtahi Pāoho? How will the funds from that, if it makes any money from it, go to the Māori Television Service or not? And why, specifically, has that spectrum management right been transferred from the Māori Television Service to Te Pūtahi Pāoho and not stayed with the Māori Television Service? I do not know whether there is a decent enough answer.

I guess it goes to show that there is no real, overarching vision from the Government around spectrum use. We have seen it in 4G. The Government has just announced—and I think my colleague has put a press release out today—its intentions to sell off the 4G network, which has just become available. Instead of being able to ring-fence some of that 4G spectrum or think of other uses where it can be utilised, it just says that it is going to flog them all off. As Clare Curran mentioned in, I think, her second reading speech, very recently Sky television said it was going to give four packets of this analog spectrum back. So four times eight, because of the theory I said before, means that up to 32 television stations could be broadcast on the four packets of spectrum that Sky has just handed back to the Government. As of yet we have had no word from the Government as to what it intends to do with it.

Just to give those at home an understanding of what these frequencies are worth, one of those packets recently sold for about $1.7 million at the auction that the Government held. Am I right here? [Interruption] Yes, it was roughly $1.7 million. So these are resources that have got some cost. Obviously in the future, as digital technology gets better, it may actually be able to hold more transmission capability. So if people want to start television stations here in New Zealand, these are the kinds of things that they are going to need be able to broadcast. So they will have some future value. I would like to see an overarching strategy from this Government—I am not expecting one—as to how it manages the spectrum that has just become available to it from Sky, and the spectrum in the 4G sphere, which my colleague Clare Curran has already mentioned today, and what it sees as the best fit. That is not just to hock them off to the highest bidder but to say: “OK, if we’ve got four packets that have just come back from Sky television, do we ring-fence some of that for any public broadcasting future?”.

We have announced today that we think the Government should ring-fence one of those packets—one packet of analog, which can be transferred into eight television stations at this moment—that has just been given to it, to make sure that that is protected for any future public broadcasting. If the Government sells those four packets off to the highest bidder, they are all gone. So if any future Government that is actually committed to public broadcasting, like members on this side of the House, wants to start up a public broadcaster, there will be some spectrum available for us to do that. But what I fear will happen—and those members have gone quiet, so this is probably what is going to happen—is that those four packets will just be hocked off to the highest bidder. So when it comes to the time for members on this side of the House to say that we want to start up a public broadcaster, there will be zero spectrum available to us. So we will probably have to go back, cap in hand, to whoever bought that spectrum and say: “We need some of it back.” If I had bought that spectrum, I would say: “Well, things have changed. You really want to do this, so you are going to have to buy it at a much higher price.” Well, in the long run that is bad for the taxpayer, because not only do we have to pay more for the spectrum but we could have held on to it and ring-fenced it so that we had the ability to not just start one but also have seven more television networks there on that spectrum.

I will propose this challenge to the Government, and maybe the Minister in the chair would like to see how this works for the Māori Television Service, as well. This Government has the ability now to ring-fence spectrum, to manage spectrum, in a responsible manner for State broadcasting. You probably get to sell it or lease it only once every 20 years, so what the Government does now is very important. It can either hock it off, and it has a track record of doing that, or it can say: “This is important stuff right now. We might be able to sell some of it, but this is going to be saved for any future Government. They might want to do it”—again, I am not expecting it—“for public broadcasting.” So that is another question that I might pose to the Minister in the chair around spectrum, because this management arrangement in the bill seems a little bit strange to me. Again, I guess it is a little bit symptomatic of a Government that does not have an overarching plan when it comes to spectrum.

It is very important. People at home are actually watching Parliament TV now on spectrum. If they want to see any future public broadcasting stations, there is going to have to be spectrum available there for it. So this Government needs to make a pretty hard decision: does it care about public broadcasting enough to ring-fence some spectrum or not? I think that this bill, around the way that the spectrum from Māori Television Service is changing the management rights to Te Pūtahi Pāoho, shows the kind of attitude that this Government has to spectrum. It does not really care. Well, it should care, because this future Labour Government will be committed to public broadcasting, and we do want to make sure that there is spectrum available for it. If the current Government does not care about public broadcasting, it will just sell that spectrum and we will all know the commitment from that Government to public broadcasting. So it will all be down to a decision that the Government will make very soon about whether it sells it or keeps it. If it sells it, then you know that this Government does not care about public broadcasting. If it keeps it, well, it has proved the critics wrong.

I would ask, though, that maybe the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee could put a bit of pressure on the Government and take a call to say that he agrees with me, because the success of Māori Television could be augmented by it having another channel. But we do not know how that is going to happen, because it is no longer in charge of the frequencies that it is going to be going out on. That now goes to—no, not Māori Television—Te Pūtahi Pāoho. So it cannot manage any further growth without having to go through this other organisation, which may say: “We don’t care about you having another channel. We’re going to lease out the rest of the spectrum just to make money.” Here is a question, and it is a serious question: if there is money to be made out of the spectrum, what is it going to be used for? I would prefer that it goes back into the culture, but that question has not been answered.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. In the characteristic spirit of positive contributions that defines me, I want to direct our attention to the question of whether or not Māori Television, with the change in the Māori language, Te Reo me ōna tikanga [the language and its customs], is a Trojan horse, where the station will no longer be a bastion of quality language and a prestigious place to go to help people improve their language.

I know that report from Te Kāhui o Māhutonga, which I thought was not unlike the report from Te Paepae Motuhake to do with Te Reo Māori, had content inversely related to cost and had quality inversely related to quantity. They were, by and large, reports that did not advance the Māori language in any practical way. I would love to hear Dr Sharples, our Minister of Māori Affairs, stand and provide some account of that.

But there is a point at which the underlying raison d’être, the underlying kaupapa, purpose, of the station needs to be tied to something that is a legacy. Is this an opportunity for it to broaden and provide more shows, such as those narrated by Sir Howard Morrison’s son? I have got nothing in particular against that whānau, or Matua Parkinson, other than his lapse of smoking dope, but then half of Kaitāia does it. I do not judge him for that either. However, I would say that if we are going to maintain a special position of power and influence for our Māori Television station in so far as it can be a public television provider, let it not be at the cost of good-quality language. Let it not be at the cost of being a bastion for those people, as the language stops being used in the way that it perhaps was in our grandmothers’ time, and, indeed, in my colleague Tau Henare’s grandparents’ time. New avenues are required, but it is important that new students can find it in an accessible way, not by reading some ancient dictionary.

I think Richard Tregear wrote a Māori language dictionary. That is quite apart from that famous Anglican who ended up with too much Ngati Porou land, Williams. That might have more to do with Ngati Porou than Williams and the Anglican Church. That is another matter—that is another matter. But I would say that we must not compromise on te pūkenga, te mārū wehi me te ātaahua o Te Reo Māori, tōna ātaahua [the skilfulness, awesome gentleness, and beauty of the Māori language, its attractiveness].

If they are going to make programmes that are broader than Te Reo Māori, then it is important that it is done in such a way that it actually improves the consciousness. I am tempted to talk about the Minister’s year-long slumber, but that would be unbecoming. But the consciousness of broader New Zealand society is such that the language becomes regarded as something that does not deserve to be sneered at and eventually turns into a part of compulsory study in all New Zealand schools, just as we have to learn geography and social studies. I would like to think that every kid learns civics compulsorily. If it is not happening, then help is on the way. It certainly will be in a year or two. As a part of a robust social studies programme, New Zealand’s first language, our native language, Te Reo Māori, should be embedded there. But for that to happen society obviously has to lose a lot of its not so much fear but its sense that the language is worthless.

I fear that those critics looking at the Minister might collude and say that the language is worthless. The language is not worthless. There may be some problems with the worth of the Minister, but the language is not worthless. I do not think it is fair that we have sat through this debate and we have not really heard a great deal—and that is fine, there are a host of other Ministers. Indeed, there were some on our side who did not feel obliged from time to time to contribute. But let us not compromise the language. Let us ensure that it provides a basis for improving our sense of ownership, our sense of place, in terms of the language being an indelible feature of broad New Zealand civic culture, without Māori feeling that they are being alienated from their language.

The other thing that I would like to remind us of is that we had a great debate, and it is there in the bill, in terms of management rights. There is an issue as to whether or not Te Pūtahi Pāoho may be captured and decide that Māori Television is not deserving of the entirety of the spectrum, and that other pursuits—there may be the occasional erratic film maker who may come up with a bright scheme from out of the Māori film-making ether—might want to get some of that spectrum for a different television purpose.

I would counsel and warn against that. I think it is important. Just as under the current Minister, where we have watched Māori radio wither on the vine, there is no longer any funding for training. These are people who can criss-cross from te irirangi Māori to te pouaka Māori. They can criss-cross from Māori radio to Māori television and create a bigger cadre of bilingual, sophisticated broadcasters and reporters. I think it is really disappointing that when there is some scope that this waka kīhau, this ghost ship, will provide the chance for viral activity, people think that by atomising Māori effort, somehow the kaupapa is going to get stronger. I find very little evidence that that is the case. In relation to te irirangi Māori—Māori radio—we have seen that the reason that it has withered is that often it lacks collective effort. You have too many organisations pulling in too many different directions.

The Minister might say that there is a safeguard there, and that any major changes to spectrum allocation or spectrum use have to have the acquiescence or the statutory consent of the relevant Ministers. In order for those mortgages to be entered into, or for other purposes, the Minister has to buy into it. That is a safeguard, but a number of Māori will see that as patronising. A number of Māori will see that as diametrically opposed to the tino rangatiratanga rhetoric that defined the Māori Party when it was at its best. Unfortunately, much drooping has taken place since that point in time.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s withered—withered.

Yes. The voters will have the final say on that matter.

But when we actually focus in respect of the usage of the spectrum, let us ensure—and the Minister perhaps might provide us with some reassurance—that Te Pūtahi Pāoho will not be a nest of instability that then weakens the ability of the major Māori language television provider. There is some mahi happening in Television One, but I think most Māori, in terms of language activists and those of us wanting to promote a greater level of knowledge and consciousness about our heritage in Māori, look to Māori Television.

Let us not create a situation where that waka is weakened because of conflicting agendas. I suspect that is what has blighted the attempt to date of Māori Television to find a person to be the new chief executive officer. There are too many agendas and too many people fighting each other. Of course we have seen this with Hone Harawira having left the Māori Party and Tariana Turia not sure whether she is going to stay or go. Unfortunately, this is a feature of certain aspects of that type of political creed. That is their business, and our business today as parliamentarians is to ensure that this bill does not provide an opportunity for people with so many conflicting agendas to weaken the resolve of the board. It has actually started to happen. They cannot even find a chief executive officer, which is actually an indictment on the chair of the board, Georgina te Heuheu. That did not seem to make any difference when she was a Minister, and it is unlikely to make any impact on her now. She is not a Minister.

When Māori Television does make programmes that have broader appeal, it should make a programme about creatures that hibernate. Occasionally they are prodded out of their slumber into a level of consciousness.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who would star in that?

I can think of someone who will be unemployed at the end of next year, and out of politics, who may actually star in that programme. Indeed, Georgina te Heuheu could actually star in that at the moment, given the failure to find a chief executive officer and the inability to bring what seems to be conflict to a head. So this is not good for Māori Television. We stand with Māori Television in the sense—

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I would like my contribution at this Committee stage to really just focus on quite a narrow issue. That matter relates to the actual composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. The organisations that make up Te Pūtahi Pāoho are listed in schedule 1 of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act. To be removed from schedule 1 of the Act requires an Order in Council. That Order in Council requires a recommendation from the Minister. The Minister’s recommendation comes through, as to whether they are taking up the decision of Te Pūtahi Pāoho to that effect. So basically Te Pūtahi Pāoho makes a decision, it goes through to the Minister as to whether he will take on that recommendation, then it gets enshrined by Order in Council, and then the Act is amended.

We have got 11 organisations in schedule 1 of the Act, as I understand it, today. I will not rattle through all of them. There are some longstanding Māori organisations that have done much work in terms of championing the Reo when doing other great things.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Kōhanga reo?

Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust is in there.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Special Minister in kōhanga reo. Kei te moe.

Āe. We have got the Māori Council—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Who?

The New Zealand Māori Council. There are the kura kaupapa. There is a whole host of organisations there that comprise Te Pūtahi Paoho. That means that those organisations are entitled to appoint a member to Te Pūtahi Paoho. So what I am really seeking from the Minister of Māori Affairs is absolute certainty as to the composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

As I was saying before the dinner break, I am seeking clarification from the Minister of Māori Affairs as to the composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. It is the statutory body that is now going to have the management and administration rights for the spectrum, under this bill, and it is very important because of, as you know, the issues raised at the Māori Affairs Committee regarding certain members of that Te Pūtahi Pāoho body, specifically because we, as a select committee, were written to by the Minister when we raised these matters. We received a letter from Minister Sharples, which was received here on 20 August, stating that Te Pūtahi Pāoho was going to have a meeting on 28 or 29 August to consider the membership status of certain organisations, specifically the National Māori Congress and Kawea Te Rongo. I know the Minister mentioned in his opening speech that those two organisations have withdrawn from Te Pūtahi Pāoho.

I am just seeking clarification from the Minister whether recommendations and an Order in Council have actually gone through to that effect. As I understand it—and I may wrong but it seems clear—under section 14 of the Act it requires an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister at the advice or request of the chair of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. Only then can there be the addition or removal of names from Te Pūtahi Pāoho.

The reason why I am seeking clarification is I think it is very important that, given all the issues that we have raised around whether certain bodies are defunct or whether they are operative and whether certain members who are representing those bodies have been validly appointed, we get a record, really, of the decisions that have been made by Te Pūtahi Pāoho—a record of the paper trail, I guess—and a record of that going all the way through to the Order in Council. I think, ultimately, that we need the Order in Council, because despite what the Minister may say, the fact that those certain bodies like the National Māori Congress and Kawea Te Rongo have withdrawn and until those measures have been put in place and given effect to, technically they would still be part of schedule 1 of the Act.

What has added to my confusion is that when I looked at the Te Pūtahi Pāoho website and looked at the page where it lists all the members of Te Pūtahi Pāoho, it is woefully out of date. It is either that, or I may be mistaken as to who certain members are or who certain organisations are on Te Pūtahi Pāoho. For instance, it still lists Tūwhakairiora Williams as the chairperson. It still lists Kawea Te Rongo as a member, and a member representing Kawea Te Rongo. This is the actual website itself of Te Pūtahi Pāoho, which again is misleading, because, as I understand it, there is a press release that came out from Te Pūtahi Pāoho announcing the appointment of Willie Jackson as the new chair and the appointment of two co-deputy chairs.

All of that goes to show that if the actual administration of Te Pūtahi Pāoho is not displaying the correct composition or membership of the board, it does not give us much confidence. It does not give us much confidence that the Minister knows what he is doing, the ministry knows what it is doing, and Te Pūtahi Pāoho knows what it is doing in terms of who the members are, who the organisations are, who the members are who represent those organisations on Te Pūtahi Pāoho, and, indeed, how valid the decisions are that it is making as a decision-making body.

It is an important body because it is going to be managing significant management rights of the spectrum, and it is a Treaty partner to the Crown in terms of Māori broadcasting. I think it is incumbent on us to ask the Minister to provide us with the Orders in Council to give us proof as to which organisations are definitively in Te Pūtahi Pāoho, and who the members of those organisations are in Te Pūtahi Pāoho. Until we get that comfort, I guess it could be not validly constituted, because we have to make sure that the legal mechanisms have been put in place to make sure that Te Pūtahi Pāoho is a valid organisation.

Kua puta māku e whakahoki kōrero ki a rātou kua kōrero mai ki a mātou, ki ahau i tēnei rā. Tuatahi kei te mihi au ki te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori. Kua oti pai ā rātou mahi, ā, tēnā koutou. I rongo au i ngā kōrero, ā, mo ngā mahi kua oti i a koutou i ā koutou hui. Kua whāia e au tēnā me taku tari, tēnā ake koutou.

[It is for me to respond to those who addressed us and me today. First, I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. You have completed your work effectively, so thank you collectively. I heard the comments in respect of what you as a collective completed at your hearings. I and my office have addressed that. Thank you, indeed.]

I was just acknowledging the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that it is doing. To everybody in the House who has raised issues, they are all good questions about process and representation and so on, and I am very happy to respond to those.

Te Pūtahi Pāoho is a group that has been given the management rights of the spectrum. It is essentially an electoral college, which involves those pioneers working in Te Reo Māori to contribute to a whole moving forward of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori. It keeps the kaitiakitanga separate from the operations of a commercial enterprise. This is a common thing for Māori. The electoral college for fisheries represents the tribes in that case. They appoint people on to the board, and that is how it goes. Similarly, this electoral college involves members from the following organisations: Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori, Te Tau Ihu o Ngā Wānanga, Ngā Aho Whakaari, Te Rūnanganui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa, Te Rūnanga o Te Ataarangi, kōhanga reo, Māori Women’s Welfare League, Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i Te Reo Māori, and Te Kaunihera Māori o Aotearoa. Those are the organisations that have somebody in that electoral college. The two that stepped down as a result of inquiries—from both within the Māori Affairs Committee and outside—were the National Māori Congress delegate and also Kawea Te Rongo. In addition to that, Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i Te Reo Māori got itself reregistered as an incorporated society—it was incorporated, but it let it lapse, and now it has reregistered itself—to be in accord with the new Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill that has come out now. That is why Te Pūtahi Pāoho exists, and that is how the members on that group are selected.

Te Pūtahi Pāoho cannot provide the use of the spectrum to any third party without the consent of the Ministers involved—there are two of us, the Minister for Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance—and without the consent of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori. So Te Pūtahi Pāoho has to actually get the Māori Television Service to agree with anything it does with this. It provides to Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori certainty of tenure for its operation. In fact, Te Pūtahi Pāoho has the same rules and parameters of management of the spectrum as for all other spectrum provided by the Government.

On the other question that was asked about the quality of Te Reo, I need to tell you that there is one particular clause in this bill that is directed at the growth of Māori programmes for native speakers—ngā mea tino matatau ki Te Reo Māori, ngā mea i tipu ake i roto i Te Reo. It is for those speakers, so we can have that lot progressing and enjoying and contributing, as well as those who are just arriving at Te Reo Māori i tēnei wā. That is definitely an aim in this new bill.

On the question of ōna tikanga—ngā tikanga Māori—and I have got to remind you that these are iwi leaders and native speakers and people working in the Reo who are half of the people on the board of Māori Television, Whakaata Māori. It was felt that ōna tikanga shows that Te Reo is, in fact, part of a culture and a way of life as opposed to existing side by side with some customs. That is basically how we have always referred to Te Reo me ōna tikanga [the language and its customs], to show that it is an essential leadership role but it is also part of the whole culture. So some of the comments that were made earlier actually can be explained by what I have just said now about the place of Te Reo Māori and ōna tikanga kei roto i Te Ao Māori [its customs in Māoridom]. So it is all a whole.

As to the question of the selection of the chief executive officer—when people brought areas that they were worried about to my notice, I immediately contacted the chairperson and the deputy chair and they went to see whether due diligence and proper process was being applied to the selection. They gave me their assurance, so I am waiting for a report when they have made their examination of the whole process and every event in it. Because I am the Minister I have to stay at arm’s length from that process, but as soon as the report is made, I can do something about it and have a look at it, and I intend to do so.

Those are some of the answers to some of the questions that you asked. But I ask you, please, to understand that Whakaata Māori is part of the Māori world and in the Māori world we sort of own everything. We are sort of kaitiaki katoa mātou o ngā taonga Māori katoa [we are all guardians of all of Māori culture]. So it is hard for people to be excluded from anything, and that is perhaps why we have these electoral colleges operating—to allow more viewpoints to come in on the running of the thing. That is all I have to say at this time, just to answer some of those points that you have raised.

I move, That the question be now put.

Clare Curran.

Such a quiet voice, Mr Chair. First of all, I would like to say thank you very much to the Minister of Māori Affairs for getting up and taking a call and clarifying his position on some of these issues that have been raised this evening in the debate on this bill, the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I take in good faith what the Minister has said on all of the issues that he has spoken about, and I appreciate and acknowledge what he had to say. I think that given the number of issues that have been raised, the importance of some of these issues, and the context in which they have been raised, that is something that this Committee and this side of the Chamber must acknowledge.

Obviously, we on the Labour bench still have concerns, and I will go straight to the appointment process for the chief executive and the request for a report, which I think is a sensible thing to do. But the problem remains that the report that will be received will be after the fact and going back in time, going back in history, to the early part of Māori Television’s history when there were appointments made and regrets made around those appointments as they did not turn out the way they could and should have. Those lessons should not be repeated, and in any process that is undertaken, I would hope—and I know that the Minister is certainly listening tonight—that it would not be a situation that what we would end up with had to be fixed up afterwards, rather than be dealt with beforehand. I think that has been at the essence of the concern from the Labour side right from the very beginning.

As my colleague Kris Faafoi said in his second reading speech, the Opposition’s role in asking the questions and raising the issues is a vital role in our democracy. Most times it is an essential role, and it can be raising issues that can be dealt with before they become bigger issues. I certainly think that the Minister is listening to that, and we are certainly very interested in the information that is supplied during the report.

With regard to the comments the Minister has made around the electoral college and its role at the governance level, I certainly think that all of my colleagues who have spoken in the debate tonight have acknowledged the importance of that role and also the history of that role. The problems are—I hesitate to say “operational”—around the composition, the fact that that governance body ended up being questioned in terms of its ability to govern, and what the status was of all of the individual bodies that made it up. It was so serious—and the Minister would certainly know this—that it was mentioned and a great deal of attention was given to it during the discussion on the bill in the Māori Affairs Committee, and it was also in the committee’s report back to the House. That seemed to me to be quite an unusual situation. A live issue that had not been dealt with was drawn to Parliament’s attention as something that still had yet to be dealt with in order for this bill to turn into legislation that was workable.

I also would like to mention—and this is something that has not been mentioned in the debate today—that one of the core amendments to this legislation was to try to find a way through if there was going to be debate around the management of the spectrum. This was certainly supported by the Labour members, and I say thank you to the officials for inserting it. It amends clause 10 of the bill to insert a new section 24DA into the Act, allowing the appointment of a mediator if the responsible Ministers and Te Pūtahi Pāoho could not resolve any disagreement about the administration of spectrum management rights that would require their joint determination. What that means is that there is an acknowledgment that there could be disagreements and that there could be the need for some resolution of them. How that mediation would work I think is still up in the air. I think it is of concern that it would even have to be anticipated, but I certainly think that it was a sensible amendment to the bill, because it provides a way forward if there is the need.

What it presupposed was that the management of the spectrum—and this is the essence of Labour’s argument tonight—is a concern, and there is still a question mark around what its future use will be. Given that we are moving into the digital environment, given that there will be more spectrum available, and given that not all of that spectrum is allocated to Māori Television, the big question remains as to what its future use is going to be and what the Government’s position on that is. What is the Crown’s position?

This is Parliament. This is where we get to discuss these things. If the Minister is not able to take another call, or is not of a mind to take another call, in the Committee stage, I certainly hope that in his third reading speech he will go to that point and tell the House where the Government’s thinking is and where the Crown’s thinking is on that matter. In terms of the Māori Television Service’s future and the next 10 years of its existence, I think this Committee needs to be assured that in the Government’s mind it is a future that is about expansion and the golden age, as has been referred to by another member in this Chamber. I think this Committee needs to be assured that there will be a golden age for Māori Television and that that is very much at the forefront of the Government’s mind.

Can I also join my colleague Clare Curran in thanking the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Māori Affairs, for taking some time to answer some of the questions that we have asked through the Committee stage. I think he has done a very honourable job of that and gone a long way to answering some of the questions, particularly around the management of the spectrum, and he touched briefly on the appointment process for the chief executive.

If he is able to, could he enlighten us more around the spectrum management and the fact that the management of the part of the spectrum that was held by the Māori Television Service is now being handed over to Te Pūtahi Pāoho. He did mention to us that if there was going to be any change in the way that the spectrum was used, it would have to go through him and also the Minister of Finance. I think I heard him say that the service, which I am led to believe is the Māori Television Service, would also have to approve that. That does not necessarily mean that there will not be revenue gathered or that the spectrum that is within that packet of spectrum will not be used for another purpose, and, in fact, it gave us a process as to how that can be used. So my question to the Minister in the chair is, what will be some of the parameters as to how the spectrum can be utilised? If it is leased out, where does the revenue from that lease agreement go to? Will it stay within the realms of Te Pūtahi Pāoho? Will it be passed back to the Government as pure revenue? Will it be used elsewhere with Te Reo, to promote the use of Te Reo?

I think there might be an argument that because that spectrum was given to the Māori Television Service originally, any extra revenue that might come from the future utilisation of it might be reinvested back into the Māori Television Service. Obviously, this argument is very prudent and timely at the moment because of the budget freeze that the Māori Television Service is under. With advancing technology moving forward and becoming more costly, those costs will increase over time for the Māori Television Service so that it is able to meet the demands and needs of the changing technology. I guess if we can get from the Minister in the chair some more specifics about how the revenue that might come about from the utilisation of that spectrum will be used and how it might be used—will it be poured back into the Māori Television Service, or will it go to some other avenue that could perhaps promote Te Reo or the Māori culture? Or, as I mentioned earlier, could it go straight back to the Crown as money to go back into the consolidated fund? That is just one particular aspect in terms of the questions that the Minster answered. If he can give us some more clarification, that would be useful.

Just to conclude—also the process around the investigation into the appointment process of the chief executive. I wonder whether—and I am not sure what the terms of reference might be—the investigation might be able to look further than just at those involved in the process and those who might have wanted to include themselves in the process. I mention that because I understand that someone from Television New Zealand may have approached either a board member or someone at the Māori Television Service during the appointment process with what I understand to be concerns about one particular candidate. I think that that needs to be addressed. If we have someone at the State broadcaster with concerns about someone who is applying for a job—the chief executive role at the Māori Television Service—and those concerns are not being able to be passed through, that is a major concern when we look at the interests of public broadcasting in a wider sense. If there is concern at the major broadcaster about the suitability of someone for a position, then you have got to wonder why that is not being passed on to those making the decision about the chief executive role at the Māori Television Service now—that is a very, very important decision for what someone called a treasure to Te Reo and to Māori culture, established by the previous Labour Government. Also we need to make sure that there is independence and a solid decision being made about an entity that receives $36 million in taxpayer funding each year.

I am going to stop there and, potentially, maybe get some answers from the Minister in the chair.

Kia ora. The mediator idea is not really necessary because Te Pūtahi Pāoho does not have anything to do with the actual management of the Whakaata Māori spectrum. That is totally Whakaata Māori’s province. Te Pūtahi Pāoho is a group that represents Te Ao Māori, who are kaitiaki of that taonga. They are there because they represent groups who are fighting for the survival of tō tātau Reo.

If we go back to 1960 the reo was in a very poor state, and it began with Ngā Tamatoa and Kaiwhakapūmau i Te Reo and we grew. In 1980 you would have been hard put to find any MPs in this House who could name more than four tribes, because the Government did not trade with Māori at all. So we have come a long way, and there will be mistakes made along the way. Just to answer your question, a mediator for Te Pūtahi Pāoho would be unnecessary, really, because that does not involve its role.

As for the future use of the spectrum, I think one of the most important things there is Whakapiki i Te Reo, so that we can make sure there is growth in Aotearoa, and so that we can provide programmes on Māori Television that complement the work done outside by Panekiretanga, kura kaupapa, wānanga, and those others, right down to kōhanga. If you go into Māori homes that are involved in one of these Te Reo Māori programmes, you will find all the family and the little children are watching Māori programmes, in the main, until the teenager wants to switch to TV2. So that is the most important thing.

The second thing is the quality of Te Reo Māori to actually provide programmes that lift the bar in terms of Te Reo Māori and expose different tribal authorities or experts in Te Reo Māori, speaking and debating on the marae but also discussing topics like Halley’s Comet and how often it comes, combustion engines, or whatever is topical. That requires a degree of excellence in Te Reo Māori to be able to carry that.

The other thing is to have relevant programmes for Māori to grow as a people in this country but also to embrace New Zealand as a single culture. It is a fact that they did remove from the first draft the idea that it is there for all parts of—I have forgotten the actual wording. But they have taken away the clause to cover the needs of all New Zealanders because it has a particular function. You cannot do everything, so it is focusing on Te Reo Māori and, through that, out to the rest of New Zealand.

So more Reo content, more quality Reo content, are our desires for that. Also, there is the international involvement. Whakaata Māori has led the world of indigenous people, to create a network of indigenous television, and it is really exciting that we are able to share programmes of other indigenous peoples’ journeys and note the parallels, and so on. So that is some of the stuff that I can give off the cuff about the plans for Whakaata Māori.

There is no change in the spectrum use of Whakaata Māori allocation. So it is, in fact, still the same allocation to pursue those goals. It is not going to change halfway through, as some thought might happen. That is not going to happen because of, if you like, the direction that they have written down to take.

I think it is important to note the support that Whakaata Māori provides to other Māori initiatives that consummate, if you like, the fact that there is a Māori culture in this country—like during the Rugby World Cup. Māori Television was getting some of the games to broadcast but, even more important, it was showcasing Māori rugby in the waka Māori down at the waterfront, and there are other activities that it does in the public arena like, as you have mentioned, Anzac Day, tangihanga of leaders, and things like that. People get an insight into that. The reaction is very, very positive, and it should be because it is real and it is New Zealand. It is for all New Zealand. So that is all I have to say at this stage.

Parts 1 and 2 and clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 391 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading