Wednesday, 9 April 2003

Wednesday, 9 April 2003

Wednesday, 9 April 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Reporting Dates

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the Resource Management (Costs) Amendment Bill to be extended to 30 October 2003 and for the time by which the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee must finally report the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill to be extended to 29 August 2003.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Membership

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for Nandor Tanczos to be a member of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Corrections Bill, but without the right to vote on any question before the committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Iraq—Apology to United States

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When she stated to the House yesterday that her apology, conveyed to the United States Government, for her comments about the war in Iraq “was because offence had been taken”; did she mean that she did not believe her comments were wrong; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I meant what I said. My comments and their context were matters of opinion. They were interpreted as implying personal criticism, when that was obviously never intended. My preparedness to apologise for the offence clearly taken shows the value I put on the New Zealand – US relationship.

Hon Bill English: Given the aggravation that the comments have caused, will the Prime Minister publicly retract her comment that “I don’t think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq’’; if she will not retract that comment, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have stressed today, these were matters of opinion. They have been misinterpreted and offence was taken. I regret that offence, and I have conveyed an apology for that.

Hon Bill English: You are the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not the Prime Minister. I once wished sometimes that I was, but I certainly do not now and I am not the Prime Minister today.

David Benson-Pope: Did the Prime Minister’s apology relate in any way to New Zealand’s principled decision not to participate in the war?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, it did not. The New Zealand Government absolutely stands by that decision—a decision, moreover, that is backed by most New Zealanders, as even the Leader of the Opposition has observed among his many flip-flops on the Iraq issue.

Peter Brown: Does the Prime Minister not understand that her remarks about President Bush, Al Gore, and the war in Iraq were in themselves offensive, albeit opinion; and that she should apologise both for their content and for making them—not because somebody took offence?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No.

Hon Richard Prebble: Why will the Prime Minister not be frank with this Parliament about how serious a matter her remarks were last week; and why does she not tell the House what we have been told by a senior official within the administration: that her remarks actually went all the way up to President Bush, who personally took offence, and—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I tell Mr Chris Carter that that is the only warning I will give today. The next member who interjects while a question is being asked will leave the Chamber. Please start the question again.

Hon Richard Prebble: Why will the Prime Minister not be frank with this Parliament and the country about how serious the offence was that she caused last week; and why does she not tell the House that her remarks were communicated to President Bush last week—as we have had confirmed by a senior member of the administration—and that today Dr Condoleezza Rice, the US National Security Advisor, will be conveying the New Zealand Prime Minister’s apology to the President as soon as he returns from his summit with Tony Blair? How can she describe that matter as being minor?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The fact that offence was taken was obviously a serious matter. I value the relationship, and that is why I have acted to put the matter right.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister agree that most New Zealanders support her speaking out strongly against the war; and that they take offence at the Bush administration’s attempts to muzzle her, which is in contradiction to the democratic principles the US administration claims it is trying to impose on Iraq and other countries?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have no doubt that the Government’s position on matters related to this war enjoys very substantial support from New Zealanders. It has never been my intention to cast personal aspersions on the President, and I want to separate any aspersion that might have been inferred from the overall comments that the Government has made about the war.

Hon Peter Dunne: Now that the Prime Minister has tendered through the usual diplomatic channels an apology for the comments she made, can she advise the House whether she has been similarly advised, through those same diplomatic channels, of the reaction to that apology; if so, what was that reaction?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am advised by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the ambassador that they are in the process of working their way around people who expressed concern, and I think they would expect the message to be accepted in the spirit in which it was conveyed.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister believe she has apologised for the comments she made, or simply for the fact that someone took offence from those comments?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am concerned at anything that looks as if it might damage a longstanding relationship of value to me and to New Zealand. Therefore, when I hear that offence has been taken, I apologise for that offence being taken. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: We will have quite a few people making the number of members in this Parliament very much fewer in a minute or so.

Hon Richard Prebble: Why does the Prime Minister not answer Mr English’s question, which asked whether she is saying the only problem is that someone has taken offence, and she is refusing to publicly state what we all know—that a statement about the internal politics of another nation is highly offensive, and would be equivalent to President Bush saying that relations with New Zealand would be much easier if Bill English were Prime Minister—and why, if she says that good relationships with the United States are valuable, is she not prepared to get up and admit that she, and she alone, is responsible for this incident?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said previously, the comments in their context are matters of opinion. They were interpreted as implying personal criticism, which they were never meant to imply. I have apologised for any such inference that might have been drawn, while reserving absolutely the right of New Zealand to take a principled position on a war.

Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister can take personal responsibility and publicly apologise for the Chinese poll tax, discrimination against gays, and the influenza epidemic in Samoa, why can she not take personal responsibility for statements she has made just in the last week or so, and apologise for them?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have taken exactly such responsibility, unlike a former National Prime Minister who called former President Carter a “peanut farmer from Georgia”, and never apologised.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of the Speakers’ rulings as they apply to the matter of misleading by omission. It relates to question No. 2 today, and also to question No 4 yesterday when there was considerable discussion by the House of the question from Bill English asking for a “full text of her apology to the Bush administration”. The Prime Minister refused to answer that question or even to acknowledge there was a text, yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in the media this morning, has confirmed there was a letter in writing. That is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Ken Shirley: —misleading by omission.

Mr SPEAKER: “Misleading by omission” is a matter of privilege, and there is another way of dealing with that.

Question No 2 to Minister

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Initially this question was set down for the Prime Minister and worded accordingly, but it was referred to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade by the Clerk’s Office. I seek leave, or whatever I have to do, to have it addressed to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave. He is perfectly entitled to do that. He seeks leave to have the question addressed to the Prime Minister. Is there any objection? There is.

Iraq—Apology to United States

2. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Can he categorically tell the House whether a letter was written and delivered to an official of the United States National Security Council apologising for the comments the Prime Minister made about the war in Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Yes.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer, will the Minister table the letter in Parliament so we can digest the actual comments?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It has never been the tradition in this country for diplomatic letters to be tabled, and it will not be on this occasion.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider that answer, because the Prime Minister has just told us that the only other incident in New Zealand’s history was with regard to President Carter and there was no apology then. So how can there be a tradition of not tabling them, if this is the first time we have ever given an apology?

Mr SPEAKER: No, interesting though that point is, that is a matter for the general debate.

David Cunliffe: Was the US embassy in New Zealand likewise advised of the Prime Minister’s response?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, the ambassador in Wellington also received a letter.

Dr Wayne Mapp: What possible national-interest reason, or indeed any other reason, is there to prevent the release of the text of apology; what is the Government covering up?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Government is covering up nothing. The next question, which is to be delivered by the leader of the party the member belongs to, asks for a full account of that letter, and I intend to give it to the House in answer to that question.

Keith Locke: Did the letter express concern about the growing number of Iraqi civilians being killed in the illegal and immoral war, and did it request an apology from the US administration?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The letter requested neither of those things, but I think everybody in this House would be concerned about the very high level of civilian casualties, in any war.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that many New Zealanders took offence at the Prime Minister’s comments, and will the Minister table a letter of apology to New Zealanders?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have received no letter from any New Zealander expressing offence.

Question Time

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before we get on to the Leader of the Opposition’s question No. 3, I want to raise with you a matter that you might want to give the House a considered opinion on. It is this: yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister was asked several questions about whether a written apology had been given, and, if so, whether the text could be delivered to this House. We have since heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade tell the House today there is a written apology and, indeed, he has now told us he intends to give the full text to this House. The question I ask you to rule on and to give a considered opinion on—because I do not think it is possible for you to do so today—is this: as a consequence of the Prime Minister yesterday not giving as clear an answer as she could have done by merely saying “Yes”, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade has done, we spent nearly an hour of parliamentary time on trying to get the answer that has now been given in one quick word. I ask whether there is some way in which, if that situation arises again in the future, you can give guidance to the House as to how an answer that should have been given can be given, rather than having parliamentary time wasted.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has properly raised a point of order. I always listen to the member’s comments. He has asked for my thoughts, and I will give them.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was set down to the Prime Minister and subsequently redirected. I seek the leave of the House to ask the question of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.

Iraq—Apology to United States

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What is the full text of the letter expressing the Prime Minister’s distress for the offence caused by her comments on the United States presidency and the war in Iraq, written by Ambassador John Wood and delivered to a senior official in the United States National Security Council?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): The letter expressed the sentiments that the Prime Minister has already outlined to the House yesterday—that she was distressed that her comments had caused the US Government to take offence and that no offence was intended. Given that offence was taken, she said she regretted that and wished to apologise for it. She emphasised the value—which she has done again today—that she places on New Zealand’s relationship with the United States and her sorrow that this episode had arisen. She asked those views to be conveyed to the President. Those comments represent in full the content of the letter sent by Ambassador Wood on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have the same difficulty again, and it is this. Mr English was very clear in his question in asking for the full text. It was very clear from listening to the Minister’s answer that it was entirely paraphrased. The Minister indicated to this House that he would provide the full text in answer to this question. His answer was not the full text; it was a paraphrase of the letter. That is unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the Minister when he answered a previous question. He did not say he was going to give the full text. He said he was going to give the contents of the letter. That he—

Rodney Hide: He hasn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: He certainly did.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise you may feel bound by successive Speakers who have, in effect, made Standing Order 362 almost a nullity, but it is quite clear that this case is covered by it. The Minister is telling the House that we have now heard what is in the apology he is quoting from. I am sure the word “apology”, for example, is a direct quote from that letter, unless he can assure us that the word “apology” is not in it. Therefore, he has quoted from the apology and I do require, under Standing Order 362, that the Minister table it.

Mr SPEAKER: It is perfectly proper for the member to do that. He can ask for the Minister to table it if the Minister wishes to do so, but it is at the Minister’s discretion.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have had this point, Mr Brownlee. I have ruled on it and I cannot see any reason for having another point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: With respect, Mr Speaker, you cannot rule against the Standing Orders, and the Standing Orders in this matter are very, very clear. You have said to Mr Prebble that he is right in saying the Standing Order states the Minister must lay the document on the Table.

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have not finished with Mr Prebble. Mr Prebble asked a proper question. I am now asking the Minister whether he wishes to—[Interruption] I am sorry, I want to ask the Minister whether he was quoting from the letter.

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, I was quoting from the answer I have drafted after having read the letter.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That goes right to the heart of Standing Order 362. The question now becomes whether the Standing Orders of this House are able to be freely abused by Ministers. Mr Prebble is right in saying that Mr Goff could not conceivably have answered in a paraphrase of the apology without referring to the document and quoting aspects of it. He said it was the text in full, in fact. I am sure that when he used the word “apologise” and the words “the Prime Minister regrets”, those were quotes from a document. It is quite unacceptable for the Minister to now say that the Government is not prepared to lay it on the Table and that it will simply ride all over the top of that Standing Order, which makes it clear he must now table that document. What is so secret in it?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the member quoted wrongly from the question from National’s leader about the text. Let me repeat to the member what I said: those comments represent in full the content of the letter.

Hon Richard Prebble: Mr Goff would have us believe that provided he has not put quotation marks round his own hand notes, it is not a quote. That is not what the Standing Order states. The Standing Order states that if a member has quoted from a document, he or she must table it. Unless the Minister is prepared to assure this House that nowhere in the letter does it actually apologise and that nowhere in the letter does the Prime Minister actually admit regret, he did quote from the letter and he must table it.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I refer the member to Speaker’s Ruling 110/3 made by Speaker Kidd: “The notes that Ministers use to answer questions are not official documents that Ministers are obliged to table.” We have had that assurance from the Minister.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We need to keep in mind here the intentions of the Standing Order, rather than the semantic cleverness of participants in the House. The fact is that we cannot know that for sure, because we cannot sight directly the notes the Minister is using. He has not actually said that he only has notes and no letter, and I am suggesting that when a Minister goes as far as saying that something is the full content of a letter, we have a public document and he should be required to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has just said that he is prepared to table the notes.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In no way did I ask the Minister to table the notes of his answer. I know what Speaker Kidd said. In fact, he said that notes used by a Minister in answering a question are not an official document. We have here a new stretch of that rule. Mr Goff is saying that he can sit in his office, copy out a letter, and then come down here to the House and say he is not actually reading from a letter but from his copy of it. That is a complete and utter nonsense. What is interesting is that it shows that the document was here yesterday, but that is beside the point. It does show a contempt for Parliament. The Minister has quoted from the document. He cannot get around that by saying he wrote a paraphrase down on a piece of paper.

Mr SPEAKER: No, Speaker’s ruling 111/4 is very clear. This goes back to Speaker Harrison and Speaker Kidd: “The Minister is required to table only the actual physical official document which is quoted in the House. If this is a copy and not the original, then the Minister is required to table a copy and not the original.”. However, that leads to the ruling that so far everything that the Minister has done has been within the Standing Orders.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Which one of the members?

Gerry Brownlee: I am on my feet.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you are both on your feet, and I warn Mr Brownlee that this matter is going on too long.

Gerry Brownlee: I have said this many times before. Every day that we go to the Clerk’s Office, we are required to take some evidence to show that there is some substance to the questions we want to ask. I am quite convinced—and you, Mr Speaker, might like to set me right on this; I am sure that you will in a few minutes—that Standing Order 362 is designed to allow a Minister to authenticate an answer when giving it in relation to a particular document. We have just had a Minister tell us that he has just read the full content of a document. I accept that that may mean, according to Speaker Harrison and Speaker Kidd, that only the copies could be tabled. However, it means to me, Mr Speaker, that if you were to uphold the idea that this question time does mean something, that it is not to become frivolous, and that it is not a place for the Government to evade its responsibilities—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member be brief.

Gerry Brownlee: —then, clearly, the upholding of Standing Order 362 and requiring the Minister to now table the letter, as it states he must, is only reasonable.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance on this matter. The rules are not the same for questions and replies. Statements of fact in questions must be authenticated. There is no such rule for answers, and I made that ruling twice yesterday.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a new question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I now ask the member to leave the Chamber.

Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Please carry on.

John Carter: I have a new question to ask of you with regard to your ruling, concerning the matter of consistency. You consistently tell the House that in replying to a question, provided a Minister refers to a part of the question—

Mr SPEAKER: Addresses the question.

John Carter: —addresses the question, and, for instance, question No. 2 uses the word “United States”—

Mr SPEAKER: Come on; hurry it along.

John Carter: That would mean that the Minister has addressed the question. My point is that if it means, in response to a question, that provided a word or two is used out of the question then the Minister has responded to it, surely the same must apply if the Minister has used a word or two from a document. In this case, for instance, the Minister has told us that he has used the word “apology” from the Prime Minister’s letter. Therefore, he has used the document, and should be obliged to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a good try, but it is not a matter for a point of order.

Hon Bill English: Given the similarity between the Minister’s answer today, quoting the full content of the letter, and the statements made by the Prime Minister yesterday—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just ruled on this. The Minister told you he was not quoting from the letter—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I will expel somebody in a minute.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. But the member asking the question now says the Minister quoted the full contents of the letter. The Minister has not “quoted” the full contents. Giving the full contents of the letter was to summarise it, not to actually read it out word for word.

Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. Would the member now correct his question?

Hon Bill English: OK. Given the similarity between his answer today, paraphrasing the content of the copied text of the original letter, and very similar words used by the Prime Minister yesterday in answer to questions, should the House assume the Prime Minister had seen that written text yesterday, when she answered questions in this House as if she had seen no such text?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member would be absolutely wrong to assume that.

Hon Bill English: Why should we believe you?

Mr SPEAKER: The member is not only bringing me into the debate but is also interjecting in a way that is out of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Bill English: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I remind the House that yesterday the Prime Minister told us that she had instructed the ambassador in Washington to convey her concerns and apologies to the administration. The ambassador faithfully did that. He conveyed it in writing. Neither the Prime Minister nor I had, at the time the House met yesterday, seen that letter. I have now seen that letter, and I can confirm that the ambassador faithfully carried out the instructions given to him by the Prime Minister.

David Benson-Pope: Has the Prime Minister seen a copy of Ambassador Wood’s letter?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, I showed it to her last night. That was the first occasion on which she saw that letter.

Peter Brown: What good reason has the Minister for quoting from the full content of the letter, yet not tabling the letter?

Hon PHIL GOFF: As I indicated in my answer to that member’s question, it has not ever been the tradition of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade to table diplomatic letters.

Rodney Hide: In the light of the fact that the offensive comments made by the Prime Minister were made very public, how serious can the American administration and the American people—and, indeed, the New Zealand people—believe this apology from the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be, when the apology itself is not public?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have to say that the apology, both in this country and probably in the United States, is far more public than the original comment.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach that we should grovel to George Bush on this matter and support—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I would like the member to rephrase the question and perhaps to use more felicitous comments.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have already expelled one member on the Government side of the House for interjecting; you have ruled already that people should not interject in question time. The Leader of the Opposition and at least three other members of the Opposition interjected right at the beginning of that question. I suggest to you that if you want order to be maintained on the Government side of the House, some of those rulings will have to be equally applied.

Mr SPEAKER: I like to think I do that. I always say that I think the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are people whom I do not want to have to ask to leave the Chamber. I do not want to have to do that. But that, then, does imply a certain restriction on their behaviour, and I would ask them to observe that. As far as any other member is concerned, I have only to hear one more comment and that member will go.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take that to mean that the Leader of the Opposition can interject whenever he likes. Given both the rulings made yesterday and today, I understand that as long as the Opposition members all barrack and yell together, they can do that during points of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member cannot take that to mean that at all.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those remarks of the Leader of the House are deeply discourteous to the Chair. Dr Cullen should be asked to withdraw and apologise for them, because he is saying to the House that you are not even-handed.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I am even-handed, and there would be very few people in this House who would think otherwise.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach, which is that we should totally concede to George Bush on this matter and support a war of conquest, regardless of the death and devastation it causes—

Dr Wayne Mapp: It is not an occupation.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Mapp will now leave the Chamber.

Dr Wayne Mapp withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot see how that question could be answered by the Minister without the Minister taking ministerial responsibility for the Opposition, which is not something the Opposition has asked him to do. It is quite clear that that is not an accurate description of the National Party’s policy, so how can he answer that question? If facts are contained in questions they are supposed to be accurate, but the member cannot authenticate the facts he has raised.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me put it this way: I will listen to the full question. I agree with the member that if there is no ministerial responsibility, then there will be no reply. I have not heard the full question, and I ask the member to please start again.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The debating chamber will be empty if that member continues to make assertions about our party and our party’s position. The debating chamber will be empty because you will have to empty it. We will not sit quietly by and allow the member on his feet to have the silence of the House while he casts all sorts of insults over other members here on the National benches.

Mr SPEAKER: Of course the member has the right to raise a point of order if he wants to take objection to a question. That is not denied to him at all, but interjecting during a question is. There is a way to deal with that, and it is by taking a point of order. I caution the member on his feet that he must ask a question of the Government that relates to ministerial responsibility.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a point of order was raised about whether that question was within the Standing Orders, you invited the questioner to repeat the question. That hardly invites order in the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I had not heard the full import of the question, and I want to hear the question now.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach to totally concede to George Bush on this matter—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No. That is too wide. The member will now ask a specific question that can be authenticated, and this is his last chance to do so.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No. So far the member has not said anything that is out of order. He will be out of order only if he misquotes the Leader of the Opposition.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach that we should fully and completely apologise to George Bush on this matter, and does he support the approach of Bill English, which is that we should support this war of occupation despite the devastation and destruction that it is causing?

Mr SPEAKER: That question is perfectly in order. I do not think it goes against what the Leader of the Opposition said in any way.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I warn Mr Brownlee that I am getting tired of this.

Gerry Brownlee: I am getting tired of listening to that man insult every member in this House and get away with it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member did not insult every member of the House. I listened very carefully to that question, and I thought he quoted the Leader of the Opposition in a perfectly proper way. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree with that. If the Leader of the Opposition were to take a point of order on that, I would certainly intervene.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have never described it as a war of occupation; the member is misquoting me.

Mr SPEAKER: Those words will be ruled out. The first part of the question can be briefly commented on.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Like most members, I have been observing this exchange for the last 2 days. I have noted that although tempers are becoming frayed, you seem to have a particular aversion to points of order from Mr Brownlee. I would suggest that in the interests of fair play all round, all members have a right to raise points of order and to have them heard, as you keep saying—and that is regardless of the merits of the points of order raised. In terms of lowering the temperature, I think it would be appropriate if that could be adhered to all round.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has made a useful point. I am not perfect, and I will adjust my actions accordingly.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that Ministers are meant to be questioned on matters for which they have responsibility, I think it would be reasonable for you to perhaps explain to the House whether the Minister has responsibility for whatever view the Leader of the Opposition might have.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member asked for the Minister’s opinion on a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. He is entitled to give that opinion.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I think that the Prime Minister’s decision to apologise because offence was taken was the appropriate one, and, perhaps surprisingly to the House, I do agree with what Bill English has said about this war—for example, his belief that the poll showed that National should not have taken a strong stand supporting the war in Iraq. I am quoting from the Press.

Mr SPEAKER: I ruled that part of the question out, and that comment should not have been made. The first part was all right.

Stephen Franks: Which course of action does the Minister consider would have better healed the injury to New Zealand’s relationship with the United States: regret at being caught causing offence by patently offensive comments about a matter of internal politics, or a simple withdrawal and apology; if it is the latter, why has that not been done?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I think it is quite clear that the Prime Minister has done just that.

Hon Bill English: In the light of the Minister’s comments that the letter he has seen and shown to the Prime Minister is the one written by John Wood in Washington, how does he explain the letter that arrived at the US Embassy in New Zealand; did that come from John Wood in Washington or was that written in the Beehive and sighted by the Prime Minister before it was sent?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I mentioned before, in answer to another supplementary question, that a similar letter was sent to the United States Ambassador in Wellington. That letter was, in fact, sent by Simon Murdoch, and it had not been sighted by the Prime Minister, to the best of my knowledge. I seek leave to table an article from the Christchurch Press of 5 April headed “English reticent on war support”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.

Tertiary Education—Electronic Teaching

4. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): How is he proposing to assist tertiary education organisations to realise the teaching potential of information and communication technologies?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): The Government has announced that it will be making available $37.8 million in targeted funds over the next 4 years to increase e-learning capability throughout the tertiary sector. A $28 million E-learning Collaborative Development Fund will be used to fund capital projects to support a wide take-up of technology-based learning tools. The Tertiary Education Commission will be calling for applications from tertiary institutions, private training establishments, and industry training organisations, within the next few months. A further $9.8 million will be used to enable the sector to develop e-learning capability and to create a tertiary e-learning portal.

Helen Duncan: Can the Minister tell the House what difference those initiatives will make to tertiary education learning?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: E-learning will not only allow institutions and other providers to provide innovative learning tools, it will also promote learners’ familiarity with those new technologies. It is also vital to realise that a genuine system of life-long learning can be promoted by learning in the workplace, in the home, in the community, and on the marae, which can be done only through e-learning. For instance, we have had a broad range of new learning opportunities with experiments over the last little while with CD-ROM packages for the plumbers’ industry training organisation on learning safe working practices. We have also been doing some very interesting work with the seafood industry using e-learning.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Will access to those funds, both capital and operational, be made available to all tertiary institutions; if not, what institutions will be excluded?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The funds will be available to all institutions that are currently accessing public funding. I would point out—because people may not be aware of that kind of institution—that industry training organisations, for example—

Hon Brian Donnelly: And PTEs?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —and private training establishments will also be able to access those funds.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): This question was put down to be asked of the Prime Minister, and I seek leave to ask it of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.

Iraq—New Zealand Assistance

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Has New Zealand given a clear undertaking to the United States to assist in post-war reconstruction in Iraq as reported in the media; if so, what support has been pledged by the Government?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Yes. I made clear some time ago New Zealand’s humanitarian commitment to assist Iraq’s recovery and reconstruction following the war. I personally advised the Australian High Commissioner, the British High Commissioner, and the American Ambassador of our commitment to assist, and of the initial form of that assistance. At the same time I outlined to the House New Zealand’s intention to provide both immediate and post-conflict assistance to Iraq.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen reports by the Prime Minister that she may commit New Zealand’s mine-sweeping capacity, and has he also seen reports that that was part of the deal with the US to try to make up for the gaffe over the remarks about the Al Gore presidency?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have seen the Prime Minister’s comments with regard to the potential assistance that New Zealand can give in clearing mines. As I recall, those comments were made quite some time ago, and had absolutely nothing to with the current controversy.

Martin Gallagher: What, if any, steps has the Government taken to offer assistance—again, can the Minister give us details about the mine-clearance operation, and the precise form that that particular assistance would take?

Hon PHIL GOFF: New Zealand has been in contact with the United Nations Mine Action Service, which has a high regard for New Zealand’s professional capacities in that area, and which has stressed to us the enormous need that exists for mine-clearance, given the risks to human safety from the extensive minefields in Iraq. It is likely that New Zealand would be able to establish and manage a demining programme, providing technical advisers and trainers if requested by the United Nations Mine Action Service.

Peter Brown: When can we expect New Zealand to get actively involved; will it be soon or will we wait for the last bullet in the war to be fired?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is better than soon—we are already actively involved. New Zealand has already spent $3.3 million providing assistance through a range of UN agencies and humanitarian organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Hon Ken Shirley: When the National Security Council called for an apology from the Prime Minister of New Zealand, did it also seek assurances of New Zealand’s assistance to the post-conflict reconstruction programme, and was that offer of assistance included in the formal letter of apology; yes or no?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Let me first correct the member. The National Security Council in the United States has never called for an apology from the Prime Minister. The answer to the second part of the question is that it did not. The letter was as I outlined to the House—neither more nor less than that.

Hon Peter Dunne: What indication has the Minister had from the United States, and any other Government, that New Zealand’s offers of assistance will be accepted?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I know that the two high commissioners and the ambassador whom I have spoken to all very much welcomed the commitment that New Zealand has already made. The countries they represent are very keen that New Zealand makes further commitments in the post-conflict era, as winning the peace might be somewhat harder than winning the war, unless the countries of the world come together and provide that assistance to the people of Iraq, who have suffered over a long period of time.

Hon Bill English: Which of Helen Clark’s three policies on the US involvement in the Iraqi war does the Minister support: keeping quiet while opposing the war; putting the boot in as soon as there is some bad news about the war; or, now, crawling to meet every demand of the US, in order to cover up the damage to our national interests?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member is wrong on every front. The Prime Minister and this Government have taken a remarkably clear, consistent, and principled stand—that is, first, that we wanted any action that might be taken to have a multilateral UN mandate; secondly, that force is an ultimate sanction that should be used only after every other option is exhausted; and, thirdly, that as a humanitarian nation we have a commitment to do what we can to assist the people who have suffered, both before the war and as a consequence of the war.

Schools—Staffing

6. MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received on the status of school staffing at the beginning of this year?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The Ministry of Education’s staffing survey shows that nearly 43 percent of secondary schools and 11 percent of primary schools began the year with vacancies. The increase is consistent with predicted roll growth, and in the secondary sector is partly due to the increased number of teaching positions in schools this year as a result of changes announced in the Budget last year. The situation is exacerbated by the need for around 750 teachers to teach more than 10,000 foreign fee-paying students currently in secondary schools. The survey shows, however, that the schools managed the vacancies mainly by employing trained relief staff.

Mark Peck: What steps has the Government taken to address secondary teacher supply?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We have taken a comprehensive range of initiatives, some of which were already in place, and some of which are to be announced. We are targeting subjects where shortages of teachers have been identified for training allowances worth up to $10,000 each. They are for maths, physics, chemistry, te reo Māori, and information technology. We have conversion courses to enable primary teachers with degree qualifications to get full pay while they train to teach in secondary schools, and so far 50 New Zealand – trained secondary teachers have received $5,000 to come back from overseas.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister claim that the Government is managing the issue when there are schools like Rangitahi College that now, at the end of term 1, have no head of department science, no head of department mathematics, no head of department Māori, no head of department physical education, and no head of department technology, and despite the Minister knowing about the situation at that school over a month ago, why has he done absolutely nothing to fix it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: One of the problems that occurs when this House makes a decision to put 373 extra secondary teachers into schools is that they tend to get sucked into the more popular schools, and some of the outlying, low-decile, and rural schools have their shortages exacerbated.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Would the Minister tell the headmaster of a popular single-sex Auckland school who told the select committee this morning that for a recent position at his school, 60 people applied, 57 of whom had Third World - nation qualifications, that everything is hunky-dory in the area of teacher supply?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Certainly not.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Rangitahi College pointing out that there are six departments in which they have no—

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Genetically Engineered Sweetcorn—Accidental Release

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, regarding the allegation her Government had covered up an accidental release of genetically engineered sweetcorn: “I’m very happy for a select committee to have every file and interrogate every official, because I believe a policy of total disclosure is warranted.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, subject, of course, to the normal Official Information Act exclusions covering, for example, commercially sensitive material.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was it consistent with her policy of total “disclosure” for her senior member of the select committee and the deputy chairperson of the committee, Mr David Cunliffe, who played a pivotal role in narrowing the terms of reference, who moved motions limiting the role of the committee’s technical adviser, and who stopped further testing of the corn, not to have disclosed to the committee that his wife, Karen Price, acted as senior counsel for Pacific Seeds, a related company to Zagenta, which, she says, on her own website “in the GM maize contamination case”—

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the wife of another member, but I want to ask the member one question. When this information was presented to the select committee was the committee in public hearing?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.

Mr SPEAKER: Until the committee reports back it is out of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is: was it consistent with the Prime Minister’s policy of total disclosure for her senior member of the select committee not to have disclosed such an interest?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member referred then to a motion moved at the select committee, and he cannot do that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I will rephrase the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member may rephrase the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was it consistent with the Prime Minister’s policy of total disclosure for Mr David Cunliffe not to have disclosed a very clear conflict of interest with his wife, Karen Price?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My advice is that indeed there was not a clear conflict but that Mr Cunliffe himself felt that, because his wife had acted for another firm in another case, which involved a genetic modification issue, in order to avoid any perception of a potential conflict of interest he should remove himself from that committee, not only for this inquiry but also permanently. In doing that, he has acted, I think, well beyond what was required.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for the then deputy chair of the select committee, David Cunliffe, to be the Government’s representative in negotiating the terms of reference for the select committee inquiry without disclosing to the company that his wife, Karen Price, boasts on her website that she is the solicitor representing the companies involved in the inquiry, including a company that holds and owns 80 percent of Nautilus, the company subject to the inquiry?

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty we have here is that the Prime Minister is not responsible for Mr Cunliffe’s actions. He is a member of Parliament, not a Minister.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are absolutely right; Mr Cunliffe is not a Minister. However, my understanding is that this is a case where the ministry as a whole has asked a Labour member of Parliament to negotiate the terms of reference. The Prime Minister was quite prepared to answer a question about the terms of reference. Now that we know about the conflict of interest, I think it is in the public interest that this question be answered.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made the point, and he is absolutely accurate. The question should have been asked in the way he suggested, not in the way it was asked. I would like to give Mr Shirley the opportunity to rephrase his question.

Hon Ken Shirley: In the light of the fact that Mr Cunliffe was this ministry’s negotiator for the terms of inquiry of that select committee, does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate that the non-disclosure of potential conflict of interest was made to the committee prior to determining those terms of reference, and is that the reason Mr Cunliffe was hurriedly removed from that committee a few weeks ago?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course a Government member of a select committee does not represent the ministry, as has been alleged. When Mr Cunliffe realised that some people might see a conflict of interest, he undertook to withdraw from the committee, and I believe he acted properly—even though it is not clear that there is an actual conflict of interest.

Larry Baldock: Has the Prime Minister received any advice about whether there is any scientific merit at all in carrying out further testing of the sweetcorn in question; and what are the implications of that for what she meant by a policy of total disclosure?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I have not received any advice on that, and I have some concern that matters being raised in the course of this question are really matters of privilege before a committee inquiry at the moment.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting the Prime Minister’s very specific commitment, pre-election, that the select committee would have a policy of total disclosure, I ask why the committee was told that Mr Cunliffe resigned because of workload reasons, whereas Dr Cullen told the Independent that the resignation was because of concerns about conflict of interest; and how does that show that the member acted with any integrity?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question can be answered, but not the second part.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat my concern that things are being stated in this House that are being quoted purportedly out of the privileged proceedings of a select committee, and I can offer no comment on what went on within a select committee. That is a matter for a report to the House at the appropriate time.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In the light of the Prime Minister’s commitment to total disclosure, and given the requirement in the select committee’s terms of reference that the committee inquire into compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and relevant regulations, will she encourage her colleague the Minister for the Environment to provide the committee with the legal advice given to the ministry in connection with the Novartis corn incident?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Again, I am being asked to rule on something that a select committee is discussing. I have said from the outset that the Government has nothing to hide. I expect full cooperation. I say further, for the record, that in the course of preparing for the question today, it came to my attention that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet had withheld a couple of paragraphs. I have ordered that those paragraphs be released to the committee, in the interests of full disclosure.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the website curriculum vitae of Karen Price, in which it says that she acted for a variety of corporate clients with biotechnology interests—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard a number of threatening comments made by members of the Government as Nick Smith sat down. Government members know, as Opposition members know, that it is not appropriate for MPs to make threats to other MPs because of the content of questions or answers.

Hon Mark Burton: I am the only person I am aware of who made comments. I made an interjection, but I can assure the member it was not a threat. I simply made a statement of fact. Certainly, the interjection was out of order, and I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister also made threats across the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I made an observation.

Mr SPEAKER: The member said he made a statement. That must be accepted.

Hon Bill English: The Leader of the House has now compounded his error. He made a threat to MPs. He has now decided to compound that by saying it was an observation, not a threat. I believe he should be prevented from making threats. That is the rule of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, of course it is. I want to say to all members that when we are talking about family relationships and that type of thing, I have always thought that, in all cases—and I can say this as a person who is not married—there is a line beyond which I hope no member goes. In that case, people end up with something happening that should not happen. I say, as a general comment to the House, that I do not like those sorts of comments being brought into this Chamber.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you meant those comments in the best light, but they can only be construed as defending the position the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance took in making their threats across the House. The fact is that a member has made public statements that he resigned because of a conflict of interest. Every MP has a right to raise such a matter in the House. It was a public statement made by the MP about the role his spouse may have played. I do not believe that it is within your power to make comments that back the threats that were made by senior Government members.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not do that. I said that no one should be making any comments at all, and I meant that to apply to everybody.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely plain to this House that in terms of raising this issue I reflected very carefully on the point you have made. But I say that Karen Price’s involvement is not in question. What is in question is the conduct of a member of this House in not declaring a conflict of interest.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me say that that is really a personal explanation, but the member has made his point.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am dissatisfied with the position you have left us in with regard to your remarks about spouses. The remarks could not possibly have been other than directed at the member who asked the question that you ruled in order. They were comments made following threats across the House made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I ask you to reconsider those statements. Anyone listening to what you have said could easily draw the conclusion that you regarded the matter of the question as inappropriate. As Speaker, you have the capacity to rule this question out of order if you do not believe it should be asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not rule the question out of order, because I did not think that the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s question was out of order. He is perfectly entitled to ask it. I never said otherwise, at all.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not been involved in this matter. I did not hear any of the observations, but I make this comment to you. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition that he believes that at least one member of Parliament—and maybe others—has been threatened. We were told by Dr Cullen that, no, his remark was just an observation. I think we need to find out whether there really was a threat. An observation could be: “What goes around comes around.” I would say that that is actually a threat in this context. I do not know what Dr Cullen did say, but we are now in a situation where we have senior members of the House saying that there have been threats—which are clearly out of order—and another person saying that what he said was just an observation. I think we have reached the point where we have to ask Dr Cullen what he said, and then have you rule on whether it was a threat. If it could be interpreted as a threat—and it has been by MPs—he should be required to withdraw and apologise for it.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, I have declined to repeat the observation, though I invite the Leader of the Opposition to state what he thought I said.

Mr SPEAKER: No, member should not have made any comment at all by way of interjection, whether or not it was a threat or an observation. That is where the matter rests. The member—

Opposition member: What did the member say?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment myself, but I sort of guessed, and I know that once one starts along this path—and I have been in this House long enough to know—problems can be created. I say again that it in no way reflected on the Hon Nick Smith.

Tranz Rail—Rail Network

8. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Noting that Tranz Rail’s share price has dived, which could lead to it being bought and sold piecemeal, is he contemplating ensuring the rail network survives as one entity; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The Government’s interest is in rail contributing to its overall land transport strategy. Unified ownership of the present assets is not essential to that objective.

Peter Brown: Does that answer mean the Minister would be quite happy if part of the rail was sold off here and part sold off there, and that it ended up in multiple ownership?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes.

John Key: What instructions has the Minister issued to Treasury regarding the many secret meetings it has held in recent months with Tranz Rail’s management, and can he confirm the reasons that all proposals to spend the $30 million allocated to Transfund in the alternatives to roading scheme have indeed been stonewalled by him to ensure Cabinet had the resources to buy back the tracks, once Treasury reports back to him in a month?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the latter part, no. On the former part, in fact very few meetings were held with Tranz Rail in recent months.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware there are planned meetings between senior Ministers and union officials in the near future to discuss some of the concerns about Tranz Rail being sold piecemeal; if so, what reassurances will the Ministers give to those union officials?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I am not aware, as a relatively senior Minister, that these meetings are to be held. But I point out to the member that there is absolutely no reason, for example, that one company should not own the freight operation and another company own the urban passenger operation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Given the widespread support for a strong national rail network, why has the Government not sought to purchase Tranz Rail from institutional shareholders, and, if necessary, obtaining an exemption from the Takeovers Code, as it legally can, in order to avoid driving up the share price?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said in a speech at the weekend, it can be no part of the Government’s objective to prop up the asset values of any private company, particularly one that is the beneficiary of a self-privatisation deal.

Iraq—Apology to the United States

9. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) to the Prime Minister: Was her formal prime ministerial apology conveyed to the United States last week unprecedented for New Zealand; if not, what knowledge does she have of any previous prime ministerial apologies to the United States?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): As diplomatic exchanges are usually kept confidential, I do not know what other apologies or expressions of regret may have been conveyed, although given one of the personalities involved, I think it is unlikely one was.

Hon Ken Shirley: In the light of her response, how does she explain her statement to the House earlier today, when she said that Prime Minister Muldoon refused to apologise for his “peanut farmer” comment?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would be extraordinarily surprised if he did.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister stand by her comment that her statements were detached and perfectly reasonable comments in their context; if so, does she agree with the description of her, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as a “foreign affairs commentator”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said earlier, my comments in their context were matters of opinion, which have been misinterpreted.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether she stood by her statement that her comments were detached and perfectly reasonable comments in their context. It is a direct question, which she has an obligation to answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No, she addressed the question.

Hon Ken Shirley: Has she denied that the New Zealand Ambassador in Washington was called in by the State Department; if so, does she accept that such a denial is misleading, because in fact our ambassador was called in by the US administration; he was called in by the National Security Council, which is based in the White House and chaired by the President?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My statement that he was not called in by the State Department is absolutely correct.

Residential Care—Security

10. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) to the Minister for Senior Citizens: What is the Government doing to improve the security of older people in residential care?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens): Last week I had pleasure in announcing that the Government will progressively remove asset testing of older people in long-term residential care. It will mean that single people, for example, will be able to keep up to $150,000 in assets before their assets are used to contribute to the cost of their care. That is 10 times the current threshold.

Darren Hughes: What funding is the Government committing to remove the asset testing from people in residential care?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The Government will be spending over $100 million in year 1. That is over $100 million more than National was prepared to spend, because in 1998 Bill English reneged on an election promise to remove asset testing, and then in the lead-up to the 2002 election he said he had no plans to change that action.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is bringing the Opposition into the answer, and there is no necessity for her to do so. She can answer the question, and she should stick to the facts.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me say that I have been here for 37 years, and if politics were not brought into answers I do not know whether we would ever have a question time. In this case, I thought that the Minister’s comments were bringing the other party into the answer but there is a chance for further supplementary questions.

Sandra Goudie: Why is the Minister continuing to claim that the Government is removing asset testing when in fact nothing is to happen until the year 2005, and even then the asset threshold is to be raised merely by a fraction year by year?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The statements I have made in relation to the Government’s decision accurately reflect our action.

Barbara Stewart: What is the Government doing to improve the security of older people who are now unable to go into residential care because of the Government’s failure to remove asset testing, as it promised to do in the last two elections.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Unlike that member’s party that refused to implement even its coalition agreement promise, we have said that by 1 July 2005 we will begin the removal of asset testing.

Painted Apple Moth—Eradication

11. IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Can he confirm the statement by the director of the painted apple moth eradication project in Auckland that “MAF’s project team expects to wind up large-scale activities by the end of April”; if so, when does he expect that the moth will finally be eradicated?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Biosecurity): I can confirm that we are reviewing the programme at the moment, and this review will be presented to Cabinet in May. I am hopeful that the moth will be finally eradicated but I cannot predict a date.

Ian Ewen-Street: Now that spray programmes have been conducted and planned for the eradication of the white spotted tussock moth in east Auckland, the painted apple moth in west Auckland, the gum leaf skeletoniser moth in south Auckland, the Asian gypsy moth in Hamilton, and the guava moth in Whangarei, can the Minister give some indication of how many cities the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry intends to blanket spray with poison before he institutes a 100 percent container decontamination regime?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I do not intend to poison any New Zealand cities, and have done nothing so far to poison even the first one. I have already given a commitment that sea container biosecurity will be tackled this year. The member will be well aware that proposals for additional measures in this respect have been circulated to stakeholders for comment, but I advise him that this will not be a silver-bullet solution. We cannot stop all trade, nor can we put a big dome over the country; some incursions will always occur.

Clayton Cosgrove: Is the Minister satisfied that the painted apple moth eradication project is working; if so, why?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Yes, I am satisfied. It is a complicated project, but I am confident that eradication is on track. The area being sprayed is reducing as the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has received data that show areas where no moths are present. I hope that during the remaining scope of this programme the moth will be successfully eradicated.

Shane Ardern: With the fiscal costs of eradication in Auckland now exceeding $90 million and the amount being spent on surveillance still being only around $20 million, when will the Minister take seriously the number of incursions we are now getting and start putting some real horsepower into the inspection regime?

Hon JIM SUTTON: That question is a bit rich coming from a member of a party that when in Government passed legislation for instant fines for biosecurity breaches but did not have the nerve to introduce them, and that knew about significant holes in our biosecurity system—including the one that the painted apple moth got through during that Government’s term of office—and did nothing about them.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it now acceptable in an answer to a question for a Minister to give a 2-minute tirade solely on what occurred prior to 1999?

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not, and the Minister did not speak for 2 minutes; it was for about 30 seconds.

Larry Baldock: Has the Minister been surprised at the results of the New Zealand Educational Institute survey conducted through west Auckland schools, and is he giving instructions that the results of that survey will be included in the wrap-up survey and in the Ministry of Health’s inspection into the whole programme?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am waiting for the independent survey by the Ministry of Health, and I will leave it to the ministry as to whether the New Zealand Educational Institute submission is part of its consideration.

Ian Ewen-Street: Does the Minister believe that the health concerns of west Aucklanders are just a temporary inconvenience for the good of the country, as he has been reported as saying; if so, when will he agree to meet personally, and listen to the pleas of, the residents whose physical and psychological health has been strained to breaking point?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Of course my colleagues and I take the concerns of west Aucklanders entirely seriously. Nevertheless, I do believe it is a temporary inconvenience that people are enduring for the good of the country.

Ian Ewen-Street: Given that the present reduction in painted apple moth numbers still represents a huge increase in the total number of moths from 4 years ago, how is the Minister intending to make the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry accountable for its incompetent bungling of this eradication programme so that it does not happen again?

Hon JIM SUTTON: If the member could have the advantages of hindsight before things went wrong, I am sure he would be a Minister himself.

Larry Baldock: In the light of the cost of the painted apple moth spray programme and the cost of potential future campaigns, will the Minister consider spending the amount needed to inspect every container, or at least every high-risk container, that reaches our shores?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The member will be aware that a draft import health standard for sea containers from all countries has been released for consultation, with comments due from stakeholders by 28 April. If I were to read out a summary of the proposal it would probably take too long, so I will take your guidance on that, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps the member could table the document.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Business—Competition

12. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Commerce: Does she agree with Tim Hazledine’s statement in the Independent on 2 April 2003 that the “deep seated presumption” driving our competition policy is that “competition is good and monopoly is bad,” and that “the burden of proof must lie with those who would find market failure in competition and seek to remedy this through monopoly or cartelisation”?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): No. I refer the member to the purpose of the Commerce Act, which is to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand. This means that under the Act practices that would have the effect of substantially lessening competition cannot be undertaken unless authorised, on the basis that the resulting benefit to the public outweighs the lessening of competition. In such a case, the applicant for the authorisation has the burden of proof.

Gordon Copeland: Can the Minister explain why the Commerce Commission allowed Air New Zealand and Qantas consultants, the Network Economics Consulting Group, to delete key data from the public version of its submission to the Commerce Commission, making independent analysis by Tim Hazledine and others of the airlines’ proposal “unnecessarily difficult and imprecise”?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, I cannot explain why the Commerce Commission made a particular decision in a particular case, although I am advised that under the Commerce Act the commission is permitted to provide for the withholding of certain information on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. The withholding of information, I am also advised, can be challenged by other parties through a process of judicial review.

H V Ross Robertson: What role does the Minister have under the Commerce Act in respect of authorisations and clearances for restrictive trade practices?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have none, other than the power to transmit a Government statement of economic policy to the commission, which I have not done in this case.

John Key: Can the Minister assure the House that she will not propose enabling legislation to allow the Air New Zealand – Qantas deal to go ahead when it finally gets canned by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the New Zealand Commerce Commission tomorrow?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I think the member is attempting to speculate on a matter that we will know a good deal more about tomorrow.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister concerned that the Travel Agents Association of New Zealand opposed the proposed Qantas – Air New Zealand operation because it removes all effective competition, and replaces it with a joint airline operation that will have market dominance and mean consumers will have none of the benefits of choice or the honesty and effectiveness that choice brings to any market?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have already made it clear in one of my supplementary answers that I have no role under the Commerce Act in respect of this matter, other than the power to transmit a Government statement—something I have not done in this case, and will not be doing.

Questions to Members

Genetically Engineered Sweetcorn—Accidental Release

1. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Has a meeting of the Local Government and Environment Committee been set to consider its inquiry into the alleged accidental release of genetically engineered sweetcorn plants in 2000 and the subsequent action taken?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The committee has a scheduled meeting tomorrow morning, at which this issue will be considered. We will be meeting with the adviser.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has any conflict of interest been declared by any member of the committee in respect of this inquiry?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: In respect of this inquiry, no.

Immigration—English Language Tests

2. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Has a committee meeting been set to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and others, requesting a review of the new English language immigration tests; if not, why not?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): The committee currently has some 46 petitions before it. It will be meeting in the very near future to consider its course of action in respect of all of them.

Hon Richard Prebble: Can the chairman assure the House that the committee, when looking at this petition, will, firstly, take notice of the fact that it is an urgent issue, and, secondly, take into account that, I understand, more than 25 percent of the total Chinese population of New Zealand has signed the petition, which would be the equivalent of a general petition turning up here of 750,000 names; or does it not care about Chinese opinion?

Hon PETER DUNNE: In considering each and all of the 46 petitions before us, all relevant facts will be taken into account.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why does the committee not consider the petition on an urgent basis, since there is another petition, by Jackie Orr and others, in front of the committee, relating to the new English language immigration test?

Hon PETER DUNNE: There are a number of petitions before the committee, all of which would plead urgency with regard to their particular case. As I indicated in my original answer, in the very near future we will be meeting to consider each of those.

General Debates

General Debates

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Poor old Bill English! He is the classic English patient. Last week he was feeling a bit crook. Today he is on life support, and the medical reports coming out from the hospital are not all that good. The fact of the matter is that Bill English ain’t got it, never had it, and now is dog tucker. Mark our words; he is dog tucker. We have only to go to the Tremain cartoon in the Otago Daily Times to see a drawing of a teacher in front of a class, saying: “Right class, what’s it to be today, English or History?”. From the back of the room, out of sight, comes: “English is history.” The teacher says: “Who said that?” “Donald Brash, sir.” said one of the children, and from the back of the room, out of sight, comes: “I never did.”

When one becomes the subject of cartoons, it is time to go. We have only to ask some people who know Bill English, like Max Bradford, a former member of the National Party, who says: “Mr English always seems a bit of a fence sitter. He suffers from a fear of taking any position that could alienate anybody.” If we need an example of that, how about the article in the Sunday Star Times in which Mr English told the press yesterday that although the poll was not good news, it vindicated his belief that National should not have taken a strong stance supporting the allied war in Iraq. Mr English told the press that while the poll was not good news—

Mr SPEAKER: An interjection has been made that brought me into the debate. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise for that interjection.

David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member who is talking while I am on my feet that he will be leaving the House if he does that. He should know not to. The debate will carry on. I also warn the member who is speaking that members have to be called by their Christian names and surnames, or Mr, or Mrs, or whatever.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Mr English was asked whether he personally agreed with the stance taken by National, and he said he supported his caucus decision. He said: “That’s how it works. You work through it, and you get your position. You don’t change it. There’s no distinction between my personal view and the one I’m now espousing.” If anyone can understand what that means, then he or she is a better person than most in this House. Then, on Saturday night, in his article in the Clutha Leader—that great clarion call of truth from the South Island—he said: “The other night I was watching TV with some of my children, when we heard a loud, bad word.” I wonder what that loud, bad word might be. Maybe it was “Brash” or “Brownlee”. What about “coup”, or was that loud, bad word “caucus”? What about “backstab”, “numbers”, “signatures”, “roll”, “disloyal”, “loser”, or “fence sitter”? “Why bother, Bill” might have been another. There are heaps of loud, bad words that that member would have heard just recently. We know that he is dog tucker.

Now we come to the new National Party. I think it is fair to say that the leadership torch in the National Party is being handed on to the older generation. If Don Brash is the answer, Lord knows what the question is. The National Business Review states: “Don Brash has the ability to make Sir Geoffrey Palmer look like a tub-thumping populist and matinee idol.” I would agree with that. Then we go to the line-up. Of course, Bill English is gone in history. When one looks at the new line-up—all 13 of them—the first thing we notice is that there is no Tony Ryall, no Roger Sowry, and no Nick Smith. After the next reshuffle, those three will be out in the lobby. That is how far away from the front bench they will be. The rest of the line-up is Don Brash, Gerry Brownlee, and No. 3 is Wayne Mapp. We on this side shudder, knowing that the old bumbler himself is No. 3. A sense of duty brings Bill English in at No. 8 as the Minister of Health. Bill English is gone, and the whole lot of them are dog tucker.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): If it were question time, I would be asking that member if he wanted some Valium. Question time in this House yesterday afternoon was an absolute farce. The Prime Minister was asked about her comments on President Bush, Al Gore, and the Iraq war, and she evaded the issue like nothing else. Today was a little better—we got a little bit of information, but it was like drawing teeth to get that information. Some will say that it was a good performance—a brilliant performance—by the Prime Minister. Others will say that it was a disgrace.

As members are well aware, I was recently in London, and I witnessed the British Prime Minister’s half-hour question time. For members’ information, in that half-hour the Prime Minister faced some really tough questions. The House was full with over 400 members—although there are 659 members, the House only accommodates 400. Only once did the Speaker have to intervene on a point of order. The questions were tough and penetrating, both from the Opposition and from the Labour Party. Members might like to know that over the war in Iraq 122 Labour Party members voted against their Prime Minister on one occasion, and on a latter occasion, 139 voted against him. But Prime Minister Blair’s performance was absolutely straight up. He addressed the issue straight up, and we could do with a little bit more of that in this House. That is what we are here for—to ask the hard questions and get them answered. The member over there who is interjecting should get a video of Tony Blair. He stands for one half-hour per week and answers the toughest questions that anybody can put to him, but here we get evasion and fob-offs. He answers those questions thoroughly. I do not necessarily believe that Tony Blair has more ability than our Prime Minister, but the attitude is far removed. Mr Blair takes the world on, whether one agrees or disagrees with him. He takes the questions and gives the answers.

Before I left here, my impression was that had there been what is known as the second United Nations resolution, we would have been in war; we would have been over there. Labour members might contradict that, but at that point in time our Prime Minister was saying that we needed to get the second resolution, and gave the impression that New Zealanders would make a commitment to the war in Iraq if that had been obtained. Had Tony Blair obtained that second resolution—which, as we all know, the French vetoed, and announced that they would veto from day one—I would have been a firm supporter of New Zealand standing toe-to-toe with the British and the Americans in the war in Iraq.

But I come back to the way we operate in this House. I believe that we should take an overview of how we do things here. It simply is not good enough. This country will go through a period of economic downturn if we are not careful, and some tough questions will need answering, and they will need to be answered forthrightly and honestly.

Jill Pettis: When will that member be the leader?

PETER BROWN: I cannot hear what the member over there is saying.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a bit early in the day for Winston.

PETER BROWN: I do not know whether those comments are called for, but I will answer the member’s question. Mr Peters is much in demand in this country, and he has gone somewhere where they appreciate frank and straight answers. By and large, that is something that that Government over there does not even know how to approach. The answering of questions in this House is a good deal less than competent. It is about time that Ministers took stock of their own attempts at answering questions, and maybe, as I said earlier, get a video of Tony Blair and look at it 100 times a day.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): What a great week to be a Government! During the late 1980s, I was the junior, and then the senior, Government whip, as we worked our way through leaders. It was an appalling situation to be in. We could see the polls going down. We would try one leader, and they would go down again. We would have a crack at a third leader within a bit over a year. We knew that whatever we did, we would lose. [Interruption] We knew. The Speaker did actually know at the time.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not to be brought into the debate.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Without bringing the Speaker into the debate, the then member for somewhere out west Auckland certainly knew at the time that whatever change was made, we were going to lose. We can just see it on the face of the Opposition. We can see the brat pack with their mouths down-turned. They know now that they moved too quickly on Jenny Shipley. They are all saying: “Why did we do it? We knew that we would lose anyway. Why didn’t we let Mr English come in afterwards?”

Hon Steve Maharey: No patience!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That brat pack had no patience at all. Who has been the big loser this week? It was not Bill English, not Don Brash, but Mr Brownlee. It became clear during this week that he does not know where the second vote is coming from—very much like a local authority person quite close to me who ran for Cabinet at one stage. The only person in the National Party to support Mr Brownlee is Mr Brownlee. They were quietly putting their hands up around the place for Mr Brash or Mr English, but who sank without a trace? Mr Brownlee sinking without a trace is a bit of a contradiction, but I think members know what I mean. It was quite clear that he could not make any progress at all.

What a pathetic character Bill English is. A group of students from a rural area was outside, which gave him a wonderful opportunity to stride out and face up to the media. What did he do? He scuttled away and hid. He had a wonderful opportunity to take the lead for the National Party in the debate today. What has he done? He has scuttled away and hid.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot refer to the presence or absence of any member.

Jill Pettis: He failed to maximise the opportunities.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He certainly did fail to maximise the opportunity, although I think he has maximised his opportunity and failed. What has become clear is that he is blaming two sets of people—one being Maurice Williamson. He did not apologise to Maurice Williamson. We did not expect it; Maurice Williamson did not expect it, but everyone around here knew that not only was Maurice Williamson running him down, a whole pile of others were running him down as well.

Fancy blaming the Auckland business community! Those are the people who put money into the pockets of the National Party, who have funded its campaigns for years and years. Even if Bill English knew it was them who were calling for a change, would it not have been the brightest thing just to shut up and be quiet, rather than run the long-term mates of the party down? Don Brash has looked a bit silly, because he has signalled that he wants to take over in a month or two. It was not the brightest thing to do, and it will not help him with the leadership.

Mr Brownlee can get only one vote, and the Leader of the Opposition is clearly permanently disabled. We knew from the time of that first vote on David Lange that eventually he would go, but a lot of us worked hard at deferring it. Bill English will go. He will not be leader for the next election. All I can see is that one person is doing really well out of this. He is sitting in the front bench of the National Party now—Mr Power. He is the only one who has not made a fool of himself; he knows when to shut up. My prediction is that in a few weeks’ time he will be sitting up here.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): We know that a Government is in severe trouble and on its way out the door when its members come down to the House on a Wednesday with a second-rate B team like that to try to smack the Opposition around. A proud Government that is supposed to have a proud record spends all its time talking about the Opposition. We know then that its time is up, and it is on its way out. First, the junior Minister, Paul Swain, stood up, after having a whole morning—he does nothing else—to prepare a speech. He treated the House to the biggest load of irrelevance we have ever heard. Then we heard Trevor Mallard try to give us a lesson in how to instil unity in a caucus.

The Labour Party has a big problem, and it can basically be summed up by saying that this country is being led by a Prime Minister who is slippery, devious, and—to say the least—frequently reckless with the truth. This is a Prime Minister who behaves in an imperious manner, sets herself as being aloof from normal people, and wants to portray an image of being quite infallible. She is a Prime Minister who only apologises when she is caught. What a long list of incidents we now have where the Prime Minister has been caught! Let us go back to the “paintergate” scandal last year.

Simon Power: That went well.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, that went well. The Prime Minister claimed that she had painted a painting that she had never been anywhere near. The Prime Minister then took what is commonly known as the “Homer Simpson” defence: “It wasn’t me, I wasn’t there, and it didn’t happen.” Did that work? No, sooner or later, she was found out. Then what did we get? Every MP was blamed for that sort of behaviour, until that was proved wrong—right down to: “Perhaps one might have done it in the past”, and then finally: “Well, I have done it five times before and got away with it.” For someone who holds such a lead, the Prime Minister is racking up a considerable amount of embarrassment for this country. There was the issue over the Alliance poll background. I do not want to go into that, because I do not have a lot of time. I will go straight on to Ms Clark misleading the House over the Historic Places Trust. Other speakers might want to elaborate on that issue in a few minutes; I do not. There is the Clark apology for defaming the surgeon with my name, Mr Joe Brownlee—a great fellow. She took him to bits, refusing for a long time to acknowledge that what she had said was defamatory, and was finally caught having to say that she was sorry.

Then there is the genetic engineering inquiry into “corngate”—and what an amazing revelation the House received today. The Prime Minister who said, “I will set new standards of accountability and appropriate behaviour from Government members”, came into the House and said that her member, Mr Cunliffe, had behaved with a great deal of integrity by finally resigning from the select committee—where there might be a conflict of interest—6 months after the inquiry had begun. That is 6 months after he had been very active in preventing the public of this country from knowing the truth about that incident, and 6 months since he had begun protecting the Prime Minister’s tail and trying not to allow any focus on the original letter. Do members remember the original letter the Prime Minister wrote? It was the letter that was apparently a mistake, and for which she had to apologise—although officials got the blame.

It seems to us that this Prime Minister is prepared to genuinely apologise only when it is for other people’s mistakes. That is why she gave an apology to the Chinese community for the poll tax. There was no problem there, because it was nothing to do with her. It is also why she gave an apology to the Samoan community for the flu epidemic of the 1920s—that was nothing to do with her; she was not even born then. Then there was the apology to the gay community—and it is best if nothing is said about that.

Let us move on to the issue of the day, which is the Clark apology to the United States. It is an absolute embarrassment for a Prime Minister to start expressing opinions about what the internal politics of another nation might have looked like had there been a different result. That was a disgrace.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I think we should look at what Don Brash actually said yesterday when he emerged from the National Party caucus room. He said he wanted to make three comments. His first comment was that he went into politics with the intention of becoming the next Minister of Finance, and that was still his primary objective. This is a man who is economical with words, and who chooses his words very, very carefully. There is an extra word in that statement that I want us to focus on this afternoon, and that word is “primary”. He went into politics with a primary objective, and in that sense “primary” means the “principal” objective, and it is not his only objective by any means. It is also not to say that his secondary objective will succeed, or not succeed, over the primary objective—unless we accept the National Business Review shadow Cabinet line-up, which lists Don Brash as leader and shadow Minister of Finance. We have had that before in this country, have we not? Who was the leader of the country and the Minister of Finance at the same time? As I recall, it was Mr Muldoon, and that is the gentle little irony coming from that statement, because we know what Muldoon thought of Mr Brash, and vice versa. I think it would make for a gentle irony if the two of them were to covet the two top jobs at the one time.

The second comment Mr Brash made when he came out of the caucus is that he had not been gathering signatures, and that he was still not doing that. We heard all about the gathering of signatures on the radio this morning, and we know that gathering signatures is the last step in the process: it occurs right before one fronts up with the letter to the leader to say that his or her time is up, and that the party has the numbers for that leader to go. The point is that although everyone within the caucus has been quietly talking to the media about what is going on over there, nobody has been doing the real work, which is counting the numbers. They do not have the numbers for the roll-on to happen. When Mr Brash said he did not know a single MP who would not turn down an offer to be the leader of the caucus, we knew that all he is waiting for is for somebody to present him with the numbers and signatures on a piece of paper. I have made this point more than once now, and I will make it again: if the National Party caucus wants to install Don Brash as its leader, then it had better do it very quickly, before rigor mortis finally sets in.

The third comment Mr Brash made was really ominous—it was the biggie. He said that as the duly elected leader of the National Party, Bill English had his full support. We on this side of the House call that the kiss-of-death statement of support. We know that what it really means is that he does not have the support to remain the duly elected leader, but we will not be hearing that from Don Brash. I remember Bill English using almost precisely those same words a week before they rolled Jenny Shipley. He said: “It wasn’t me; I didn’t vote against Jenny Shipley. I didn’t topple her from that role—others did it for me. When I was called upon, I was there.” He had nothing to do with it, and that seems to be Dr Brash’s exact approach. We can see him humbly standing there, doing his “Who me?” speech, saying: “Do you really want me to be your leader?” As Gerry Brownlee knows, many are called, but few are chosen. On this occasion, we can see Don Brash very humbly saying to his caucus: “Yes, you have asked me to be your leader, and I will lead you further down the polls than you believed we could ever go.”

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): My colleague Peter Brown is promoting the Death with Dignity Bill. Members will know that, but I just want to make sure that they also know about a significant provision in that bill that means that even if the bill is passed by this House, it will not become law until it is agreed to by a majority of New Zealanders through a referendum. In a sense, that reflects New Zealand First’s belief in the power of the people. But I do not want to talk about Mr Brown’s bill today, because after the leadership fiasco of last week I have concluded that what this House should be debating or passing is a “Death with Dignity For Once-great Political Parties Bill”.

The events over the last week have demonstrated conclusively that National is in its death throes. As a party, it has a terminal illness, and it is sad to watch it going through the agonies of its certain demise. That is sad, because National is a party with a proud heritage that stretches all the way back to 1890, to the first-ever political party in this country, the Liberal Party. That party brought in world-leading legislation for political and social justice, and in the field of industrial relations. National is also directly descended from the Reform Party, which set the framework that ensured that agriculture would be the economic backbone of this country—that is also in National’s bloodline. Under its present name, National presided over the glory days of the 1950s and 1960s, when full employment was not only the norm but the expectation.

National is now like a ringbarked tōtara, withering inexorably towards its inevitable demise. The first peal of the death knell was publicly heard in the early 1990s, when National refused to listen to the warnings of its own caucus member, Winston Peters. He issued a warning that National was turning its back on its heritage and rejecting its inherent values, and that breaking the promises it had made to people at the time of the election in order to look after rich kids, and to save their backsides, was not a principle of the old National Party.

But National rejected those warnings, and it ejected the only member of its caucus who was prepared to fight for the principles and values of the old National Party. That member was a man who would not sell his soul for the trappings of power. And so it was that New Zealand First was born to fill the vacuum in the political spectrum that had been created by National. The very name of the National Party is a misnomer. It is New Zealand First that believes that policy positions should be first and foremost in the national interest. National should rename itself the “International Party”; it is not a national party because national interests are no longer its first concern.

There is only one magic elixir that National could use to save itself, and that would be to go down on bended knee to Winston Peters, say it is sorry, admit he was right and National got it wrong, and ask him to please come back and lead it to the promised land. But National will not do that, because of inflated egos and deflated capabilities. National is dying because the blood of Ruth Richardson is still flowing through its veins. We all know that what flowed through Ruth Richardson’s veins was largely made up of ice particles, and it is the ice that is still flowing through the veins and arteries of National that is killing it.

New Zealand First believes in free enterprise; free enterprise is the economic driver of the nation. However, it is free enterprise with a social conscience that we believe in. National once believed in that. But like the pigs in Animal Farm, it allowed the bit about the social conscience to be conveniently deleted. New Zealand First believes in the efficacy of the market in its right place, but does not believe that market mechanisms can be used to deliver social objectives. New Zealand First believes in a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. It looks to a replication of the previous legislation on that—the repealed Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. New Zealand First believes in education as an investment in the future of this country, not as a commodity, and it believes that the quantity and nature of that investment should be determined by the outcomes, not by the vested interests of the lobby groups, which I must admit that the present Labour Government is more concerned about. But New Zealand first is concerned with the quality of that investment.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Do members remember the song “Nobody Does it Better”?

Hon Steve Maharey: Yes.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, nobody does it better than Dame Thea Muldoon, when it comes to describing the leadership of the National Party. She said this of Bill English 7 months ago: “He hasn’t got that extra leadership ability ... Possibly he’s trying to be nice … If you are nice, you fall by the wayside.” Well, if anyone would know that Dame Thea would, because no one could never accuse Rob Muldoon of being too nice. She also said: “I think he’s got to just chin-up and hang in there and eventually someone really good will come along.” That is what Dame Thea said about Bill English: “ … eventually someone really good will come along.” She said Bill English should just keep his chin up so that he can keep getting punched on it, because eventually someone really, really good will come along.

Well, someone really, really good has come along and his name is Don Brash, the wily fox of the National Party. He has obviously been planning that ever since he decided to join the National Party. He is now the “Basil Brash” of the National Party. He said: “Boom, boom, I would be happy to be the Minister of Finance, but hang on, if there’s another job, a bigger job, and I will have that one too, but I’m not allowed to tell anybody that. I’m not allowed to say that out loud.” A former National MP described Mr Brash as: “An inoffensive if elderly man lacking either constituency or charisma.” That was said by one of National’s own, who is now a commentator in a Sunday paper. I thought that sounded really good, because this is a man who lacks constituency or charisma. He is not offensive and he is slightly elderly, but he is to become the new face of the National Party.

Last week it was very exciting to be in Parliament and to see the change swirling all around us—the meetings in the corridors, the scurrying around, the counting of the numbers, and the numbers being counted again and again and still being wrong. In fact, I saw my good friend John Carter walking up the corridor. I asked him what all the talk of a leadership spill was about, and he said it was nothing but a media beat-up. I have to ask, if it was a media beat-up, who primed up the media?

I think it was Audrey Young who said last week that after a week of frenetic activity, some very, very spooky omens were pointing to Bill English’s demise. The first omen was that he was introduced at a public meeting in Tauranga by the local undertaker. The local undertaker knew a thing or two—it was a case of cutting out the middleman, the caucus, and going straight for the burial. She said that the second omen was that there was a whispering campaign started in the caucus: would it be Don Brash or would it be Gerry Brownlee, now known as the Billy T. James of the National Party, who would become leader? National members could not even make up their minds whether their new leader would be Don Brash or whether it would be Gerry Brownlee. The third omen that Audrey Young pointed out was the slap in the face to Bill English when his own Auckland party office holders made it clear that they would prefer Maurice Williamson to Bill English as leader.

Then one has to look at who is supporting poor old Bill English: the fast-fading four. Roger Sowry, his loyal lieutenant, is considered to be the Bill Birch of the National Party these days. Whether as “Mr Fix-it”, “Mr Intolerant”, or “Mr Nasty”, Roger Sowry is the bad cop to Bill English’s good cop. But no one in caucus can stand him. Roger Sowry is known as “Napoleon” by National’s own members. As a list member of Parliament, his career is over. Roger Sowry is backed up by his close political ally, Lynda Scott. Her days are numbered because last week Dr Paul Hutchison, who is in the Brash camp, asked me 14 questions on health. I read in the paper this week that Bill English has said that his members of Parliament should not be treading on their colleague’s portfolios. So Dr Paul Hutchison has his eye on the health portfolio. When the change comes he will be there lining up for health. Then there is Tony Ryall. He knew his career was over when his own friend Bill English demoted him. Of course, that man has remained bitter and twisted ever since.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): It is a sad day for the Opposition when one sits down here in the House awaiting the big heavyweights of the Labour Party to come and give one a bit of a serve over what has been a difficult 7 days, and who did we get? We got Paul Swain, the “Junior Minister for Lunches”. He kicked off the offensive for the Labour Party. That was a sad, sad attempt. Then we had Trevor Mallard, who is half the man he used to be. Trevor Mallard is stuck in the corner of the Chamber under the eaves, where he yells away. He was done over by the G3s and the Post Primary Teachers Association. He is half the man he used to be, with nowhere near the previous firepower. And then there is Lianne Dalziel. She is nice, but sad. Lianne Dalziel came here to speak on how not to get ahead in the leadership. She will never appear on the front page of Time. She keeps her ambitions to herself.

Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First leapt to his feet to get a piece of the action—that from a member of the political party that, during the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, voted for the title and against the rest of the bill. That was from a party that liked the title to the bill, and then voted against the entire rest of the bill! I was expecting the men in the coats that buckle at the back to walk in and carry him out halfway through his speech. What a sad, sad attempt that was by Brian Donnelly. We do not want Winston Peters back here; we have no need for him. The biggest problem that New Zealand First has is trying to find the man at the present time.

Who did we get next? We got Annette King, who is clearly worried about the health portfolio.

Hon Member: She’s got a good reason.

SIMON POWER: She has very good reason. She had to pick on poor Dr Hutchison who, as a medical doctor, was quite rightly doing his job by asking searching questions.

During all of that we missed out on what was going on in the real Shakespearean comedy “The Apologies of Helen”. Helen Clark is a woman who prides herself on detail, and who knows every little thing that is going on in her Government every moment of the day. What are those phrases that we hear so often? They are: “I do not recall.”, or “Not to my recollection.” As my colleague Gerry Brownlee said, she is quite happy to apologise for things that she did not do. But we do not, in this House, hear an apology for the things that the Prime Minister did do. She is quite happy to apologise to the Samoan community for a flu epidemic and to the gay community for discrimination, but is reluctant to apologise where she alone has made a mistake.

Now, of course, it is foreign affairs officials who are to blame for the apology to the US. Helen Clark did not see it—it had nothing to do with her. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who prides herself on her attention to detail, had nothing to do with that apology and had not seen it. Let us remember that Helen Clark is the woman who followed the emails of Kit Richards—and now we are supposed to believe that she did not see an apology that was sent to the US! I just do not believe that—not for one second.

Members should look at where we have been when we have been unable to grapple and grasp with an apology. The OECD goal that never was—do members remember that? We are not going to get into the top half of the OECD by 2011, though we were going to until that did not suit the Government any more. Or let us look at “paintergate”, which my colleague Gerry Brownlee has already referred to. The Prime Minister forgot that she had signed a painting, but was not clever enough to use Jim Anderton’s line, which would have been that she had not signed it but had autographed it. She did not get that line out early enough, and thus had to deal with the responsibility of having put her “John Hancock” on that painting. We have seen today, through the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution in question time, that “corngate” has opened itself up again. We will see a lot more action on that particular point over the next few days.

I worry about the massive damage that has been done by the Prime Minister to our long-term relationship with the United States. It would seem as though we are no longer very, very, very close friends with the US. In fact, we are well and truly in the dog box. The US Embassy was forced to regard and comment on the Prime Minister’s comments as “regrettable”. In “diplo-speak” that is a very serious matter, indeed. What concerns me most is the fact that Ministers and members of that Government simply move where the moment goes, with no consideration whatsoever for the long-term implications of the statements they make on behalf of this country. That is a disgrace.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): I want the Minister for Biosecurity to do me a favour. I want him and some of his officials to go to Auckland, and when they are in Auckland I want them to conduct a clinic for those people who have been affected by the spray for the painted apple moth. Instead of making flippant remarks about them suffering a temporary inconvenience for the good of the country, I want him to sit down and listen—not speak to, but listen—to the people who have been affected.

I want the Minister for Biosecurity to listen to the schoolteachers who are deeply concerned about their students. They are concerned that some of their students may die. I want him to hear the professionalism of those teachers, and to know that they are not being hysterical. I want him to listen to pregnant women and new mothers. For them, this spray is a terrifying ordeal. I want him to hear first hand what their fears are for their children. I want him to see the faces of those people whose existence has become a nightmare of motel rooms, of worrying about their kids at school, and of worrying about sealing up their houses by plugging up the cracks in their windows, their doors, and their chimneys. They come home and wash down their cars, their vegetables, and their kids.

I want the Minister for Biosecurity to hear the consistent stories of people who have developed asthma and other allergies as a response to that spray. I particularly want him to hear the consistent stories from people all over the spray zone who have been to their doctors with their health concerns. I want to hear the Minister explain to them why it is that when people go to a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry doctor, they are told that their symptoms have nothing to do with the spray—and those people are therefore not included in the statistics. But when people go to their own doctors, the doctors say that the symptoms are to do with the spray. Yet their symptoms are still not included in the statistics, because the people concerned have not been to a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry doctor.

I want the reassurance of the Minister that that is not a cover-up. The people of west Auckland feel that they are part of a gigantic experiment with their health. The true human cost of what is happening in Auckland is being covered up by a statistical catch-22. A person is not part of the statistics if he or she goes to a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry doctor because the symptoms are not deemed to have been caused by the spray, but if a person goes to his or her own doctor and the symptoms are deemed to have been caused by the spray, that person is not included in the statistics anyway, because the doctor was not a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry doctor.

I also want to hear why the Minister continues to advocate fanatically for free trade, and to make excuses as to why we cannot close the gaping holes in our biosecurity defences that allow these alien species into the country in the first place. The main pathway at the moment for invasive pests is, of course, sea containers. By its own statistics, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry currently inspects 24 percent of sea containers coming into the country, even though it knows that 39 percent of them are actually contaminated. When one realises that there are 400,000 containers per year coming over our wharves, one understands that that 15 percent represents 60,000 contaminated containers that are opened without inspection. It is no wonder that we have a problem. I want to know why the Minister thinks it is acceptable to spend $90 million on bombarding the residents of Auckland with poison, when he has not moved to minimise the entry pathways for those pests. I want to know why the Minister thinks the needs of the importers of foreign goods are more important than the health needs of the people of Auckland.

I want to know why the Minister for Biosecurity thinks that the intellectual property rights to Foray 48B outweigh the rights of the public to know what they are being sprayed with. Most of all, I want the Minister to go to Auckland, to have a clinic, and to listen to the teachers and the pregnant women. Their faces and their stories are something that I cannot forget, and I am sure that if he plucks up the courage to front up, the Minister will not forget them, either.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I would like to speak on our welfare state, a subject that many New Zealanders are vitally interested in, for a variety of reasons. I commend the Government for its compassionate heart towards the less fortunate in New Zealand. United Future is also concerned for those people. However, I also commend Opposition parties for their stance on, and support of, those who produce the wealth in this country. United Future agrees that those people will need greater encouragement. They are producers of our wealth, and it pays never to bite the hand that feeds one. United Future will continue to press for tax cuts for the people who do the work in our country.

We need to learn to celebrate our income-producing successes, just as we do our sporting successes. As the Government earns no money through its own means, it can spend only money that other people have had to work very hard to earn. United Future acknowledges those who pay their taxes and thanks them for the hard work they have done. The Government carries a huge responsibility to spend wisely the taxes that have been collected from those who work in our land. Members should make no mistake: the Government hands out no money of its own; it gives to others only money that somebody else has laboured long and hard to earn. Once we understand that principle, it gives us a greater appreciation for the workers in our land.

With regard to our welfare state, it concerns me that some in this House have the misconception that giving money to the poor will solve all their problems. That simply is not true. The only way out of poverty is to provide opportunity and to teach people to work. Success is not something one chases; it is something one has constantly to put forth the effort for. It will then come when one least expects it. Sadly, most people do not understand that.

A great proverb states that there is much food in the fallow ground of the poor, and for lack of justice there is waste. The Suzuki method of learning music brings some understanding as to what that proverb means. Suzuki understood the principle that a child learns far more quickly by observation than by instruction. Therefore, children can learn to play a musical instrument long before they can understand, or read, a note of music. Yet in many homes around our country, children are growing up with no role model to teach them how to work. Therefore, injustice is robbing them of the skills and ability to learn how to work and, consequently, obtain the skills that, if applied, would take them out of the poverty trap.

In my own life, I have discovered that the only place reward comes before work is in the dictionary. The “haves” and the “have-nots” can normally be traced back to the “dids” and the “did-nots”. Success is neither magical nor mysterious; it is the natural consequence of applying life’s basic fundamentals. My concern with the expansion of the welfare state and the breakdown of the family is about where the role models and examples are that we so desperately need to show our young ones, by example, the way to lead a successful and fulfilling life. Positive habits are learnt in the same way as negative habits—through practice. Yet what example do many see? I am concerned about the habits we are forcing people to practice if we continue to pay people to do nothing. People may forget what we said, but they never forget how we make them feel. I want to be part of building a nation of workers, not a nation dependent on welfare, because I know people feel good after a good day’s work.

I trust that over the years that lie ahead of us we will work together, with a heart of compassion for the less fortunate yet never lose sight of the responsibility we have to train people in their younger years in the way they should go, so that when they are older they will not have forgotten but, rather, will have the ability to pass on skills to others so that New Zealand will be recognised again as the greatest place in the world to live and to raise a family. That is why United Future will always labour with others with a common vision for a great future for our nation.

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture): One hundred years ago last month, a 25-year-old farmer in Waitohi, Richard Pearse, took to the air in a flying machine built by himself in his farm shed. It had a boxer motor he had built without engineering advice, and he built it at a time when there was thought to be only one motorcar in the whole of South Canterbury. It was a monoplane that had a tricycle undercarriage and a variable pitch propeller. It was not unlike a modern microlight. He was the first in the world to take to the air.

A short time later the Wright brothers in the United States took to the air. They claimed they were the first to take to the air. They had the resources of an engineering nation behind them. They launched their machine from rails, unlike Richard Pearse, who took off under his own power. The Wright brothers said they were the first to fly because their flight was under control, whereas Richard Pearse’s first flight ended up in a gorse hedge—truly a New Zealand icon in every respect.

Members will be delighted to learn that a replica of Richard Pearse’s plane, built by the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland, has successfully taken to the air. That has attached a credibility that has been in doubt for a century. No newspaper or other reporter was present at the first flight, so it was all hearsay. However, I think that there will be very little doubt now. It has been thoroughly researched in recent times that Richard Pearse was the first human being to take to the air in a heavier-than-air flying machine, and I think that is an absolutely wonderful thing. Perhaps one reason it was not widely recognised is that, I understand, the Smithsonian Institution—the repository of much technological history—has a contract with the Wright family that gives the institution the sole right to display many of the memorabilia of the Wrights, but in return for that right it has agreed not to give any publicity or credence to people with claims to beating the Wrights into the air. However, 100 years ago Richard Pearse gave us a demonstration of rural talent that we are still proud of in this country today, and I want to put that on the record.

Now I want to talk about the National Party. National members should learn from the example of the organic farming sector. Yesterday I raised in the House the organic industry’s 20-year strategic plan. The National Party could do with one itself. The organic sector is made up of many small groups, which makes it difficult at national level to present a clear vision and strong leadership on behalf of all of its stakeholders. Does that not sound like a certain Opposition political party—no clear vision, no strong leadership? The strategy of the organic sector will enable those people to pull together, build their capacity, and achieve their potential. The organic sector is looking at doing that by 2013. But theirs is a relatively straightforward challenge—I suggest it might take a little longer for the National Party. But even if it takes National members 20 years, they are not without hope. They have a proud history.

However, I must say that I was gobsmacked to hear that the most recent coup attempt was engineered by the National Party’s agriculture spokesperson. Agricultural spokespeople are usually so loyal. It is such a plum job in the National caucus to be agriculture spokesperson that normally there is a lifetime guarantee of loyalty to the leader who appoints that person. But, no, it is reported in the Independent that David Carter MP, National’s spokesman on agriculture, kicked off the latest coup speculation during a visit to Federated Farmers 2 weeks ago, and now he is lying low. I am not surprised he is lying low. He was backed by Dr Lockwood Smith—we were talking about the Smithsonian Institution just a little while ago—who usually gets one vote in every National Party leadership ballot.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney): I have just listened to the Hon Jim Sutton’s weak attempt at humour. I thought he might have tried to justify why he has achieved nothing as this country’s trade Minister—not a thing. The one thing that has been achieved is the signing of the free-trade agreement with Singapore, but I signed the heads of agreement on that. Labour tried to do a trade agreement with Hong Kong but failed. Where is the Doha trade round at the moment? It is absolutely stalled. I ask Jim Sutton where is our trade relationship with the United States right now? What does the 2003 US trade agenda say about New Zealand and our attempt for a bilateral free-trade agreement? Why does Jim Sutton not get to his feet and tell the truth, just like the Prime Minister so often tells the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: That is an implication that a member is telling a lie. It will have to be withdrawn.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I withdraw on your insistence, Mr Speaker, but if I am not allowed to say—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will just withdraw, and that is the end of the matter.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I withdraw, and I do not want to waste further time on that. However, I do want to tell Mr Sutton that if he examines the pages of the US trade agenda for 2003, he will find that, right now, the US is planning bilateral free-trade agreements with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland, and Vietnam—Vietnam is on the list of possibilities.

Do members know that New Zealand is mentioned once in dozens and dozens and dozens of pages of that trade agenda where the US talks of liberalising trade with 100 countries? New Zealand is mentioned once, and that is only to complain about our pharmaceutical purchases, our parallel importing, and our quarantine services. Not one word was mentioned about the possibility of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand when the US talked about liberalising trade with 100 other countries. Yet Jim Sutton has the temerity to talk garbage in this House, when he should be standing up and apologising for taking New Zealand from being at the vanguard of trade development with the United States to now not rating a mention amongst 100 nations.

What does Jim Sutton’s leader do? What does Helen Clark do? She makes it worse. The comment about Al Gore was not just a loose comment. She mentioned Al Gore on 24 March on the TV1 Breakfast show. On 30 March, 6 days later, she repeated it. On 1 April she repeated similar comments. When she was told on 2 April, 9 days later, that she might have been damaging New Zealand’s international relationships, she said she thought her comments were “bleedingly obvious”. Has Helen Clark now apologised for those objectionable comments? One might have thought she would have the integrity to apologise fully for the comments. However, she has made it clear to this House that she has apologised only for any offence that might have been taken for her bleedingly obvious comments. Does Prime Minister, Helen Clark, think that the United States will not be offended again when she refuses to withdraw and apologise for her comments and apologises only for offence taken for her bleedingly obvious comments? She insults the United States administration again.

I say to Helen Clark that in March—before her insulting comments—New Zealand did not rate a mention among 100 nations on the United States trade agenda for 2003 in respect of trade liberalisation work. Following her comments, we will be further out the back door. She should apologise to New Zealanders, as well as to the United States.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Māori Television Service Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Māori Television Service Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 68

Noes 48

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

In Committee

Preamble

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): There are certainly some things to be said about the preamble. The preamble sets out the background to this bill, both in Māori and in English. It traverses the history of the litigation, starting with the Waitangi Tribunal litigation, and then Privy Council findings. Having done that, under the heading “Background in English” there is quite a weak kind of objective that establishes the Māori Television Service so that Māori have a secure place, are recognised, actively promoted, blah, blah, blah. Nowhere in that preamble—and I want the Māori members to hear this—is there anything that basically states that the establishment of the Māori Television Service is in satisfaction of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. That is most of the problem with this bill—it is a mishmash of social objectives and so-called treaty objectives, and Māori are none the wiser. We cannot have that mishmash. The litigation that went before both the Waitangi Tribunal and to the Privy Council was the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. If this service is being set up in satisfaction of that obligation, then there is no room in here for social objectives. Those might flow in the long term, but certainly not in stating why the Crown is setting this television service up.

Quite frankly, the preamble is absolutely deficient. It gives no clear explanation or recognition of the purpose of this service, or of the reasons for it being set up, yet it clearly sets out the background to the litigation, but the background only. That is a major flaw. The Māori Television Service Board came before the select committee and pointed that out. The board proposed some changes to the preamble that would make it very clear just what this television service is about. The board suggested something along the lines that the Crown had agreed to establish and fund Māori television as a principal means of satisfying its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to actively protect our te reo Māori. There is nothing of that in this preamble and, in my view, the bill is flawed from the start. That is a slap in the face to all of those tribes and individuals who, since the late 1980s, have pursued this matter, and particularly in the early 1990s when the Crown moved to dispose of its broadcasting assets. That clearly was the motivator for Māori to take their action to the Privy Council.

I ask the Minister, the Hon Parekura Horomia, to take a call to explain not just to this Committee, but also to Māori involved in all of that litigation, why he is not prepared to have a clear statement in this bill that says, without any equivocation whatsoever, that the establishment of the Māori Television Service is the means of satisfying the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to actively protect the Māori language. This mishmash of a bill will have a serious impact if Māori take it in their minds at some future date to say: “This wasn’t in satisfaction of the treaty obligation. We will go back to the Government”—and that is likely to be the National Party in Government—“and say that the Government has not fulfilled its treaty obligation, so what will it do about it?”

I want the Minister to take a call to tell us why he is not prepared to put some clarity into this bill. It might be a big ask for that Minister, because a notion of “Parekuraisms” has developed in the public arena. But he has an Associate Minister sitting there in John Tamihere, and he is reasonably clear in expression.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): The preamble includes a section on page 8 that is headed “Requirement for consultation when appointing the chief executive.” I have read that part of the preamble with great care and, indeed, the subsequent part of the bill. I have also read with some care material that the Minister has now been forced—and I use that word advisedly—to release under the Official Information Act, which makes it very clear indeed why the Minister did not want us to know what has gone on in relation to the appointment of Mr Derek Fox as the chief executive of the Māori Television Service.

I want the Minister to take a call and reconcile what is in the bill’s preamble with the facts as they are now clear to members who have read those papers. It is now clear that the appointment of Mr Derek Fox—formerly chairman—to the position of chief executive was nothing short of a monumental jack-up. It is clear from the papers that I have now seen, and that have been released after the Ombudsman told the Minister’s officials their obligations under the Act, that Mr Fox himself presided over the appointments committee process when people were interviewed. He sat in the board meeting while the report of that appointments committee was received and the other applicants seen off from the process. He left the room so that there could be a three-two vote amongst the directors, of which one vote was a proxy. So Mr Fox, who is supposed to enjoy the confidence of this Government and of the board in relation to the appointment outlined in this preamble, actually got there by way of a process that he presided over, that saw no one else emerge as an acceptable candidate, and that saw Mr Fox leave the room so that he could be appointed on a vote of three against two, of which one was a proxy vote. I ask the Minister how he reconciles that with the preamble to this bill and the requirements set out on page 8, and with the provisions that follow in parts of this bill.

What has happened makes a mockery of what this Committee is considering today. Members are sitting here lamely debating a process that has already been completed. It was the result of a monumental jack-up involving the former chairman, who had himself appointed as the chief executive. That appointment was announced on 11 February, and I want the Minister to tell me how that is reconcilable with the provisions contained in the preamble on page 8.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The preamble is actually on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the bill.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am referring to the notes that follow the preamble in this copy of the bill. If the Minister is able to refer me to some other pages, I will be very happy to be referred to them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry. The preamble is on pages 2, 3, and 4.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I want the Minister to take a call, because these are important matters. We are debating in this Committee a bill that relates to a process that has been already substantially completed, and the Minister cannot pretend that those actions have not occurred. We are in the process of debating a bill by which vast amounts of public monies have already been expended and contracts entered into—most important, the contract for the chief executive. I want the Minister to take a call to explain to the Committee why those events have already occurred now that this matter is coming, at this belated stage, before the Committee for its consideration. I want to know, as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu wanted to know, why the Minister has taken so long to get this matter before the Committee, when over 2 years ago—as I told the Minister yesterday—the Prime Minister said that this bill was taking too long, and that the Māori Television Service needed a hurry-up. She raised the matter in Cabinet, and no doubt gave the Minister a good kick in the backside and asked what was going on.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): The tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language. The Crown accepted those findings. The Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi imposed a continuous obligation to take such steps as were reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Māori. Will this bill protect te reo Māori? Will it help prospective students—those who can afford to sit down and literally take a class in the Māori language from the television screen—to be astute and fluent speakers of the language, and thus retain and protect it? That is the question out there. If this amount of money is to be spent on Māori television for the purpose of protecting and retaining te reo, how will te reo come across on the television screen for those who can afford to watch it and are able to learn from it? That is the question I leave with the Minister.

If television programmes are promoted to teach the language, how are 5-year-olds—up to people of whatever age, who do not speak the language—supposed to learn? If a survey were to be taken of how teaching through the medium of the television screen promoted the language, how many of those who watched it would come out speaking the language fluently? That is the question. If this language is to be retained, the wheel has already been invented. It is in our homes, maraes, kōhanga reo, polytechnics, universities and wānanga. Can New Zealand First be guaranteed that for every person who watches programmes on Māori Television—if, or when, it gets off the ground—there will be a result? I urge members to think about that matter, and I ask the Minister to take a call on it. I might think of joining Labour if its members came out speaking te reo, but I doubt it very much.

Brent Catchpole: There is no chance of that.

BILL GUDGEON: There is no chance of that. I know it will fail if we—this Committee, or this Government—say that Māori television programmes will teach our children, mokopuna, youth, and those of adult age, so that they come out speaking fluently in Māori. That is the challenge.

Let us look at the bill again. Its preamble is very shallow; it refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that is all. But how, what, where, and when? Will we come out with fluent speakers of Māori—yes, or no? Will we come out with people who understand the tikanga of iwi throughout the country? Will the mita o te reo be recognised by Ngāti Porou, Ngāpuhi, Te Arawa, Mātaatua, Tūhoe? Questions will be asked by our kaumatua. They will say: “E hoa, e hara te ra i te reo o Te Arawa”—That is not the language of Te Arawa. We want our speakers to be there to teach them. How can te reo be taught if we sit in front of a screen and switch te reo off when we have had enough of it—especially if we do not understand it? The message is the same: if we do not do the job right when we are teaching in schools, how can students learn?

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I think the name, Māori Television Service Bill, is a bit of a misnomer. The title of the bill should be the “Māori Television Black Hole Bill”, because it seems to me that what we are setting up here is simply an organisation that will take—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sure the member was going to raise a point of order about the preamble. At the present time we are speaking about pages 2, 3, and 4 of the preamble—not the title.

MURRAY SMITH: Thank you for that clarification. I will hold fire on that issue. I note that the preamble talks about the Te Reo Māori Report (Wai 11), which says that the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Treaty of Waitangi was directed to ensuring a place for two peoples in New Zealand. In reading that, I noted the word “was”. That word refers back, no doubt, to the foundations of the treaty, and one of the problems with this bill—and with the Government’s policy on Māori—is that there is a lack of thought about where we should be with regard to the treaty, 150 years on.

We are looking back at what the treaty meant 150 years ago, but what does it mean today? This Government lacks vision in that respect, and that fact is reflected in the “Background in English” section of the preamble. It states that the Treaty of Waitangi “was”—past—directed to ensuring a place for two peoples in New Zealand, and then goes on to state that the tribunal found that the Māori language “is”—current—an essential part of Māori culture and must be regarded as a taonga, a valued possession. I totally agree that te reo Māori is a taonga. It is a taonga, I suggest, of the whole of New Zealand, not just of Māori. But the situation we need to address is how Māori and non-Māori should be relating together, 150 years after the treaty. The fact that there is such a big gap between the word “was”—heading back to how things were 150 years ago—and the “is” of the Māori language today simply demonstrates that this Government has no vision whatsoever of how Māori and non-Māori relationships should be today, and how we should be proceeding into the future.

That dearth of vision conveys itself in the Government going in two opposite directions. In an earlier debate, I referred to that as schizophrenic. On the one hand, the Government is doing things that seem to suggest that it wants to bring about reconciliation between Māori and non-Māori—a sense of unity within this nation—so that we can move forward together. I commend that view. Certainly, the resolution of treaty grievances is an absolutely vital part of that process. As I have already expressed a number of times, I hope the Government moves with some speed in getting those issues resolved, but so far my pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

Then we find bills such as this—and also like the one we have recently passed, allowing for separate Māori seats on local authorities—where the Government is doing things that seem to be trying to marginalise Māori and make them separate from the rest of this nation. The Māori Television Service Bill is a classic example of that. In order to promote te reo, we are going to set up a separate Māori television station, specifically for Māori and that Māori will watch, while the rest of New Zealand carries on and watches Television One, TV2, TV3, and regional television, and has very little exposure to te reo Māori. In my view, we should be looking to provide te reo not just for Māori, but for all New Zealanders. We should be looking at ways to promote the language amongst all New Zealanders, and that is by nationwide and regional television—television that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will watch.

I am not at all convinced that many New Zealanders will watch this channel—Māori or non-Māori. Absolutely no research has been done to suggest what the viewer audience will be, despite calls on my part for it. There is no research to suggest that there will be any sort of viewer audience for this channel. We will have $30 million—and in 2 years, $40 million—just being thrown into this black hole of television that no one will watch, and which will not further te reo within New Zealand.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): I would like to share with the Committee a pretty major concern I have about the preamble to the bill. This is the first time that I have seen two separate sections in the preamble of a bill, one in Māori and one in English. What concerns me, as a member whose party is considering whether to vote for this part, is that many of us here in the Chamber today do not have any idea what the first part of the preamble means, because it is in Māori. Although I have done a few lessons here at Parliament to get myself a bit up to speed in te reo, I do not know the language sufficiently well to be able to judge what we will actually be voting for or against.

One would hope that the English version of the preamble was an exact reflection of the Māori version, but if Government members had actually read the commentary on the bill they would know that one of the debates in the Māori Affairs Committee was about the translation of the preamble. I refer members on the Government side of the Chamber, who obviously have not read the committee’s report on the bill, to the fact that it states: “The preamble is in English, followed by a Māori translation. Cabinet had previously decided there would be a Māori translation of the English preamble, to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Chair of Te Pūtahi Paoho.”—there goes the limitation of my Māori pronunciation. The committee goes on to state: “Te Pūtahi Paoho is concerned that despite this agreement, the translation that appears in the bill is an altered version of the translation it originally submitted to Te Puni Kōkiri. It requests that the preamble revert to the version originally provided, and also that it be presented in adjacent columns, with Māori to the left and English to the right.”

It further concerns me that the select committee also states there are concerns about the inaccuracy of the translation, and that macrons have been used in an inconsistent manner. I ask how those members who are not fluent in te reo are supposed to have any confidence that what we are considering voting for or against is a correct reflection, a correct translation, of the English preamble. Unless the Minister wants to stand up and take a call and give the Committee a translation, we will be none the wiser about what we are voting for.

Hon Member: The interpreter might explain.

KATHERINE RICH: The interpreter could assist us, and I would also seek the advice of the Clerk at the Table, because I do not think I have ever faced a situation of this nature in my short time in Parliament, and I do not think other members have done so, either. I seek guidance from some of the more senior members of the Opposition. Certainly, this would be one of the first cases I have seen where we are to vote on something that we do not have any understanding of, in terms of its definition.

Of course the “Background in English” in the preamble, which we are able to follow, highlights some of the background that has led us to debate this bill in the House. One of the things about the Privy Council’s decision, which was that there was a Government obligation to assist in the preservation of te reo Māori by the use of both radio and television broadcasting, was that it did not suggest there needed to be a totally separate television service. It just said there needed to be an understanding that when the Government funded radio and television, justice had to be paid to the language. That has been done to a great extent through the work of New Zealand On Air and through the establishment of Te Māngai Pāho. Both those organisations have funded a huge amount of Māori content over the last few years—not just in television programming but also in terms of radio stations, radio programming, etc. There has been a huge amount of State investment into the area of Māori programming, which is played in prime time on channels that most New Zealanders are likely to watch.

What bothers me about this separate service is that it is likely to be on an obscure part of the Sky digital remote, and thus inaccessible to many New Zealanders.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this bill. Like my colleague Katherine Rich, I too am somewhat astounded by the bill’s preamble. Certainly, there is evidence of an emphasis on the “amble” bit, because if we go to the commentary on the bill, we find it is absolutely correct that what appears in the bill is probably an altered version of the translation originally submitted to Te Puni Kōkiri. I note that there is a request that the preamble revert to the version originally provided, and also that it be presented in adjacent columns, with Māori to the left and English to the right. We do not see that in the preamble, and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, Parekura Horomia, would take a call and explain to the Committee why that simple request by the Māori Affairs Committee has not been met.

There has been a huge amount of time in the genesis of this bill for it to be made simple for those who are not well versed in te reo. Surely, that is one of the main aims of the bill. The Crown indeed has obligations to Māori to ensure that te reo and tikanga are preserved, but surely they should be preserved for all New Zealanders. Undoubtedly, there is an obligation to Māori to do that, but as New Zealand evolves and as intermingling occurs, it is just common-sense that a bill such as this should be easily understood and read by both partners to the treaty. So I hope that the Minister will indeed take a call and explain why that has not happened.

My colleague Georgina te Heuheu mentioned that there is no clarity in terms of the Crown’s obligation in this preamble. After all, we understand that the tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language, and in the ensuing litigation it became absolutely clear that it was appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Māori through its use both by Māori and in television broadcasting. But where do we see—and I hope the Minister will clarify what my colleague asked him to do—that clear obligation to Māori, in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi? It is certainly not there.

Again, as my colleague Katherine Rich pointed out, where in the preamble does it state that this stand-alone television service is an obligation under the treaty? Where is the clear evidence that this is the way, and the preferable way, to preserve te reo Māori and tikanga Māori? Where is the evidence that a stand-alone television service will do that? Where is the obligation to ensure that Māori can determine for themselves the way that this service is carried out? As I read the bill and its preamble, there is nothing to suggest that Māori may themselves determine the direction of the service in discharging that very important obligation.

I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee those absolutely fundamental and serious mistakes and deficiencies right at the very beginning of the bill. Also, I want him to tell us why after so many years, right from the genesis of the bill, the Labour Government has failed so miserably to be succinct and clear in its obligations in terms of the recommendations that the select committee has made.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance on an issue. It is noted in the commentary on the bill that there is a difference between the Māori translation and the English version of the preamble that we are debating. Knowing the trouble we get into when it comes to Treaty of Waitangi issues when there are differences between the Māori version and the English version, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to ask for a translation of the Māori version so that the Opposition members of the Committee can see, before they vote on the preamble, where the differences are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am advised that the translation has already been given and agreed to. The Māori translation on pages 4 and 5 has been struck out, but the translation on pages 2 and 3 has been agreed to.

KATHERINE RICH: In that case, though, the commentary on the bill quite clearly states that there is an outstanding debate about the translation we are debating, and that one of the groups that submitted its version of the translation was quite unhappy about the version used in the preamble. That raises concerns on the Opposition side of the Chamber, because we are not clear about what we will be voting on, or what the differences are between the English and Māori versions. We do know that one version is not a totally accurate reflection of the other—or actually we do not know that until we hear a translation.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): This is one of those issues where we are breaking new ground a little and could get bogged down a bit. Katherine Rich has suggested that it may be useful to ask the interpreter to stand up and take a minute to read in English the Māori text of the preamble. Quite honestly, we could then move on. This is a new issue, and it is the first time I have seen a bill that has in it such a length of Māori text. To enable us to move on, even though it is suggested that the English version is a replica of the Māori one, maybe it would be useful if you could ask the interpreter to do what has been suggested. I suspect that would save us a lot of time in the end.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I think that the member’s suggestion has been made in good faith, but of course, somebody could equally take exception to that translation. We have in front of us a preamble that has an English and a Māori version. Those are the two official languages of our country. I think we should now proceed on the basis of what is provided in the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is quite clear from the explanation given in the commentary on the bill that this is a translation. It is not the role of the interpreter to do as suggested. This is a matter for debate. I have ruled on the matter.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on the matter.

RODNEY HIDE: To be perfectly frank, I was going to contribute to the point of order, because the translation of the preamble has already been done. But it seems to me that we have another problem, which is this: there will, potentially, be some dispute in court over the interpretation of the preamble. Judges may be required to determine which translation has precedence, or whatever. When they do so, they will look to what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, has said about the translation. I suggest through you, Madam Chair, that the way to resolve this matter very quickly and very simply is for the Minister in the chair to say that the translation provided in English is a correct and accurate translation of the Māori preamble. With due respect, what a translator may say in Parliament, or indeed what an ordinary member of Parliament may say, will not carry any weight with a judge, but what the Minister says will carry weight. So although there can be arguments over translations, if the Minister whose name the bill is in takes the opportunity to say that the English translation is accurate and correct, then I think we could end the matter right there.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs): I hope to clarify this matter to some extent for members opposite. I chaired the committee in respect of this report back. The issue that is confusing some members relates to the final paragraph of the commentary. What we endeavoured to do, as one does when dealing with the official language—and with a predominantly Māori-dominated subject—was to get the Māori-language version and the English-language version technically side by side in terms of formatting. That is the first point of clarification with regard to something that may be causing some confusion.

The second point of clarification is that, as is the case with many languages, when one endeavours to interpret, one cannot get a specific and direct, literal translation. That brings me to my third point. The Māori Language Act, as the Deputy Leader of the House has indicated, makes Māori an official language. The Act does not say that the Māori language must be interpreted for the benefit of English-speaking peoples. It does not say that. So I put it to members that the preamble, as stated in Māori, is as close as we can possibly get to the English version. It has been done to the best extent possible when comparing totally different languages.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you for your assistance to Mr Hide. If it is debated in the courts, that is a matter for the courts. As the member has reiterated, Māori is an official language and that is where it stands.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I want to take a call in this debate on the preamble, because an issue here worries me—an issue that some of the previous speakers have alluded to. Indeed, I think Bill Gudgeon got as close to the specific problem I want to talk about as any of those who have spoken previously.

The first paragraph of the preamble, under the heading “Background in English”, states: “The Tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the Treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language. The Crown accepted these findings:”, and it goes on to give a number of findings. It is a laudable objective to want to see the Māori language protected and developed right across the country, where possible. I am supportive of it, as indeed is the National caucus—absolutely. People like me will never be fluent in Māori, but there are a number of young people who are, and we should encourage them where we can. However, my question to the Minister and the Government is whether they genuinely believe that the expenditure of $55 million a year of taxpayers’ money will actually help us achieve that objective.

I wonder whether the Minister or one of the members on that side of the Chamber would stand and tell us whether the Government genuinely believes that one of the outcomes of this amount of money being spent on the development of Māori television is that the Māori language will be protected and, indeed, enhanced, developed, or encouraged. I do not believe it will. I think there are some major deficiencies here. For instance, I draw to the Committee’s attention that in Northland we have a substantial population of people of Māori descent. Across Northland, probably 40 percent of the population is of Māori descent. In the Hokianga, and in some areas further north, people of Māori descent are the majority.

The point I make is that a whole lot of those people do not have access to television. If the Government is intent on expanding the Māori language—and I know it is saying that this is not just for Māori but for all New Zealanders, and that is fine, but the focus has to be on those people of Māori descent who do not speak Māori—then surely one of the outcomes we would expect from investing $55 million of taxpayers’ money is that all the mokopuna, the children of Māori descent, will have an opportunity to learn Māori. So what are we going to do about those children in Northland who will not have access to this service?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Have they got access to any services?

JOHN CARTER: Indeed, that is a problem in itself. But we are focusing today on the delivery of Māori television across the nation, with the intent, so we are told, of protecting the Māori language, and this Government will fail. It will not achieve its goal. I say to this Minister that at some stage—not that he will have to worry about this for long; he will not be a Minister for much longer, anyway, because there will be a change of Government shortly—someone from this side of the Chamber, in the short time we will be on it, will stand up and ask him where the delivery is. We will be asking that Minister to show us the delivery. He is telling us that we should protect the Māori language.

MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki): I move, That the question be now put.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): We are in a very exciting phase of this great Parliament, because we have had, for some time, two official languages, and that has been a challenge to New Zealand, a challenge to our legislators, a challenge to the Government, a challenge to the public, and a challenge to Parliament—and a challenge to me.

Mahara Okeroa: In that order?

RODNEY HIDE: In that order. We have in this bill a preamble written in Māori and in English. In my time in the House I have not seen that—and I am looking at Mr McCully to see whether he has seen it before. I think we therefore need to debate this as a very, very important step in our parliamentary, constitutional, and legislative procedure. This has a huge significance. We cannot say it is just there for a bit of window dressing, and I would like to think that we will be debating the matter fully and properly in this Committee, because I do not know where else we would do it.

I would particularly like the ACT party to get a full, proper opportunity to debate what this preamble and its implications mean, because, sadly, as ACT is not represented on the Māori Affairs Committee, our only opportunity to do so is here in this great House. That is why we are here.

Hon John Tamihere: Richard Prebble was there.

RODNEY HIDE: He is not there any more. So let us think about this. Have we heard from the Minister as to what happens when there is a dispute over this preamble in the courts? The Minister could stand up in the Chamber and say that these two languages have equal weight for the judge. That is one possibility, and the courts will have to weigh it. He could say that if there is a dispute, one language will take priority, which, it seems to me, would be a smart position to take at this stage, because then we could say we have a bit of history in the courts with English, and we appreciate the movement to have te reo in statutes, but we have a clear rule.

Hon Dover Samuels: That’s the one.

RODNEY HIDE: I hear Dover Samuels saying that is the one. I would like to hear that from the Minister, because—

Hon Dover Samuels: It will probably be a Pākehā judge, too.

RODNEY HIDE: It will probably be a Pākehā judge, and that is why I am looking to this Minister. We can see it is significant. The background in English has not changed, but the background in Māori has. Why? There has to be a reason. It has to change this bill somehow. It has to have had significance; otherwise, why change it? Here we are voting on a bill that, sadly, most of members in this Chamber cannot read and do not understand—either in respect of the new majority or the old majority. I know that Mr McCully is on the committee and that he does his best. We know that judges in the courts will be in a similar position. We do need to take a full and proper debate on that principle. With the greatest respect, we do need to hear from the great Minister of Māori Affairs who is sitting in the chair.

Hon Dover Samuels: A good fella!

RODNEY HIDE: He should rise and say that the intention of this Government, and the purpose of this legislation, is to put te reo into statute. However, we believe that if there is a dispute in the courts, in the meantime, English should be the authority. That is not to demean the Māori language. It is to follow what Dover Samuel said was a good principle so that we can have clear law and not be arguing over how many angels dance on a pin, because I see problems ahead for this. Imagine that there are Māori litigants who are vexatious—.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: No!

RODNEY HIDE: There are, and I know that may come as a surprise. They will get legal aid and they will not accept anyone’s decision. They are vexatious, and they could be very vexatious if we start putting Māori into our statute book, because the dispute will be over the interpretation.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): In relation to the translation, this dictum here has a whole lot of different versions around single words. In relation to the language, this Government is not shying away from its treaty responsibility. Can I say quite clearly—alluding to the lengthy period of time—that this Government has started. I have a chronological date, dating back 40 years ago, from the 1960s and 1970s, to when that party, in 1991 went through this thing and did nothing. I am proud to be the Minister of Māori Affairs and to be getting towards the end point.

I refer members to the preamble. Members may have different views on whether we should have a preamble, or what the preamble might state. However, the preamble records and acknowledges past endeavours and events that have led to this bill now being before the Committee. The preamble refers to the Waitangi Tribunal Te Reo Māori report and the litigation in the early 1990s, first in the New Zealand courts and then the Privy Council, in which the Crown gave undertakings at that time concerning the development of Māori television. This bill will bring those commitments of more than several years ago into being.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I am pleased that the Minister did get to his feet. That is very good, but I would like him to think hard on this one. The Minister might say that he is fulfilling some obligations here, but as I say, if he reads the preamble very carefully, he will see that there is nothing that necessarily connects the setting up of this television service to the satisfaction of an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi, and that has long-term impacts around whether the funding will flow. [Interruption] Mr Ririnui can take a call if he wants to say something. In the meantime, I am on my feet. As I said, it has long-term impacts about ongoing funding. Presently, the funding of this service is dependent upon the normal appropriations at Budget time. That does not indicate satisfaction of a treaty obligation. And who owns those assets? That is the other thing. For instance, in the event of a winding-up, who will own the assets? If this is in satisfaction of a treaty obligation, then, by rights, there should be no question that Māori will own the assets. The transfer of assets is part of satisfying the Crown’s treaty obligations. That is what happens in settlements. I am saying to the Minister that nothing in the preamble makes any of that clear.

Hon John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am mindful that we are having a fair, wide, and liberal debate with regard to the preamble. I am merely pointing out to the Committee that a number of the issues raised by colleagues opposite have addressed a number of matters that are, in substance, in the part-by-part debate.

Rodney Hide: That’s a debatable point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind the member that while points of order are being heard, there will be silence.

Hon John Tamihere: In the most deferential way, I am merely indicating to the Committee that there is the issue of relevance. Notwithstanding the fact that we are having a wide debate, a number of issues raised by colleagues opposite are able to be debated point by point as we go through the bill part by part.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member is right. It has been a broad debate. The preamble itself is quite wide, in that it sets up what the bill does. The member is right—there are issues that we have debated that will come up later on in the debate, as well. However, the preamble endeavours to cover the principles of what the Government is trying to achieve. Logically, a number of those things will be covered in the bill itself. Obviously, the debate on the short title will be a lot narrower, but this one is more general.

Rodney Hide: Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member, but there is no need. I am not taking any more calls on this. I have indicated several times about keeping to the preamble.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have dealt with that matter.

Rodney Hide: Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

Rodney Hide: Yes. It is not usual in this House to be debating a preamble in two languages, or indeed to be debating a preamble. Mr Tamihere’s point was that he felt that what Georgina te Heuheu was saying was out of order because it can be picked up in other parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. He knows very clearly that Māori is an official language. That point has been covered.

Rodney Hide: That is not my point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the member’s point of order. Nothing is outside the Standing Orders. Please be seated.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated.

Rodney Hide: Am I going to have this point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. It is the prerogative of the Chair to rule on a point of order. I have ruled on the point of order. That is the end of the matter.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I know that the Minister, Mr Tamihere, is probably frustrated about this, because, of course, he did commandeer this bill through the Māori Affairs Committee, and now he has to sit there like a nice quiet little boy and listen to matters of debate. I do not accept his point at all, anyway, and you did not either, Madam Chair. My colleague is quite right. Basically, the preamble is very important. It sets out, and sets up, what follows.

What follows, of course, is a mishmash of what is supposed to be something that satisfies treaty obligations. But as we examine it—and we will certainly examine it further down the track—we will see that it does nothing of the sort. I refer to funding, and to the way that this is set up, It is a huge job to promote the Māori language—all that background is set out in the preamble. It is a very huge job, and when we look at the detail of the bill, we can see—and I agree with Deborah Coddington—that it is basically set up to fail. The Minister of Māori Affairs must think about that. He must also think about—he still has time—whether the bill is sufficiently explicit. Instead of, say, item (4) on page 3, he should think about an item that essentially links the setting up of this television service with the Crown’s obligations, under the Treaty of Waitangi, to protect and promote the Māori language through broadcasting. There is no explicit statement anywhere in this bill, least of all in the preamble, that that is the intention—and for the Minister, that has been a flagship.

When this Government came in, there were three flagships, apparently, for it in its first term. Nowhere in the preamble is there any indication that this Minister is sincere about this being a flagship—a flagship for Treaty of Waitangi obligations, and satisfaction by the Crown in pursuit of those, and a flagship for the protection and promotion of Māori language, which is also a treaty obligation. This Minister must give real thought to the fact that the preamble does nothing of the sort. It does nothing to give anybody any assurance. His own cousin, Derek Fox, chair of the Māori Television Service, came to the select committee with his lawyers and recommended three changes to the preamble—that is, three additional items: first, taking out the current item (4) and incorporating a different one; and adding two others that would make very clear—to this Government, first of all, because it seems that this Government is the first one that does not know what the purpose of the service is; whether it is in satisfaction of some social obligation or some legal treaty obligation—the treaty obligation that is now, supposedly, being satisfied.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt my honourable colleague after you had given her the call, but I was under the impression that Ms Te Heuheu had already had a call in relation to this clause. I noticed when you gave her the call that Ms Coddington had called. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that we noticed that, in fact, ACT probably was entitled to it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for that.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): It is very interesting that when the Minister of Māori Affairs stood to take a call he started off by saying: “Can I say this quite clearly …”. I admire the restraint of members that they did not all fall about laughing, because only the Minister can answer that question. Have we ever heard that Minister say anything quite clearly? I was waiting for a first time. He was going to say, quite clearly, the difference between why we have a translation—

Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have been giving the member on her feet some space to get to the preamble. At no time at all has she referred to anything contained in the preamble. The debate is becoming very wide.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please speak to the preamble and keep to the point.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We have a problem. The Minister stood, took a call, and spoke for three-quarters of his speech—I timed it—about what the National Party had not done for 40 years. Nowhere was that in the preamble but the Chair did not comment. Deborah Coddington was two sentences into her speech, talking about the Minister, and this Chair shut her down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will continue.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Speaking to the preamble, and to what the Minister said about the preamble, the Minister told us that when he was talking to the preamble he would tell us quite clearly why we have, and must trust, this Māori translation, I ask whether he quoted, interpreted, or translated. There are three different meanings we can take from that. Rodney Hide made a very good point when he spoke to the preamble and said that if litigation arises—and it surely will arise because this has been set up to invite litigation—it should be interpreted by the courts later on.

We see in the “Translation of the preamble” in the commentary that the Māori version has indeed changed, and the English version has not changed. I would have thought that if those members of the Government were committed to te reo—as they say they are—and to Māori television, they would get up and explain why the Māori version has been changed. I think we are entitled to know why it has been changed. There would be an outcry if the English version had changed. Furthermore, if Government members were totally committed to te reo, they, including Jill Pettis, would get up and talk in Māori. So why do they not do that?

Rodney Hide: They won’t even talk in English.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: That is another good point. Katherine Rich made a good point when she spoke about the difference between a translation and an interpretation. We do not know what this preamble is; is it a translation or is it an interpretation? We do not know because we are told in the commentary that the English version and the Māori version were meant to be set out side by side. The commentary then states: “However, it is not technically possible to achieve this within our timeframe for reporting back on the bill.”

The Government has delayed for 2 years. We will get to the title soon, but the date in the title clause is 2001. It is now 2003.

Rodney Hide: It must be slow.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: It is slow, but not slow enough to have it set out so we know what we are voting for in this preamble—[Interruption] The Minister over there can take a call in Māori if he has got something to say, instead of just chipping in every now and then.

Rodney Hide: It was Mark Burton.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I am sorry, I had forgotten his name; I thank Mr Hide.

I come back to this difference in the translation. Here we are, 163 years later, still debating the Treaty of Waitangi—whether it is the English version or the Māori version, or whether it is a translation or an interpretation. The least we can expect in this Committee stage is for the translator to translate this preamble for us, word by word, so that we see that it is a translation and not an interpretation. Quite frankly, when the commentary refers to different versions that came to and fro from Te Puni Kōkiri and Te Pūtahi Paoho, we do not know what we have here.

The fourth clause of the preamble says that the establishment of the Māori Television Service means that Māori language and Māori culture will have “a secure place”. Nothing that has been done so far by this Government leads us to believe that there is anything secure about Māori television, in the way it has been set up. What is secure about a television service that was meant to be on air by the middle of last year? I believe that we still do not have a to-air date. Perhaps the Minister of Māori Affairs might like to take a call and tell us what the to-air date is. The last I heard was that it would be July, but I doubt that we will see it going to air by July.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 61

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind members that there is to be silence during the voting process.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have been told before in this Committee that there is to be silence during voting, and I clearly heard a member, when New Zealand First voted, say: “I’ll remember that.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite correct, and I have drawn it to members’ attention. It is a final warning.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I was not going to raise the issue, but, now that it has been raised, I say that the comment could be construed as threatening, and the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right.

Mita Ririnui: I withdraw and apologise.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the preamble be agreed to.

Ayes 61

Noes 56

Preamble agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide, I have just warned people about talking during voting. The member should be in his seat while a vote is being taken.

Clause 1 Title

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): Given this Government’s big sway over Māori and the big pronouncements of the Minister of Māori Affairs, in particular, over how the Government will support, promote, and protect te reo Māori, and so on and so forth, it surprises me that this bill does not have a Māori title, when that would have been proper and appropriate. All that we have by way of a title is the Māori Television Service Bill—and it will be for 2003. Given that the Minister is a great promoter of te reo Māori, I hope he will support my amendment that proposes we have another choice, which is that the bill should also be cited as “Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori 2003.” [Interruption] I had to beat my colleague Murray McCully to that. He was going to put something similar in.

I think we should mean what we say in this Committee when we say it is important to promote and protect the Māori language, te reo Māori. We have the preamble, which we have just discussed, and some hard-fought-for litigation that went before both the Waitangi Tribunal and the Privy Council is referred to there. Māori members on the Government side of the Chamber will know from their own iwi involvement in that litigation that we are dealing with hard-won stuff here. This bill is about the protection and promotion of te reo, and what better way is there of showing that than to have a Māori title for the bill, as well as the English one?

I sought some advice about the title from my own colleagues, and particularly from Murray McCully, who is on the Māori Affairs Committee. He made some suggestions, but, on balance, we both agreed to the title that has been proposed here. He was not quite sure about the word “rātonga”, but when we thought about it, we decided that it best embodies the word “service”, and that it is probably the most appropriate word.

I heard Deborah Coddington say that we should mean what we say about protecting te reo, so I am looking forward to the support of all members across the Committee for this amendment, and particularly of the Government members, because they are the ones whom Māori look to. They are the ones who gather up the Māori vote. The Prime Minister goes around the country attending lots of hui. I have been to two or three of those hui, where the Government has talked about protecting te reo Māori. [Interruption] Madam Chair, can you quieten down the Committee? I can hardly hear myself speak, and that is a big shame.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think that applies to members on both sides of the Chamber. I also remind the member to speak to the title.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can you please explain the meaning of the comment you have just made to me? I have been talking solely on the title, except for a few little comments. By and large, I have been talking on the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has made some other comments over the last couple of minutes.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: So I propose that the bill be named “Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori 2003.” Basically, “Te Ture” means “the Act”, “mo te Rātonga” means “for the service”, and “Pōuaka Whakaata Māori” means “Māori television”. I know everybody will support that. It makes sense, and it is totally appropriate. It would be a dereliction of the duty and responsibility of all 120 members of this Parliament if we did not see the propriety and the appropriateness of having a Māori title for this bill. I am looking forward to the Minister’s support, and if he does not support it, we will want to know his reason for that, as will Māori people outside this Committee and other New Zealanders, given that they have been brought along as a result of the treaty obligation programme.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): I—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am mindful of the comments made earlier, and wonder whether we could have the translator provide a translation of Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment—not necessarily right now, but before we vote on it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): If Mrs te Heuheu wishes to translate it herself, that is perfectly in order.

Rodney Hide: No, I have specifically asked for the translator to do that. I know that a member can translate what he or she has said during a speech, but this amendment has Māori in it. I mean no disrespect to Georgina te Heuheu, but and I think it would be good for us to get into the practice of having the translator help us to understand it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The translation can be given by the member if she chooses, or by the translator.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I gave a literal translation of it, but the member seems to want something more than that. I have no objection to that, as long as the translator keeps to the wording of the amendment.

Hon John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are getting into dangerous territory. The Speakers’ rulings are very clear and careful on this issue. They state that, in situations where a member has interpreted the issues he or she has raised in Māori, that member’s word is honourable, and that is where the matter stays. The alternative is for us to get into a rolling campaign of bringing in the interpreter. That is why the Speaker’s ruling was made.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is absolutely right. That is the end of the matter. I had not realised that the member had given an interpretation during her speech.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I will respond to what Mr Tamihere has said. I certainly am not implying any disrespect toward the member’s interpretation or questioning her word, as was suggested. I am suggesting that the Speakers’ rulings that relate to accepting a member’s translation are about what a member says in his or her speech. That is fine. I accept that as a principle and I am not contesting that, as I hope John Tamihere will appreciate. We have a bill before us with a preamble that has English and Māori wording side-by-side, and we can vote on that. But this amendment has Māori in it, and I think it would be a good practice for us to ask a translator to interpret it. I have said the interpreter would not have to translate the amendment right now, but we should have it translated into English before we vote on it, as we did with the preamble.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The matter has been dealt with.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a slightly different point of order, but I think it is worth us getting the practice right on this matter. I refer you to Standing Order 360, which relates to the translation of documents. I think that the proper course here, since we are dealing with an amendment—a written document that is clearly contemplated by Standing Order 360—is for us to invite you, Madam Chair, as the presiding officer, to invite, before the debate on this clause is concluded, the interpreter or someone else of your direction to provide a written translation of the amendment proposed by my colleague. I think that would meet the request that Mr Hide has made and would be good practice for the Committee to get into on future occasions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has already indicated that it is a translation of the title that is already in the bill.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The matter has been dealt with.

Rodney Hide: It hasn’t, actually!

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: You have dealt with the matter on the basis of what you think I did.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask Mr Hide to be seated. I have warned the Committee, and I have particularly warned Mr Hide, about speaking when a point of order is being dealt with. Mr Hide can leave the Chamber now—he has been warned.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. In my speech I translated the words as they were, very literally. Whether that would serve as an interpretation that satisfies the Standing Orders is another matter. I am very open to that being debated. I would tend to say that my colleague Murray McCully has probably stated the position as it is. So, although I stood in my speech and said “Te Ture mō te Rātonga”, I said each of those words separately and explained what they meant. Essentially it is the Māori Television Service Act, but on the other hand that was not necessarily an interpretation.

BILL GUDGEON: I respect the comments made by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu concerning the title. In my mind’s eye I can visualise a title that would be more suitable for this occasion. I would describe it as “Te Huarahi mō te Ao Māori, which may be translated as “the pathway of the Māori world.” I propose that because it gets away from the word “Act”, and gets away from the legality of it—

Hon John Tamihere: Why are you voting against it?

BILL GUDGEON: Against what?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think the rest of us are entitled to a bit of order in this Chamber. To have a Minister from the Government side of the Chamber yelling out and engaging in a conversation with the speaker on his feet is not acceptable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think the member will know that there has been calling out on several occasions in this debate.

BILL GUDGEON: We are talking about the title, and if the bill is passed at least New Zealand First will have contributed to its title. “Te Huarahi mō te Ao Māori” may be translated as “the pathway of the Māori world”, and as I was saying it gets away from the Act and the legalities that are being discussed in this Committee today. It is au fait with the Māori world and with Māori thinking out there.

What effect would that title have on those people who are able to access this channel? It would attract some attention that would encourage people to make further inquiries in order to see for themselves whether the money is well spent. I am not saying that New Zealand First supports this bill, but I am saying that when this bill is passed there should be a contribution to Māori thinking out there as far as the title is concerned. I am afraid that is how we think. That is how it is. Those words are a contribution to the title, and if Māori are happy with that and are happy with the content of the programmes, then they will be part and parcel of the service. That is all that I am saying.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): Kia ora tātou. Kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere ō tēnei wāhanga mō te pire e pā ana ki a tātou te iwi Māori.

[Greetings to us. I extend greetings to you, Madam Chair, who are chairing this session about the bill that concerns the Māori people.]

I am certainly disappointed in some of the comments that have been made today by people who want to do a post-mortem on the title. I also say that the member for the National Party Georgina te Heuheu—

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague—

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: Do not be sorry; keep smiling!

John Carter: I will keep smiling; that is one thing the member can rely on. Mr Samuels opened his speech with dialogue in Māori, and I do not believe that he translated it for us. I wonder whether he would do so or would allow the interpreter to interpret?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Does the member choose to interpret?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I thank John Carter. I was referring to and making an acknowledgement of the Chairperson. I am somewhat bewildered about the discussions pertaining to the title, and possibly the new renaissance from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, when, in fact, she had a chance to raise her concerns about the translation of the title into Māori during the debate that was held on the bill in the Māori Affairs Committee. I was on that committee with the member when this bill was being debated, and she certainly did not raise at any time that there could be a need for a Māori version of the title.

The reason she did not is that the title is quite simple. Clause 1 of the bill states: “This Act is the Māori Television Service Act 2001.” There was no debate about it; there was no raruraru there. There was no suggestion that we should do a sort of post-mortem on the language and have a Māori translation. Now that this issue has been raised, in terms of the spirit of wairua, of kotahitanga, and of whanaungatanga, I will support perhaps the appropriate translation. But I have to look at it from a Ngāpuhi perspective and to make sure that it is not a Tuwharetoa translation. I think perhaps the time has come when we can talk about that. If there is a whanaungatanga or wairuatanga approach to this issue, then I would suggest that perhaps members on the Government side of the Chamber would concur that we should get a Māori translation, and I think we can come to some consensus in relation to the translation of the title.

But I would ask whether, if we go that far, we will have the support of the member for Tuwharetoa. That is really the nub—the key—to it all. If we agree with the suggestion made by that member that this Act may also be cited as “Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori”, I ask the senior Opposition whip whether that means that the National Party and the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber will support their honourable colleague, and will support the bill.

Let us do a deal. Let us talk a bit of common sense. This debate is an example of the Treaty of Waitangi partnership emerging in this Chamber. So we have compromised on the title clause, and I am looking forward to the National Party supporting the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I just want to clarify something before we finish. Mr Hide will be out of the Chamber for the rest of the evening.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 730 p.m.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that, prior to the dinner break in this debate, there was some difficulty in the Committee. Specifically, I refer to an amendment to clause 1, “Title”, in the name of Georgina te Heuheu. The amendment that Georgina te Heuheu tabled was in the Māori language, and my colleague Rodney Hide—I believe appropriately—sought a translation of that. Indeed, I draw your attention, Mr Chairman, to Standing Order 360, “Translation of documents”: “The Speaker”—and of course you, as the Chairman in the Committee stage—“may order that bills introduced into the House and reports, petitions and papers presented to it are to be translated and printed in another language.” Those would certainly include amendments and Supplementary Order Papers. Why I raise the point—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not need any further assistance.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: If I may persist for a moment longer, it may be helpful. My colleague was asked to leave the Chamber on the basis of asking for a translation. I believe he was justified in asking for a translation under the Standing Orders and, indeed, the Speakers’ rulings. I seek that he be readmitted to the Chamber this evening, as I believe it was most inappropriate of the then Chairperson to ask him to leave. I accept that it was not yourself at that time, but I would like you to rule in favour of that proposal.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I am not aware of the reason for Mr Hide being ordered to leave the Chamber so I cannot comment on that, but I will comment on Standing Order 360. Standing Order 360 provides that the Speaker may order a translation. Therefore, I have arranged for a translation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment to clause 1 to be made available. It is at the Table if members wish to inspect it.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is very helpful, and I think all members of the Committee will be grateful for your consideration on that point. It is precisely the point my colleague Mr Hide was seeking, and was what saw him ejected from the Chamber for. On that basis, I recommend that he now be allowed to return to the Chamber. He has had his time in the sin bin, as it were, and, as it seems the Chair has acknowledged that the point Mr Hide was making was valid, I therefore ask that he be readmitted for this debate.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Mr Chair, obviously you have made a decision on the translation, which is entirely your prerogative, but, to assist you, as you say you were not in the Chamber earlier, my observation—I was sitting where I am now, during the entire exchange—was that the Chair made a decision based, perhaps, more on frequent interjections, speaking through points of order and during voting, and so on by the member who was ejected, than on the content of a particular point of order. Members who were in the Chamber at the time would have to acknowledge that that is a call for the presiding officer to make at the time. The Chair did so, based on the conduct of the member. As I observed it, that is how she reached her judgment, and I think members should uphold the authority of the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. I cannot overturn the decision that was made prior to the dinner break. There that matter rests.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to speak on that issue—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that I have ruled on that issue.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, you have.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It cannot be relitigated.

JOHN CARTER: No, but I want clarification of it now. Are you telling me that, once the decision has been made by the Chair that a member is excluded from the Chamber for a certain time, that decision cannot be revisited?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, that is what I am saying—exactly—as the Chairperson of the Committee on the bill. Normally in these circumstances, when someone is ordered from the Chamber, there are discussions between the whips concerned, or between the Chair and the whip, about how long the exclusion is to be. I cannot comment on how long that exclusion was for, because I was not in the Chair.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): Point of order, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled, Mr Shirley.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I want to say that I took the liberty of discussing this matter. I accept that Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber. When he was instructed to leave, prior to the dinner break, my understanding is that no time was specified. I have discussed the matter with the ACT whip, who advises me that she had no instruction about duration, and, on that basis, now that you are in the Chair, could I ask that you rule that Mr Hide’s time in the sin bin has expired and that he may return to the Chamber.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I am trying to be helpful because I know the Chair was not in the Chamber at the time, so it is difficult. As I observed the process, the member was asked to leave for the reasons I stated earlier.

Hon Ken Shirley: What were the reasons?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I said, there were constant interjections. Again, I am interpreting what I observed. What was in the mind of the presiding officer is obviously her prerogative, and I uphold her authority as she exercised it. But I say to the member that Mr Hide observed the instruction he had been given by the Chair and left the Chamber immediately. That is to his credit. I further observe that the Chair, as soon as members had completed what they were saying, informed the then absent Mr Hide that the withdrawal from the Chamber was for the remainder of the sitting day. That information was given. It is quite possible Mr Hide did not hear it, but I certainly did, sitting in the vantage position that I have here, which is very close to the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member very much. I am giving a ruling. The decision was made by the previous Chair, prior to the dinner break, and it is my understanding that Mr Hide was excluded from the Chamber until the rising of the House this evening. There the matter rests. I warn members that, under Standing Order 85, I consider the Chamber is getting close to being disorderly.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take your point, but we will get ourselves into some difficulty—and I want the Chair and the Committee to understand that I am also trying to be helpful in the same way as the Minister who has just resumed his seat—because two issues are important.

I accept your point. You are saying you are unable to change a ruling—which I may, at some stage, seek some further advice on—but the issue here was this: it is true that the Chair at the time felt that Mr Hide was taking constant points of order, and, indeed, had warned Mr Hide that that was so. She had even indicated that she was at the stage at which she felt that any further points of order on that particular point would be disorderly and cause difficulties for the member. So that indication was clearly signalled. Indeed, your ruling now has perhaps exacerbated the problem, because Mr Hide asked whether there could be an interpretation.

But Mr Hide wanted to make a new point, which was that, even though the Committee had been told that Georgina te Heuheu had interpreted her amendment in English, Ms te Heuheu herself had said, however, that she was quite happy for the interpreter to give an interpretation to the Committee, if the Committee required it. The Chair had missed that, and I think Mr Hide was trying to draw that to her attention. That was the stage at which the Chair sent him out.

The second point is a matter of timing—and the senior Labour whip need not wave at me; I am trying to be helpful here. Mr Hide was ejected from the Chamber and there were a couple of speeches just before 6 o’clock. The Chairperson then said to the Committee: “And by the way, Mr Hide is out for the rest of the night.”, so there was no opportunity for the normal dialogue. In past cases, when a member of the National Party has been excluded, I have gone to the Chair or the Speaker, asked how long the exclusion is for, and there has been a bit of a debate and discussion. In this case, none of that happened, and I think that is unfortunate. I ask whether there may be an opportunity—not right now—for you to go back and readdress that, because I do think that Mr Hide has been dealt with quite harshly under the circumstances.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I thank the chief Opposition whip for that. The matter, as I observed it, was one not only of repeated points of order but also of other interjections as well. So I think it was a combination of those. That is how I saw it.

As to the other matter, I think the member is correct. It is unfortunate that the usual process did not follow, but I think that was entirely an accident of two things.

The Chair, not wanting to interrupt the debate further, waited until the immediate contributions were over, and then it was 6 o’clock. I think that had that accident of time not happened, then normal procedures might have followed.

In any event, I go back to perhaps the most important point, which is that the Standing Orders are very clear. The Chair has the prerogative to do what the Chair did, with or without consultation with whips. We must uphold the authority of the Chair to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I cannot interfere with the decision made by the previous Chairperson, which was that the member be excluded from the Chamber until the rising of the House this evening. I cannot interfere with that.

I understand where Mr Carter is coming from, and I appreciate the points of view he has made, but the matter of the interpretation has, of course, been dealt with. The interpretation is on the Table, and it is available for members to look at. As for the exclusion, I have already ruled on that and that is where the matter rests. I now wish to call some honourable member.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): Point of order, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled, and I am not prepared to relitigate this matter.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I understand that, Mr Chairperson, but you leave me with no alternative. I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been recalled at the request of the Hon Ken Shirley. The issue relates to the exclusion from the Chamber of the honourable member Rodney Hide prior to the dinner break. My understanding, because I was not in the Chair prior to 6 o’clock, was that Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber, and was instructed to do so until the rising of the House this evening. The matter of the interpretation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s Māori amendment has been taken care of, and that is sitting on the Table for members to look at. As to the exclusion, I upheld the decision of the previous Chairperson. As a result of that, there has been a request that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the matter.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): We are in quite an extraordinary situation here, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are in a situation—and my comment is not intended as a reflection on yourself—whereby you were serving members as our Chairperson in Committee when this incident arose. As matters have developed, I have found it necessary, at the recommencement after the dinner break, to come down to the Chamber to raise the very serious point of the ejection of an ACT member, Mr Rodney Hide. I have found it necessary to recall the Speaker, and now, of course, I find that the same person who was acting as the Chairperson in the Committee has returned as the Speaker. I stress that I am not casting a reflection on you. I am just making the observation that that is the situation we are in. I concede that I was not present in the Chamber—I am sorry, do we have a constitutional matter, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Hon Mark Burton: It might pay just to wait a moment.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Simich is available.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: In the sense of natural justice, I think it would be helpful if Mr Simich took the Chair.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Mr Simich will take the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Assistant Speaker, prior to the dinner break, during the debate on the Māori Television Service Bill, the Chair excluded from the Chamber the honourable member Rodney Hide. When the Committee resumed at 7.30 p.m., a number of points of order were raised requesting that the honourable member return. One of the issues of concern was the interpretation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment. That matter has been taken care of, and the translation of the amendment is now on the Table for members to see. In relation to Mr Hide’s exclusion from the Chamber, he was excluded until the House rises tonight. I chose to support the recommendation of the previous Chairperson. The decision had been made, and I upheld the decision of the Chairperson. That has not been acceptable to some members and, as a result, at the request of the Hon Ken Shirley, you have been recalled.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I should say at the outset that I was not present in the Chamber when the incident occurred, but I have had the situation reported to me. My understanding of the facts is that Mr Hide, in response to a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Georgina te Heuheu on clause 1, “Title”, sought a translation. The Supplementary Order Paper was presented in Māori, as is a member’s right, but Mr Hide, not being fluent in Māori, felt very strongly about the fact that he was not able to give meaning to it, and, therefore, as a member of the House of Representatives, was unable to participate fairly in the debate. He persistently sought a translation. He felt that he was protecting his right—and I agree that he was—to debate the matter from a position of understanding and knowledge of what the words actually meant. My understanding is that, because of his persistence on that point, he was ejected from the Chamber by the Chairperson. However, at the point of ejection, it was not conveyed to him what the duration of that ejection might be. I have consulted the ACT whip, Muriel Newman, and she assures me that she has not been advised of the duration of the period of ejection. We accept that it was the Chairperson’s right to eject any member for what was deemed, at the time, to be disorderly.

However, on reassuming the debate, following the dinner break, we have learnt that the incoming chairman of the Committee, Mr Ross Robertson, has seen fit to ensure that there is a translation available, and I commend him for that. That really upholds the point of principle that my colleague Rodney Hide requested, and for which he was unfairly, I believe, ejected from the Chamber. I do not wish to relitigate that. I accept that that would be inappropriate. The issue at hand now is what is fair and reasonable for that ejection period. I put it to you, Mr Chairman, that Mr Hide, having had his time in the sin bin, should be allowed to resume his place in this House of Representatives.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): As the member said, he was not in the Chamber at the time, but he is right in a number of the things that he said. However, in one or two areas it is important to add to the information. As I sat in the chair that I am now in, I observed that Mr Hide was not only warned, with some frustration, over the number of the points of order that were taken but, perhaps more relevantly, was warned over a number of interjections—indeed, interjections during the taking of votes. The presiding officer exercised her judgment at the time as to the appropriateness of that. She took her decision, and I hope, as I said earlier, that all members would uphold the authority of the Chair. That said, in order to make progress, and at the suggestion of the chief Opposition whip, I seek leave of the House to have Mr Hide readmitted at 9 p.m. for the remainder of the evening, as a demonstration of good faith on behalf of all members of the House to see progress made with the bill. Frankly, most members would prefer to see progress made and useful and sensible debate engaged in rather than endless procedural points of order. Accordingly, I seek leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that Mr Hide feels very passionately about this bill and is very keen to participate. I therefore seek leave of the House for Mr Hide to be readmitted at 8.30 p.m.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. Leave has just been sought and granted by the House for the term of exclusion to end at 9 p.m. Of course, the member is entitled to seek leave to have that time changed. That is then entirely up to the House. Before the member seeks leave, if he wishes to do so, I will cover a few points. Firstly, we are not here to decide on the fairness or otherwise of why the member was excluded from the Chamber. It is a simple fact that the member was excluded, and that was done by the Chairperson at the time. The subsequent Chairperson has upheld that decision. Whether anyone was aware of the time of exclusion is relevant, but the fact is that the Chair excluded the member for the remainder of the sitting. If the member was not aware of that, or his whips were not aware of that, then they could have checked with the Chair at the time or with the Serjeant-at-Arms. That is not a difficult procedure. I think that we should continue. The time, set by leave of the House, that Mr Hide may return is 9 p.m. If there is a further request to be made, the member may do so.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I seek of the House for Mr Hide to resume his seat in the House of Representatives at 8.30.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. I now intend to place the House back into Committee.

Bills

Māori Television Service Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 1 Title (continued)

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I am pleased to see that my colleague Georgina te Heuheu has handed in an amendment on the basis of a suggestion that I made. I now understand that Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First has made a further amendment, and also that there is a further amendment from the Government. If that is correct, could the Minister nod? I understand the Government will move an amendment, also.

The ironic thing about this situation is that those amendments have come about as a suggestion from a non-Māori of this Committee

Hon Member: Does the member mean a New Zealander?

JOHN CARTER: A New Zealander who is not of Māori descent.

Hon Member: The member has a Māori name.

JOHN CARTER: I have a Māori name only by adoption. It seems strange to me that suddenly we now have three amendments: one from the Government, one from New Zealand First, and the best one, naturally, from Georgina te Heuheu. That had to come about as the result of a suggestion from someone who was not involved in the Māori Affairs Committee, but who sat here tonight and thought it was very odd not to have a Māori title for a bill that is all about issues that relate to Māori. Other bills pass before this Committee that are not directly related to Māori issues, such as the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. That bill had some additional Māori wording that I cannot pronounce properly, so I will not try to do so. It has become a habit to have an English and a Māori part of a title.

I am absolutely amazed that this bill was just named in English the “Māori Television Service Bill.” I am staggered that the Minister, for example, who said that this bill is intended to teach people about the Māori language, has used English to describe it. That is quite extraordinary. I would have thought that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, would at the very least have wanted to say that this bill is all about teaching people the Māori language, so therefore surely the first thing that people should see when they pick up the bill is some Māori wording. They should also hear it when they turn the television on—which, of course, is something that the Minister will have to learn. However, we will teach him that on the way through, as well—it is the “on” button.

But I would have thought that the Minister would have wanted to present this as the Māori Television Service Bill, with that title then followed by—or even preceded by—the very good wording put in by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu. It surprises me that this bill was sent from the Minister to the select committee. I find it very strange to think that other members of the select committee did not even click on to the fact that there should have been some Māori wording in the title.

It is interesting that that has now suddenly become a fad. In fact, three or four of us might end up putting in amendments to the title to make sure that the Māori language is properly recognised. That is important. If the purpose of this bill is as the Government says it is—to allow New Zealanders to learn the Māori language—then surely to goodness that should be reflected in the title. I say to the Minister, as I have said before, that I am not certain whether we will achieve that. We will have further debate on that when we get into the parts of the bill with amazing deficiencies, and debate the lack of accountability there will be as a consequence of that. The $55 million of taxpayers’ money that will be spent on not achieving anything is an issue that we will be debating.

But, right now, we are in the narrow debate on the title, and I know that the Chairperson will be calling me back shortly to talk about it. So I thank him; it is good to see that he responds to prompts like that. I say to the Committee that when we are debating the title of a bill, it is important that the title reflects the intent of the bill. I believe that when somebody picks this bill up, that person will not see this title do that. It states “television”, but not “learning”.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): Mr Carter’s speech took the words out of my mouth. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that the Government would provide a bill that is meant to advance te reo Māori, and not have a Māori title for it. It is quite laughable that the Government should omit from the title the very thing it says it is trying to promote. I see that we now have a very rushed amendment from the Government, seeking to correct that situation by coming up with a name, though I note that name is different from the name the Hon Georgina te Heuheu came up with. That now creates some confusion, in terms of which one of those names is the correct Māori translation. I understand there is a translation of Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori, but we do not have a translation of the Government’s version of the title. So now we are left trying to work out the correct wording in Māori for the Māori Television Service.

I think that is rather strange. I was trying to look for an explanation of why that had occurred. Going back to the preamble, it seems to me that we should compare it with the comments the Minister made prior to the dinner break. He referred to the Privy Council’s decision and the preamble—which stated 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—and he said that he saw the provisions of this bill as fulfilling that obligation. I get the impression that, basically, the Government feels a sort of obligation arising from the 1994 decision of the Privy Council, and is therefore putting this bill in as a sort of a cop-out, out of a feeling that it is fulfilling its obligations by putting this bill together. Therefore, the Government is simply saying it has signed that issue off now and has completed its obligations to preserve te reo Māori through television and radio by putting this bill in. Now that it has done that, the Government thinks it can throw that issue out of the way.

As I mentioned previously, I think the Government has simply sidelined the issue, and, effectively, sidelined the whole advancement of te reo through radio and television broadcasting, by putting te reo into a separate television station that nobody will watch and that will then have a very limited viewership. I reiterate that there is absolutely no data to suggest how many people will watch this station, but given the debate over the broadcasting frequency the service will use, it appears that people will have to buy television aerials in order to watch it, so that will mean it is very isolated.

The Minister has it wrong when he interprets the Privy Council’s decision as stating that the Māori Television Service is necessary in order to comply with that decision. That is not what it states. It states that the Government—in fact, the Government accepted an obligation to use radio and television—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must speak to the title.

MURRAY SMITH: I am speaking to the title, because I am speaking to the amendment that was put in to include a Māori version of the title.

I think that the word “Service” should come out of the title. I accept that it is “Māori Television”, but I do not think that it is a service, at all. Instead of using the breadth of radio and television throughout New Zealand to promote the Māori language, we will have one station that very few people will be watching, and all the money for te reo advancement that is coming through from the Government will be directed into the programming for that station. So we will find a situation where there is no money for national and regional television to promote te reo Māori, because it has all gone to this television channel that nobody will watch. That is absolutely farcical.

The Government is, effectively, doing a huge disservice to Māori and to te reo Māori, by isolating and segregating it, instead of encouraging New Zealanders as a whole to learn te reo and encouraging its use within the whole sphere of New Zealand, through regional television in particular, but through national television, as well. There are far, far better ways for television and radio to be advancing this cause, so I do not think there is a service here, at all. In order to have a service, there needs to be people to serve. Therefore I do not think that this is the right title for this bill.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to address the title. Let us look at the date on the title—2001. It is now April 2003, and that reflects this Government’s commitment to preserving the Māori language. If we go back through some of the history of the Māori Television Service, we can see from nga korero o te wa that it goes back to September 1997. It states that a Māori television network was proposed by an Auckland-based tangata whenua television company. It stated that Te Māngai Pāho would be replaced by a seven-member Māori broadcasting commission, which would set and monitor standards. It would be a Māori-owned limited liability company that would run a national channel. Funding at that stage was to come from a 10 percent cultural tax on radio and television advertising and the Te Māngai Pāho share of the broadcasting licence fee. The Minister might like to take a call and tell us what happened to that cultural tax. Thank heavens it never saw the light of day.

We were looking forward to a Māori television bill being passed in 1997. In October 2000 the same people were still involved—Robert Pouwhare, Hone Harawira, Joanna Paul—and a number of others: Tainui Stephens, Hone Edwards and a trust group under a banner. It said it was now tweaking the proposal to make it ready for the new Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member should not be talking about the principles of the bill. The debate on the title is a very narrow debate.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I am focusing on the date in the title, which is 2001, and the time that it has taken to get the bill to this stage. The story comes back to 2000, when the bill was still going to be passed. It is now 2003.

I move on to the wording of the title. I notice that elsewhere in the bill—and we will debate this later—the Government has proposed the protection of the title and a Māori translation of that title. But I agree with the National member Georgina te Heuheu that it is extraordinary that it took her to table an amendment providing that the title should have a translation. If we look at the current craze for translating every title into Māori, we see the Inland Revenue Department is named Te Tari Taake, for example. The names of all other Government departments have Māori translations. We even have the Race Relations Commissioner suggesting that private companies should translate their names into Māori. So it is indeed extraordinary that there was no Māori title for this bill.

But then again, maybe that is not extraordinary. Maybe it is a reflection of the true spirit of this Government—that did not bother to provide a translation of the title, even though we have had the debacle over the translation in the preamble. By the time that the Government got to the title, it could not be bothered to provide a translation of it. That reflects that it is just paying lip-service to its alleged commitment to protecting Māori language and culture.

If the Government were really true to its principles, and if it really believed what it says about protecting the language, it would have used the resources that were used to provide the translation in the preamble to provide a translation of the title—not pages further on, not buried somewhere in the bill. It would have made the effort to provide a translation of the title in clause 1 if it were really true to its commitment to protecting Māori language and culture.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): In speaking to the title of this Māori Television Service Bill, I find it somewhat astonishing that the Labour Government forgot to put a Māori title on this bill. Not only did the Labour Government forget, but the Māori Affairs Committee forgot. Let us just have a look at what the main provision of the bill is supposed to do. The bill establishes the Māori Television Service and sets out its functions, which include, as its “principal” function, to promote te reo Māori. I repeat, its “principal” function is to promote te reo Māori. Just 24 hours ago, we were debating the National Library bill, and what did the Government have to say? It said the bill provided the Māori world with a presence within the National Library by including the existing Māori name of the National Library. Why is it that the Minister of Māori Affairs forgot to put the name in Māori, and it took my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to bring an amendment in tonight to satisfy the principal function of this bill? I certainly endorse the timely and appropriate amendment that she has made.

I might say that there is a considerable and somewhat colourful background to this bill. Indeed, the title should perhaps reflect some of the other things that have gone on. Maybe it would have been appropriate to have called this bill the “Helen Clark and Dr Ross Armstrong Memorial Bill”, or perhaps even the “Labour Government (Support a Canadian Fraudster) Bill”. I say that because on 15 March 2002, one Parekura Horomia said of John Davies: “He’s the best person for the job.” Speaking about applications for the job, Derek Fox went on to say that there was no perfect answer, but that the board had come down on the side of strong financial and management control. Derek Fox said: “I am confident the guy will deliver.” So there is another alternative—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please come back to the title.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —or perhaps we could just call it the “Derek Fox Fund Bill”. Speaking strictly to the title, I say that because on 26 October 2001 the chairman’s fee was set at $36,000. A year later, on 22 September 2002, one Derek Fox was paid $84,000 as a pay cheque; $50,000 in expenses. But the other and final alternative—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I bring the member back to the title.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —this is going to the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is a very narrow debate.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: It could be just the “Parekura Horomia (Let’s put the Māori Title in at the Last Moment) Bill”, because that really is the point of it. We have had three amendments in a couple of hours about something that was so plainly obvious. This is the bill that has as its principal function the promotion of te reo Māori. It took my colleague—fortunately, conscientious and studious—to remind the Committee that that vital function should actually be adhered to in the title of this bill.

I must say I was interested to hear Dover Samuel’s somewhat shrill concern that he had forgotten to place the Māori translation to the title of this bill. He did bring up the difficulty that he was prepared to give the Ngāpuhi translation, but that that could possibly be different from the Tuwharetoa translation. So when the Minister gets around to talking about why he failed so miserably in the first instance to place a Māori title to this bill, I am hoping that he will be able to accurately describe his title.

MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): In the hope that the next speaker is more relevant and speaks to the title, I am going to call the honourable member Jim Peters.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): “Relevance” is the real issue in this title—the relevance of time, the relevance of intention, and the relevance of where we are now in 2003. This bill looks at a period of optimism right back in 2000, when there was a brave new world out there for those sitting on the other side of the Chamber. In their ignorance, they thought that all things were possible, and in a buoyant economy, it seemed that all things were possible. Most of all, they thought they could remedy the previous Government’s inability to translate the 1993 decision into action. The title of the Māori Television Service Bill reflects that exactly It reflects the optimism of members over there, and the expectations they had of somehow accomplishing the intention that the Privy Council had put before them—which was also the feeling amongst Māori television people and the industry.

Sadly, although there were 10 submissions—nine of which were heard—and 3 hours of committee consideration, a year later we sit here with an unfulfilled intention with regard to the title of the Māori Television Service Bill. Therefore, in view of the discussions that have already gone before, I rise to support my colleagues’ very firm intention that—unlike the members opposite, who somehow got it wrong—we on this side of the Chamber now have two alternatives. Each one of them recognises in its language and spirit what those members should have recognised—that this title deserved to be not the Māori Television Service Bill, but something that would truly reflect the aspirations of those who look to have the language in a secure place, and in terms of their original desire—one that would be placed in the perspective of our airwaves and before our eyes visually, which is one of the marks of modern television. I support my colleagues’ intention in terms of the pathway, or roadway, to the whole world that this visual demonstration, which is our modern television service, can and ought to open up.

I am mindful of the fact that where I come from, 18 percent of people will never see this television station, because that is the reality with regard to the choice of frequency that this bill will put into place, should present plans go ahead. In our district, 18 percent will never see this channel, and that is a shame. That is a real issue for the Minister to consider.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Party 8.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 1 be agreed to:

to insert after the word “Service”, the words “(Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori)”; and

to add the following new subclause :

(2) this Act may be cited as either—

the Māori Television Service Act 2003; or

Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori Act 2003.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just before you tell us the outcome of the vote, and given your ruling earlier with regard to the translation of Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment, I ask whether there is a translation of the Minister’s amendment. Otherwise, it is difficult for those of us who do not understand the Māori language to know which way we should be voting. I wonder whether there is a translation on the Table, as you have ruled that there should be.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that a translation has not been done, and also that it is not mandatory that one needs to be done.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I merely wish to say that when my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu put her amendment, she did translate it for the Committee, and that was very helpful in allowing members to understand it. We were expecting that the Minister would also make the meaning of his amendment clear. It would certainly be very helpful if that were possible.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. The reality is that that is a decision for the Minister. The closure motion has been taken, and under the Standing Orders it is necessary that members take any points of order immediately, not later on. I now wish to announce the vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Party 8.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The difficulty we have now is that to my knowledge we have three, maybe more, amendments on the Table—all of which have additions in Māori in them. We now have an inconsistency in that we have a translation of one amendment and not of the other two. For the sake of consistency, I would have thought that there would be a translation of the three amendments. You are saying that there is no translation of the Minister’s amendment now, but I wonder whether you could instruct that for consistency a translation should be produced. Even if it happens after we have voted, it would be useful.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I again thank the member for his contribution. That is a matter for the Minister to decide. If he wishes to seek leave, he can do so. The reality is that we are now in the course of a series of votes, and those votes have to be completed. If the Minister wishes to take a call at the end of the votes, then that is for him to decide.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Under Standing Order 360 you may direct that bills, or whatever, be translated. I am asking that you give that direction in respect of those amendments—it does not have to be immediately—in order to have consistency, and because of the decision you made after dinner that the rest should be translated, as well. It seems odd that one amendment be translated, but not the other two.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member again. I just say that I am required to put the question. That means that at this stage there is no further debate on that issue. I will now put the question.

Murray Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that under Standing Order 124, when an amendment is tabled, the question on it must be put before that of another amendment. My understanding is that amendments should be put in the order in which they are tabled, and that Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment was tabled before the Minister’s amendment, and therefore should be put to the Committee before his.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is good to see the member doing his homework. I refer him to Standing Order 301, which states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” I now wish to continue the voting. As members are aware, there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to add a new subclause (2). That amendment is now out of order, because the Minister’s amendment has been agreed. Her amendment is therefore inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendment is in the name of the honourable Bill Gudgeon. That too is out of order as it is also inconsistent with the decision that has already been taken with the passing of the Minister’s amendment.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is a very strange ruling. The fact is that the Committee has certainly made an amendment. It now accepts the Minister’s amendment, but that does not mean to say that the Committee, if it were of a mind, could not make further amendments to the bill. It is not inconsistent. I know that there are times when an amendment is inconsistent as a consequence of a decision made, but this is not inconsistent. It means that if Georgina te Heuheu’s or Bill Gudgeon’s amendment were accepted, that would then become the name of the bill. It does not mean that there is an inconsistency; it just means that the Committee has since moved on and changed its mind. It is not a matter of whether there is a conflict; it is a matter of the Minister’s amendment being one form of wording and the Committee deciding whether there is to be another form. In that case, I think we should be putting Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment. If that is passed, then we might want to consider Bill Gudgeon’s amendment, and the Committee will decide on both accordingly.

Jim Peters: A consideration of the Minister’s amendment, alongside that of my colleague Bill Gudgeon’s, in regard to the language used, will show a similarity of purpose and language intent. Therefore, there is no inconsistency. In view of that, not being inconsistent with the Minister’s intention, there seems to us to be no reason that Bill Gudgeon’s amendment cannot proceed, and that there is nothing inconsistent with the language that is used with regard to the total meaning of the Minister’s language.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I again say that the Committee has decided on the title, and it cannot go back over that. It means therefore that the other amendments are inconsistent. It is a longstanding tradition that where that happens, that is what takes place. I am the sole judge of relevancy.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Clause 1 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Party 8.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions and provisions to establish Māori Television Service and Te Pūtahi Paoho

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I want to make some comments in relation to the purpose clause, clause 3. I am pleased that Minister Turia is in the Chamber, because of all the Māori members on the other side of the Chamber, she is the one who thinks most deeply about the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I know she was not in the Chamber earlier when I made my remarks about the lack of clarity, in the preamble, as to whether the establishment of this service is in satisfaction of a treaty obligation or of some social obligation that the Government has tried to import into this whole arena.

The purpose clause states: “In recognition that the Crown and Māori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori, …” then it sets out certain purposes. I ask the Minister, or any Māori member on the other side of the Chamber, this question: where in the treaty is there an obligation on Māori to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori? Of course, Māori are going to do that anyway. In the face of the denigration of te reo for the last 163 years, Māori have doggedly insisted upon protection of te reo. I want to know why, when certain Crown obligations are being imported into legislation, the Government suddenly also imports an obligation on the part of Māori to protect it. What statutory, governance, or sovereign powers do Māori hold that give them an accountability for the protection of the Māori language? I refer again to page 3 of the preamble. Under the heading “Background in English”, paragraph (2) states: “In the litigation that culminated in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council … 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 …”. That is the Crown’s obligation.

The whole purpose of Māori taking litigation before both the tribunal and the courts was to prove an obligation on the part of the Crown, and in the Waitangi Tribunal report on te reo and in the litigation to the Privy Council, that was proven by the Māori litigants. Now, when this Government comes to set up a Māori Television Service, it is somehow important to that background to have, without any just cause, an obligation on the part of Māori. So there is a sort of partnership going on here, and it puts the obligation on both parties—Crown and Māori together. There is no such obligation on the part of Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. I want the Minister to take a call and say how he can sit there, allow this legislation to go through the House, and somehow be part of importing into it an obligation on the part of Māori to protect the Māori language.

This legislation is all about the obligations incumbent upon the Crown, and let us not forget that. But that is symptomatic of the mishmash of obligations and responsibilities that are littered throughout this bill, and that is why, in one of my opening contributions this afternoon, I raised the issue of whether the Government is sincere in suggesting that this is indeed in satisfaction of those obligations that the Privy Council found to be existing in 1993. As I say, I want the Minister to explain that to us, because it is not good enough. When the Māori Television Service came before the Māori Affairs Committee it raised that very issue of where the treaty imports an obligation on the part of Māori to protect the Māori language. Māori have been the victims of this non-protection of te reo ever since the signing of the treaty. So how does this make sense? I am suggesting that it does not make sense. It is importing into something an idea that is not there and has no right to be there.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): It is very interesting to see the reference to the year 2001. Quite simply, it is a case of wishful thinking on the part of the Government to have ever thought that this bill would be passed during 2001. I do remember standing here and asking the Minister when he thought the Māori Television Service was going to be on air, and he told the House that he hoped it would be by the middle of 2001. Well, here we are, a couple of years later, and we do not even have a start date for this television station. What project would we ever find in the private sector that would invest millions of dollars per annum without a project start date in mind? It would not happen in the private sector. This project is the flagship project of the Government, and it has just been an absolute disaster from start to finish.

This part deals with the establishment of the service. Let us just remember a few facts about the establishment of the service. It is a little known fact that the Māori Television Service has been acting without any official status whatsoever, and that is why Te Puni Kōkiri has been largely responsible for every decision, or lack of decision, that has been made by the Māori Television Service over the last 3 years. Let us just remember the appointment of Mr John Davy. When it transpired in the New Zealand Herald that there were some concerns about Mr Davy’s qualifications, what did we hear from Derek Fox? He said that the appointment process was “robust and correct.” [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Running commentaries are out of order. The member might like to have a look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5.

KATHERINE RICH: He said that Mr Davy was doing “a great job” and that there was no reason to question his qualifications or to look behind his degree, which, if I remember rightly, was from the Ashland School of Business, a university that exists only on the Internet. So what did the Government do next? It bagged Millennium People and its management of the appointment process. Michael Cullen stood up in the House and said that Millennium People was a “bunch of amateurs” and that the whole process was an absolute shambles. That poor company is no longer, as a result of the negative comments of the Government.

This part sets up the accountability framework of the Māori Television Service, and that, I think, is something that all members of the Committee are very interested in. We have been wanting to know for a long time how accountable the Māori Television Service is in terms of its expenditure. One of the key things that the directors seemed to make up their minds about was the level of their fees and an increase in their fees. In terms of accountability, because they have no legal status, some of the decisions that have been made quite clearly would not stack up in other circumstances. I refer to things like questionable tendering processes—the idea that one can have a closed tender and invite only a few friends to put in a tender for certain equipment and buildings—and looking at swanky premises down at the Viaduct with views of the America’s Cup. No television business in its right mind would set up in the most expensive real estate in Auckland, overlooking, I might add, premises in other areas of Auckland city that are less expensive.

I am glad this part deals with the whole issue of conflict of interest, because some really quite unusual decisions were made by some board members, such as the whole idea that a tender could be let to Sony—and, miraculously, one of the directors on the board just happened to be an employee of Sony. The whole project, from start to finish, has been mishandled, and I think the Minister knows that. Things have happened within the Māori Television Service that, quite frankly, would not be acceptable in any other Government department. But things have been allowed to muddle on. We do not have a start date. That is an absolute shambles.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): Part 1 mentions the commencement. The question is, when? What are the delays, and why? Is it funding or the lack of it? Who is responsible? Is it management? The taxpayers are asking questions. When will the bill receive the royal assent? Those are the questions that are out there, and amongst us in this Committee. Why, where, and what? How? Who is responsible? Millions of dollars are being invested in this programme, but nothing has happened yet.

Part 1 sets out the purpose. It describes the purpose as recognition that the Crown and Māori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve, protect, and promote te reo. The purpose of this Act is to provide for the establishment and functions to protect te reo Māori. That is what the purpose should be about. It is all about how, what, where, and why. What will the outcomes be? Will it just be another form of entertainment? As I said before, would it not be interesting to conduct a survey to see how much of the language will be learnt through this form of media? When this programme gets going, will there be facilitators who will help assist those learners of the language when they view those programmes? That is the real crux and challenge of that programme. The Government says that it will hold fast to the Treaty of Waitangi obligations of the Crown, and it says it will protect the language so that people will learn their tikanga and those things that are dear to them in the language, especially. Yet, where is the provision for assistance when that programme gets going? For example, what if my people say: “I don’t understand what’s being said on that programme. How am I supposed to learn when there is nobody there to facilitate?”. How are they to say to us that the vowel sounds are not right—that it is not “a, e, i, o, u.” but “ah eh, ee, o, oo” in order to be precise on the pronunciation of the language? That is the challenge. If $55 million is to be spent on this programme each year, it had better have very, very positive results, otherwise people will be saying: “Plastic Māori, waste of time, waste of money.”

My challenge to the Government, and to the Minister, is to have those programmes in place so that the purpose—which, I hope, is the Government’s idea of promoting and learning about the language—will be fulfilled. If they are not, where does it stand as a party? That is what it is all about. If the money is being provided, produce the goods. Let us see the outcome. Let us hear the outcome. I am expecting a big rise in the percentage of people who will be able to speak Māori. I will not be satisfied until that proof is before us and we hear it. That is the challenge. Where is the purpose? What is that purpose? Is it enough to say that the Crown has fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi by providing a television channel for Māori to be heard? What about the language being learnt? That is what it is all about. Otherwise, the taxpayers will want to get rid of it. We have a say in this country about what happens to that money and how it is being spent.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I rise to put forward a very non-controversial amendment that I am hoping all members of the House will support. Indeed, I am expecting even the members from ACT to support this amendment, because it seeks simply to strengthen the political independence of the Māori Television Service. It is extremely important that we ensure the preservation of the independence of that service, because it is more or less totally dependent on Government funding. Hopefully, there will be some advertising and the ability to enter into some agreements with other interests, but basically it will be totally dependent on the Government. So it is important—because we know the old expression about he or she who pulls the purse strings—that we try to include in the legislation as many provisions as we possibly can to preserve the independence of the Māori television service.

There is an existing section on independence in the existing Act, but it is extremely weak. It asks only for the responsible members of Te Pūtahi—I am sorry, I am having to think with my colleagues chatting loudly next door. What I am saying is that the existing provisions may look all right on the surface, but in fact they would enable many other persons to give directions to the service. What the legislation states is that responsible Ministers must not direct the service, but it does not refer to any other Minister directing the service, or any person acting by, or on behalf of, the direction of the Minister, and so forth. All I have done is to take the provisions about political independence that are in the Television New Zealand Bill, and included them in an amendment that will make it clear that it is not just the responsible Ministers who may not direct the service with respect to a particular programme and so forth, but also any other Ministers, or any person acting by, or on behalf of, or at the direction of, any Minister.

It is important, because I think there is real potential for political interference in Māori television from the “person who pays the piper”. There may be a temptation to try to pull the strings, and so the potential would exist for political interference. All that the amendment seeks to do, very non-controversially, is to strengthen the provisions so that they are virtually identical to the provisions in the Television New Zealand Bill, so that a Minister will not be able to interfere with a particular programme, allegation, or complaint in the gathering or presentation of news, or preparation of current affairs, or programme standards.

The amendment is focused on protecting the editorial content of Māori television programmes from political interference. It is not talking about other issues like financial issues. It is simply saying that there may not be ministerial interference in the editorial direction of a particular programme, the gathering of news, the preparation of current affairs, or programme standards.

I see that the Minister of Education is looking extremely worried over there. I point out to him that those provisions, basically, have been taken and modelled on the provisions in the Television New Zealand Bill. We have sought official assistance with our amendment, so I think he should cease to be worried. It is simply an amendment to ensure that there is no potential political interference in the editorial content of Māori television. That is extremely important for all of us to ensure in this bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I just want to ask the member who has moved this amendment a brief question. That is: was it her intention to open up, as a result of this amendment, the ability of board directors to direct on editorial or presentation matters? That is what this amendment does.

Sue Kedgley: No.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): I take this opportunity to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, to explain some matters to members of the Committee and members of the public who are interested in this bill before the House tonight. The part before the Committee at the moment establishes the new Māori Television Service. That is contained in clause 7. The functions of the service are outlined in clause 8, and the powers of the service are outlined in clause 9.

Clause 9 is an important clause because it fundamentally changes the way the Māori Television Service will be able to transact its business. Members of the public who are listening to this debate may be staggered to know this, but for over 2 years, in the establishment phase of the Māori Television Service, as contracts have been entered into, executives have been appointed, directors have come and gone, the affairs of the Māori Television Service have been transacted through the Ministry of Māori Affairs, Te Puni Kōkiri. In that regard the signature of the Minister has been sought on many matters, and the signature of the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri on many more because the absence of provisions like clauses 7, 8, and 9, particularly clause 9, has meant there has been no lawful body available to transact the affairs of the service.

So what we have before the Committee tonight is a very important part of the bill, but it is also a very important opportunity for members on this side to ask the Minister to account for the way in which those powers have been used by his department, and by himself, to date. The first thing I want to do is ask him why that state of affairs exists. Why is it that a bill that should have been passed 2 years ago—a bill that the Prime Minister said publicly, over 2 years ago, she was getting pretty hacked off about the delays on—a bill that is so important to the Government and to the Minister, has taken so long to come to this Committee? Why is it that clauses 7, 8, and particularly 9, have taken so long to come to the Chamber so that the affairs of the Māori Television Service can be transacted by the directors and by the chief executive?

Until this bill gets its final reading, those matters will be discharged by the senior officials of Te Puni Kōkiri. I quoted to the House yesterday, I do it again today, a statement from the Prime Minister on 18 March 2001. She said this of the Māori Television Service: “I saw it was going around in circles and so I raised it at cabinet and what we’ve done is brought a group of officials together to get the clear options up to the cabinet. We just weren’t getting any proper advice to be honest”. The Prime Minister said that 2 years ago. I ask the Minister in the chair tonight why it has taken 2 years to get from that point of absolute frustration on the part of our Prime Minister, to today, to even have these important clauses in Part 1 come before the Committee. The Prime Minister, also 2 years ago, said this: “We want some options—and fast ... I want some decisions. I want us to be in a position to make some decisions instead of seeing the issue go round in circles at a bureaucratic level.”

Opposition member:: When was that?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Two years ago the Prime Minister said that. And for the last 2 years the Minister who sits in the chair tonight has prevailed over a scene of absolute chaos. I want the Minister to stand and take a call and tell us why it is that these important clauses to give effect to the legal entity of the Māori Television Service have taken him as long as this to get to this stage. The Prime Minister was annoyed with him 2 years ago, and I want to know how annoyed she is with him today. I have a pretty fair idea about that. [Interruption] I know that Mr Samuels is pretty annoyed with the Minister as well, and rightly so. He is a man who no doubt supports this bill—I do not. If we are to have a Māori Television Service, then the legal framework should be in place that is contained in Part 1.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I heard the speech of Bill Gudgeon early tonight, and I must say he is somewhat of an optimist in hoping that, in fact, the service will deliver. There are plenty of signs now, for anybody who wants to look at it, that this service cannot possibly deliver. In Part 1 we see another example of why the service will not deliver what it is intended to. I refer to clause 8, which talks about the functions of the service, and states: “(1) The principal function of the Service is to promote te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori through the provision of a high quality, cost-effective Māori television service, in both Māori and English, that informs, educates, and entertains a broad viewing audience, and, in doing so, enriches New Zealand’s society, culture, and heritage.” Subclause (2)(c) states that part of the functions of the service is to “ensure that, in its programming, the Service has regard to the needs and preferences of—(i) children participating in te reo Māori immersion education; and (ii) all persons learning te reo Māori”.

This afternoon a member who was part of the select committee told us that they questioned Derek Fox, the chief executive officer, about what his intentions were in regard to television, and whether it would educate. According to the select committee, he said no, definitely not, it would not be an educational channel, it would be there to entertain. Now we find that in terms of furthering te reo, and despite what the Act says, effectively what will happen to the money that is put into Māori television is that it will be for entertainment programmes. I wonder just how effective entertainment programmes will be, in order to educate New Zealanders in te reo.

The Act says that. The wording is there to say that it must educate, but most of us know Derek Fox, and most of us, I think, appreciate that Mr Derek Fox is not a person who listens particularly well. He is a person who has very firm ideas of what he is going to do, and no amount of words, in my view, will change what he does. If he says to the select committee that this television channel will simply be to entertain, not to educate, then I would rather believe him than believe what the Act states. The Act is simply the principle. It is what happens on the road that is important.

We will get a situation where we have a channel that is simply pouring all this money into an entertainment system that will not provide for te reo, and te reo education, in any meaningful sense. I go back to the point that firstly, now, we have a situation where funding is simply going to a marginal television station with a viewership that nobody can predict, that nobody knows, nobody has any idea how many there are. Certainly we know that the vast bulk of New Zealanders, and I think even the vast bulk of Māori, particularly given that a lot of Māori cannot even get the channel, will not get the benefit of that.

Coupled with that is an even more serious situation, that the bulk of funding will go to Māori television, and funding for the furtherance of te reo will not be available for any other television or radio station. I look at the press release put out by Te Māngai Pāho on 21 February 2003, which said Te Māngai Pāho had called for an urgent funding increase—note “an increase”, and the channel is not even off the ground—to enable it to cope with the new demands created by the Māori Television Service. That was in February—now it is April and we still have not got one. But at that point in February it still had inadequate funding for the television service that at that point did not exist. The Māori language, television, and broadcasting funding provider made the plea when it appeared before the Māori Affairs Committee at Parliament yesterday. Te Māngai Pāho board chairman Toby Curtis told the committee the level of television funding channelled through the agency had increased by more than 100 percent in the past 3 years. Te Māngai Pāho was administering 29.4 million dollars’ worth of television contracts this year, and that figure will rise to $40.3 million within 2 years. Almost all the funding—and that is $43.3 million—will go towards programmes to screen on the new Māori Television Service. If nobody is watching those programmes, what will we do?

JIM PETERS (NZ First): The Minister has probably not been in the situation of a small boy in the playground who is confronted by a big guy who says: “I can beat you with my hands tied behind my back.” As I look at the clauses in Part 1, that is the situation I see. I sympathise with the Minister, because that is the situation that this television service is in before it has even begun. It illustrates all the worst features of paternalism, and all the worst features of years and years of a partial pass-over, but not real authority. Why is that? The Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, is not remotely responsible for this service. Part 1 makes it very clear that that responsibility is shared with the Minister of Finance. So I am in great sympathy with the Minister of Māori Affairs before he even starts, because his hands are well tied, right up behind his back.

The funding for this service is not sufficient. I could go through some of these clauses concerned with administration—which, as we all know, are not sufficient—but the most frustrating part relates to the doubtful passing to the Minister of any proper responsibility. [Interruption] There may be laughter; time will tell. Despite what has been said by the previous member, the pitiful amount of money that has been put into the service is already on record. Those members over there may comment, but they should be ashamed of themselves because, with all the expectations that were there in 2000, and with all the intentions behind the submissions that were made to the select committee just over a year ago, they have allowed this bill to come to the Committee in an emasculated, reduced form, where the Minister in the chair really has no responsibility. Unlike my colleague Rodney Hide, who last week found out that the Minister is responsible, I say that, in terms of Part 1, it is very clear that the Minister is not responsible.

That is a way out, and the Minister of Finance will not bear the public burden for the fact that the Minister of Māori Affairs will not get this service going at all. Anyone who has been working in the television industry, and those who have come to the Committee with an understanding of the efforts of the previous Māori television service, will realise that exactly what I am saying will prove to be correct. That may be the reason the Minister’s amendment to clause 3 states that there could be a flick-off before the service has even started, and before we will retrospectively correct the malpractices of the past in regard to Mr Davy and others.

Clause 3 allows for the rights or the spectrum licence of the safely guarded and much cared for UHF spectrum to be transferred to a third party other than this service. Why is that? Is there an expectation that somewhere down the line, or in the very near future, this will not work, and that the very carefully selected frequency will not be able to be used in the long term? I would like the Minister to pick that matter up, if and when he chooses to rise. I would like to know why clause 3(ca) is there. Clause 5 very carefully sets out the intent for that frequency to be for the sole use of this television service.

Parts of the expected protections in regard to the appointment of directors will be difficult to achieve in the Māori world. No one working in Māori television will not have a conflict of interest. Nobody at present on the board does not have a conflict of interest, apart from the newly appointed chairman. From our side of the Chamber, I have to say that the new chairman does bring some semblance of conformity, experience, and expectation to the service, although this party does not support the furtherance of this bill.

Why? Again, I say that Part 1 gives no confidence in regard to who will have responsibility. Over the years to come, it will be a big drawback for the Minister to have his hands tied behind his back. It is the Minister of Finance who holds the portfolio, not the Minister of Māori Affairs.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I seek the leave of the Committee that at the conclusion of the debate on this part—whether it comes to an end, or by the acceptance of a closure motion—we move to Part 2 of the bill, and that the votes on Part 1, and any amendments thereto, be taken on the next day that this bill is considered, without debate

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Was that the closure motion—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, it is not a closure motion. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): There is some really worrying wording in Part 1 of this bill. If we look under the heading “Key provisions about Māori Television Service”, at clause 8(1), we see that: “The principal function of the Service is to promote te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori”. If one goes to the interpretation, one sees that “ngā tikanga Māori, for the purposes of this Act, means Māori custom, practice, and law”—not just “custom”, but “practice, and law”. Then if one goes to clause 9, “Powers of Service”, one sees that “For the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Service—(a) has full capacity to carry out or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction;”, and so on.

The principal function of this service is to promote Māori custom, practice, and law. That makes this legislation really political, because nowhere in the Privy Council ruling did it say that the Crown was required to promote Māori law. What is Māori law? Under this sort of legislation, Television New Zealand could be required to promote English law—and I would actually like Television New Zealand to be required to promote the English law that I favour. How come we have allowed it to slip through in this legislation that we will use taxpayer-funded public broadcasting to promote what this bill defines under ngā tikanga Māori? Until now, I understood that te reo Māori was the language, and tikanga Māori was custom, but, for the purposes of this bill, ngā tikanga Māori is taken to mean not just custom, but practice and law. There is considerable Māori practice in law that would be abhorrent to most New Zealanders—and I refer to historic, and not current, practices—

Hon Dover Samuels: What’s that?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Eating people, and capturing and enslaving people. I am not saying that they are contemporary practices, but there are things that people would find abhorrent, so why are we allowing taxpayers’ money to fund the promotion of Māori law?

Furthermore, will this bill override the powers of the censor, who would find some Māori law or customary practice objectionable to the public? I am not saying that the Māori Television Service will promote that, but this legislation enables Māori television to promote Māori law. I think that is highly questionable.

I invite the Minister to take a call, and—to use the same words he used earlier tonight—to say quite clearly what is meant by that, and to reassure this Committee and the people of New Zealand as to what the principal function of this service will mean. Under Part 1, it seems to me that the powers of service of the Māori Television Service are very wide indeed. They are boundless, and could encompass anything that Te Pūtahi Paoho deems fit. Te Pūtahi Paoho is another bottomless pit for taxpayers’ money, which will be funded out of the consolidated account, and not out of the appropriation for the Māori Television Service. The setting up of that comes in under Part 1, too. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us what the exact role of Te Pūtahi Paoho is.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): I thank the Chair very much for the opportunity to speak on Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori Bill, which I believe this bill now is. I am delighted that that is the case. We are speaking on Part 1, but I must say that even though it was belated, we looked forward to the translation from the Minister. It is good that this bill is in line with, for instance, the National Library bill that we talked about earlier.

But I want to talk about aspects of the purpose of the bill. The purpose clause states: “In recognition that the Crown and Māori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve, protect, and promote te reo Māori, … ”. If one goes to the commentary on the bill and looks at the background to it, one sees it states that that is the key principle behind it. This bill stems from the Waitangi Tribunal’s 1986 te reo Māori claim Wai 11, which found that te reo Māori is an essential part of Māori culture, that it must be regarded as taonga, and that the Crown is obliged to take active steps to protect it.

I have just been reading a most excellent article by Moerangi Vercoe on the Privy Council’s decision. I understand that in litigation relating to that decision in 1993 the Crown accepted that te reo Māori was in a serious state of decline. Just to demonstrate how serious that was, I note from the report of the Māori Broadcasting Advisory Committee in 1973 that the status of te reo was that in the order of 13 percent of Māori had high fluency in te reo, but that by 1995, 8.1 percent of Māori had high fluency, and one then goes on to find that in June 2000 only 4 percent of Māori had high fluency in te reo. Now that may be something to do with the demography and the high fertility rates of the Māori population, but nevertheless that is the background. In that litigation by the Privy Council, the Crown outlined a time frame for addressing that issue that included the development of a special purpose Māori television service.

I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to the Committee whether there was ever an evidence base as to why television is the best way to promote te reo Māori or tikanga Māori. Is there any real evidence to substantiate that? Will the Minister take a call and substantiate why the flagship policy arising from that decision should be the establishment of a body corporate to run a television service, as is embodied by this bill? That is an absolutely fundamental issue, and I do not believe there has ever been an explanation of that. I wonder if that is the reason that this bill has been, as my colleague Murray McCully describes it, a sea of absolute chaos ever since it was in the hands of the Minister, Parekura Horomia.

Indeed, I note that there is no clear commencement date. On 11 November 2000, Parekura Horomia said that the Māori Television Service would be launched early in the next year, in 2001. He said it would use only the Māori language in 2001, and then said that using only the Māori language would make the channel unwatchable for most Māori. That is what he said. It was quite fascinating that by 18 February 2001 none other than the Hon Helen Clark said that she saw the establishment of the service was going round and round in circles. This bill has no evidence base whatsoever as to its reason for being. After a year of the Minister saying it would be up and going, the Prime Minister said it was going round and round in circles and she wanted options, fast. She said that she wanted some decisions and wanted Labour to be in a position to make some decisions, instead of seeing the issue go round and round in circles at a bureaucratic level. It was not until 25 February—

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): I move, That the question be now put.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens are very pleased to support this bill, but we have some amendments that we indicated in our earlier speeches on the bill. One of the amendments that relate to this part, in addition to our first one, is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 77. In that Supplementary Order Paper the Minister makes an amendment to clause 3 of the bill by adding paragraph (ca). That paragraph concerns the safeguarding of the UHF right, and where that spectrum may be leased or transferred to a third party, which is not the Māori Television Service, for the promotion of te reo and tikanga in television.

The Greens are putting forward an amendment, fairly minor at this stage, to replace the words “principal functions” in that additional paragraph with the words “functions as set out in clause 8.” That amendment is intended to ensure that all the clauses concerning the transfer of the UHF right are related specifically to the entirety of the functions and the purposes of the Māori Television Service, and to make sure that all those purposes are integral to any service provider, whether it is the Māori Television Service or a third party. This amendment, minor though it is, will ensure that this clause will be consistent with later amendments that we will put forward on Part 2. The totality of those amendments will go in some way towards protecting the UHF spectrum right, while making sure that that spectrum is used for the promotion and protection of te reo and tikanga and also that the service provided is delivered in a way that maximises access for all people over the whole of the motu and has regard to the learners of te reo. I urge all members to support and vote for the amendment to that clause.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I find it very interesting to consider the Māori Television Service Bill so soon after we considered the Television New Zealand Bill. On looking through Part 1, I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I trust will be capable of reasonably straightforward answers.

In the purposes set out in Part 1, we have the first reference to the joint responsibilities of the chair of Te Pūtahi Paoho and the responsible Ministers, and to the process for the resolution of disputes between them. In fact, the provisions for the resolution of disputes are all set out in the schedules, so that is a minor technical mistake. But putting that aside, the bill sets up a structure that appears destined to cause grief. So often that is the case with matters affecting Māori, where the Crown ducks hard questions and, essentially, decides to use rhetoric or slogans in the law, and fails to apply the same standard of care and precaution to avoid future problems that it would apply to any other group in the community. Once again, it is that bigotry of low expectations.

The bill sets up joint responsibilities for the electoral college and the Minister, and then purports to set up a dispute resolution process that is not anything of the kind, but is instead a provision for mediation. Yet mediation does not settle disputes if the parties are at odds for very sound reasons; mediation just provides a way in which they can talk to each other. One would be very surprised if they had not already talked to each other until they were sick of it, before they get to the stage of appointing a formal mediator. The mediation outcome could simply be better-informed disgust, anger, and frustration with each other. I ask the Minister why we have a position whereby a body that is to receive $55 million in the first year, and probably much more later, is set up with no clear ownership and no clear, single way of giving it instructions. What we have here is evidence of extreme patronising of Māori, by establishing the form of Māori control and the reality of Māori frustration. This bill, in its dispute resolution process, is infinitely patronising. There may be a simple explanation for that, but it is almost a recipe for deadlock and frustration.

The schedules—I cannot address the schedules yet but they are, of course, referred to in Part 1, which we are debating—provide for the removal of directors. Clause 10, which is supposed to establish editorial independence and does not do so, states in a very obscure way that the responsible Ministers cannot collectively give directions to the service, but it does not state that Ministers cannot do so individually. It states that Te Pūtahi Paoho or a member of it—so that catches them both collectively and individually—cannot give a direction. Then it states that a director acting without the authority of the board cannot direct the service, but of course that means that the board can do so. What exactly is intended here by editorial independence?

Then the bill goes on to state in schedule 2, which refers back to clause 10(1)(a) to (d), that nobody can be sacked for a matter that is covered in that clause. What does that mean? Does it mean people cannot be sacked if they breach that provision? Or does it mean they cannot be sacked if they do not breach it but the body, Te Pūtahi Paoho, still believes they are not performing and delivering what they are supposed to deliver? I say to the Minister that someone must have thought through what that means, but it is completely opaque to me.

I am also concerned about the matter raised by my colleague Deborah Coddington: that the service has full rights, powers, and privileges to do anything it wants in the promotion of Māori custom, practice, and law. What does that mean in terms of te reo? It may well be that the greatest attention will come to this body if it actually carries genuine debate.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;United Future 8.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): As per the leave of the Committee granted earlier, the question will be put at a later date.

Part 2 Key provisions relating to appointment and duties of directors, transfer of UHF right, accountability of Service, and establishment of related entities

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

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

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

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

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

Hon John Tamihere: Oh, get a life!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Dover Samuels: No, no.

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

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

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

David Benson-Pope: Fiji or Waiheke Island?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.

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

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

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

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.