Mr SPEAKERI have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Cabinet decision to support a joint bid from the Māori Television Service, Television New Zealand, and TV3 for free-to-air television broadcasting rights for the Rugby World Cup 2011. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I consider it does deserve the immediate attention of the House. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a little perplexed by your statement that there was a Cabinet decision to support a particular bid. I am unaware of that.
All I can—[ Interruption] I am dealing with a point of order. All I can quote is a www.beehive.govt.nz release, under the name of the Prime Minister, that states: “Prime Minister John Key says Cabinet today agreed to support a joint bid …”. [ Interruption] I am dealing with an important matter, and there will be silence. I am not party to Cabinet discussions, so there is no way that I can judge these matters beyond the evidence that is made available to me in support of a request for an urgent debate.
At the end of the day I have to make a judgment on these matters. In this case, on the basis of the Government’s own statement, it appeared that Cabinet did make a decision, because that is what the Prime Minister has stated. In terms of the other matters I have to consider, such as whether it involved ministerial responsibility, it clearly did. As to whether it is a matter that is of sufficient importance to set aside the general business of the House, the Government sees it being of sufficient importance to have a Minister for the Rugby World Cup. As to whether it involves taxpayers’ dollars, it does.
On all counts I could not see how, in fairness, I could not grant this request for an urgent debate. As this matter does not involve legislation, I see no other opportunity to debate it in the near future, and that is why I accepted the request for an urgent debate. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to lead that debate.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. It is symbolic of the absolute shambles with which the rights to the broadcasting of the Rugby World Cup were allocated that the Minister opposite, the Leader of the House, did not know that the Government had made a decision on broadcasting rights with regard to the Rugby World Cup. Mr Brownlee must have been asleep at the time, which would not be unusual from what his colleagues have told me.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not asleep, but I was in the country.
I accept that that is in good humour, but the member should not interrupt another member’s debate in that manner. That is not acceptable. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although not challenging your ruling, and I note that you accept Mr Brownlee’s intervention as being good humoured, I simply ask you to reflect latterly on what happened last week, when you made certain rulings and rendered certain sanctions. Again, last week that member transgressed eight times and you dealt with him in exactly the way you did today. There was no penalty and no remedy. I ask you to reflect on balance.
Could I politely suggest to the honourable member that I do not think his point of order is that helpful. I have just pointed out that the member should not interrupt the Leader of the Opposition like that.
I should point out to people around the country who are listening to this debate that Mr Brownlee is the Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and he did not know that his Government had made a decision about broadcasting rights. But I will say in defence of Gerry Brownlee that I am not surprised, as there was so much confusion and so much chaos. This was an absolute fiasco, which was admitted even by the Prime Minister when he said: “We could have done it better.” That must be the understatement of the year.
The absolute shambles that has marked the Government’s handling of this issue, not to mention the issue of accident compensation and the situation with the emissions trading scheme, shows that this Government lacks leadership, lacks any coherence, and lacks management of what its Ministers are doing. No less than a third—a third—of the National Cabinet was involved in this decision: the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, Gerry Brownlee as Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Mr McCully as Minister for the Rugby World Cup, the Minister of Broadcasting, Georgina te Heuheu, and Dr Pita Sharples. There were seven of them, a third of the Cabinet, and they could not get their act together. They were not listening to each other, they were not talking to each other, and they did not agree with each other about how to secure the broadcasting rights for free-to-air television viewing for the Rugby World Cup.
Instead, the Government ended up with a very sorry saga of Ministers attacking each other in public, Ministers launching personal attacks on the heads of Government departments, and Ministers attacking the broadcasting agencies and saying things to the public that people like Jim Mather said were absolutely untrue. This debate has been requested to hold the Government to account for its absolutely incompetent handling of this affair.
I am worried that with an event like this, which will be one of the biggest in the sporting history of this country, we have seen the initial handling of the event by the National Government as being so incompetent. It makes us wonder how safe the investment of $300 million of taxpayer funds in this event will be. We worry even more when the losses expected from ticket sales have gone up by $9 million in the last couple of weeks. When we see the saga of incompetence in handling the broadcasting issues, we wonder how this Government will deliver in a successful way something that the eyes of the world will be on.
We ended up with the absolute farce of taxpayer-funded agencies using public money to outbid each other, to fill the pockets of the International Rugby Board. How can that make sense? I ask how it can make sense to have two different Government agencies using taxpayer money to enrich the International Rugby Board, when this Government keeps saying that it is cutting adult and community education because it cannot afford it. It could afford it if it showed some competence in the way it was running these issues.
If we are talking about money and the emissions trading scheme, there is the $30 billion, which Dr Nick Smith never told the country about, that it will cost New Zealand taxpayers, by 2050, to subsidise polluters. It is another example of a shambles and of absolute incompetence. This Government cannot even run a select committee to hear the evidence. There were 300 submissions and the Government wanted to hear them in 1 day. How much notice—
The specific debate sought was to do with broadcasting arrangements for the Rugby World Cup. I apologise for interrupting the honourable Leader of the Opposition, but I was listening for quite a while to the member debating other issues. This is not a general debate; this is specifically on the urgent debate requested.
Speaking to the point of order, I was simply drawing out the fact that the shambles in the management of the broadcasting rights for the Rugby World Cup was not isolated to one event. There is a pattern and it involves several different policy issues—
I am happy for the member to refer in passing to other matters that may be causing concern, but I stress that the bulk of the debate seemed to be moving away from the matter sought in this urgent debate.
Some serious questions need to be answered by Mr Brownlee when he takes his call. The first question relates to the fact that under statute the broadcasting agencies are meant to be independent of Government direction. What happened to those statutory provisions? The Government was donkey deep in telling the respective agencies what they should be doing. This Government is ignoring the rule of law. This Government is meant to be acting under a statutory provision but it has ignored it. Secondly, there is the serious question of why, I say to Mr Brownlee, we are using taxpayers’ money at all to fund those broadcasting free-to-air rights, when this should be a commercial decision made by those who are bidding for them.
The International Rugby Board is laughing all the way to the bank, because it knows that every extra million dollars that the Government uses to subsidise this bid for broadcasting rights is the amount by which it can up the price to the New Zealand taxpayer. This decision ought to have been a commercial decision. It was not, and the only thing that has been achieved is to play into the hands of the International Rugby Board and the amount of money that will have to be paid for the free-to air rights. The net impact of Government money has been simply to raise the price expectations of the International Rugby Board. The net impact of ministerial involvement in this area seems to have been only to increase the confusion, rather than facilitate a resolution.
Mr Brownlee should answer a third question in the absence of John Key being prepared to do so. It is about ministerial ethics. I ask the question directly of Gerry Brownlee: did a Government Minister leak details of the Māori Television Service’s bid to Television New Zealand (TVNZ)? It is a simple question, but a very important question, because it comes down to a matter of ethics. How could any commercial organisation ever trust the National Government to deal with commercially sensitive material in an appropriate and ethical way if this is the lesson of what happens to commercial bids when they are passed across to a Minister?
Pita Sharples has been reasonably clear about this. He said that the handling of the bidding process by other Ministers was “not squeaky clean”. That was the other master of understatements that was made. Then Jonathan Coleman was asked on TV3 whether he leaked that material. Members should listen to the answer; I am sure it will persuade everybody. He said: “I cannot recall giving them specific information.” Jonathan Coleman knows the truth—that is, Government Ministers did leak that information. That is not just poor ethics. That is not just bad commercial practice. It shows absolutely bad faith between Ministers. One Minister gives information to another Minister, only to find that that information is leaked to a third party bidding against the first organisation.
Where was the leadership of John Key on this matter? What did he say? Let me quote it to the House: “The process was far from perfect and National ministers need to take their fair share of responsibility for that.” What about the John Key who promised this country, earlier this year, that he expected high standards from his Ministers. I ask Mr Brownlee where the high standards were when it came to Ministers leaking commercially sensitive information. Then Mr Key said about his MPs and his Cabinet that there would be a no-surprises policy. Well, the National Ministers claimed that Pita Sharples dumped the surprise on them. Pita Sharples contributed to that by apologising for it.
But what do we find out when we see the information about the time lines? We find out that Bill English knew back in June about this bid. He knew in June about the Te Puni Kōkiri money that had been put up. When we look through the sorry saga of it, Mr Sharples met with Mr English to talk about the plan. Georgina te Heuheu was in the room when it happened. The Māori Television Service bid stayed on the table. Bill English said he was going to give some thought to it. He gave some thought to it! Pita Sharples found out when TVNZ came in with a rival bid informed by the leaked information, which absolutely surprised Pita Sharples. I do not think it is good enough for Mr Key to say that he did not know whether any of his Ministers had leaked commercially sensitive information to TVNZ, and that he did not plan to ask them.
Here it is: the Prime Minister talks about high standards, and sees an absolute example of low standards—unacceptable, unethical, and non-collegial behaviour—and says he will not ask and will not tell. That is John Key’s definition of transparency. He instead blamed confusion among “a lot of Ministers engaged on our side with different responsibilities”. A lot of Ministers involved with different responsibilities! I served for 9 years under Helen Clark. She never made excuses about not fulfilling the role of leadership when different Ministers were involved with cross-portfolio issues. The chairman of Cabinet manages that process.
This Government’s management has been an absolute shambles, and it brings into real doubt whether it is competent to manage the process of the Rugby World Cup, which the previous Labour Government secured for this country, working in collaboration with the New Zealand Rugby Union board. This event, if properly managed, promises to be a huge success for New Zealand, but what confidence will New Zealanders have about the competency of this Government to manage the process, when it has begun in this way?
I will finish by raising a conflict between Jonathan Coleman and Jim Mather, the Chief Executive of Māori Television. I ask Gerry Brownlee another question: who is telling the truth? Jonathan Coleman said that the Government made it clear to the Māori Television Service in the week before the bids went in. He said that that is what it was going to do. Jim Mather said that Dr Coleman was incorrect in his statement that the Government contacted Māori Television prior to the bid being submitted. One of those men is not telling the truth, I say to Mr Brownlee. I want him to tell the truth about which one of those men is telling a lie about what he did. Here is another comment from Mr Coleman. He said the Māori Television Service had decided it wanted to go it alone. Jim Mather says that Maori Television did not decide to go it alone, as stated by Dr Coleman. Is Dr Coleman ignorant of what was happening or was he being deliberately misleading in the statements he made?
Here is a Government where the Ministers are blaming and attacking each other. The Ministers are blaming their heads of departments and speaking to them in unprofessional language. Here is a Government whose Ministers are out attacking the chief executives of the broadcasting agencies in a way that reveals that it is they, the Ministers, who do not know what is happening or do not want to know. This is a Government that does not take responsibility for itself; it is a Government that seeks to blame everybody else. But there is only one body of people responsible for this fiasco—this shambles. That is the National Cabinet, which did not get its act together, despite the fact that seven of its Ministers were working on the broadcasting rights. It did not come out with a coherent policy and it interfered where it should not have interfered. It used taxpayers’ money in a way that will up the cost to the taxpayer, without lowering the cost of getting those broadcasting rights.
No wonder this is a Government that has a Leader of the House who did not want to debate this issue today. He did not want to debate this issue today because he knows that this is a Government that does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to its utter incompetence in managing the shambles over the broadcasting rights.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup) Link to this
What does someone do if he is the Leader of the Opposition, has been out of the country for 3 weeks, has not been on TV, has his whole caucus rioting and running around with Hansards stuck in their back pockets and doing the numbers, and then has to come into the House and make a big impression because there has been a poll in the weekend that says “Sorry, son, it’s over”? Well, apparently, picking on the Rugby World Cup—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You made an intervention on the Leader of the Opposition in respect of relevance. I invite you to consider the content of the 40 seconds or 1 minute of this speech and tell me how it was relevant. I invite you to intervene.
The Speaker will be the sole judge of that. I might point out that it was, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition who sought to have the debate. So, if anything, there is a greater responsibility there.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
The Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to come to the House today and talk about what this country is doing about the $250 million a week it is borrowing to hold up the lifestyle in this country. He was not prepared to talk about what we are doing to grow the economy in this country. He was not prepared to talk about what we are doing about the violent crime that we have to stop in this country. He was not prepared to talk about any of those issues. He is worried that all New Zealanders will now be able to see the Rugby World Cup free to air. This is a huge success for this Government and there is no other way of looking at it.
We have made sure that every New Zealander will be able to view all 48 matches of the Rugby World Cup free to air, with the major matches playing across three television channels. Māori Television has shown that it is a serious player in the broadcasting arena, and I would have thought that Parekura Horomia might be celebrating that. But instead he is running around buying into Phil Goff’s silly nonsense, which is designed only to have him standing up in the House today pretending that he is still the leader of a viable party. It is unbelievable.
This House has a programme this afternoon that will cause us to take urgency to move it on. This programme comprises serious issues that affect the lives of New Zealanders, day by day. This utter nonsense from Mr Goff makes a complete mockery of the idea of having a reasonable Opposition that goes out to test a Government. I cannot believe the Leader of the Opposition. He has been away from the country for 3 weeks, having gone on this jaunt around the world telling everybody what his job is, and upon coming back here and seeing what a mess his party is, and how low he is rating in the opinion polls, he has decided that we should have a snap debate about why New Zealanders should be able to see the Rugby World Cup free of charge on their television sets. It is unbelievable.
I do not intend to take the allotted time, because it is a waste of time. I simply say that this is a good result for the Government. It is a tragic day for the Opposition when the best thing it can talk about, with all that is happening in this country, and all the difficulties and challenges we face, is its concern about what happened last week. That is typical!
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this
I think I might try to bring the temperature down a little. It is fair to say, given the comments that have been made in the past week both by the Prime Minister and the Hon Tariana Turia, on behalf of the Māori Party, that both National and the Māori Party have conceded that this issue of broadcast rights for the Rugby World Cup has not been well handled. Speaking on behalf of the Green Party, I say that we would agree with that. It has not been well handled. It seems clear that as a result of the poor handling of the issue, we as New Zealanders are destined to pay more taxpayer dollars than we otherwise would have. We will pay those dollars into the coffers of the International Rugby Board, with no gain at all, it seems to me, for New Zealanders in exchange for paying over the odds. So I think that is a point of considerable regret for all of us.
I was surprised by the Prime Minister’s answer today in the House to the Leader of the Opposition’s question about the amount of money that Cabinet yesterday had voted towards these broadcast rights for the Rugby World Cup. To refresh members’ memories, I say that the Prime Minister answered that that was not a question that was possible to answer, because the figure might change in the future and we did not know what the International Rugby Board would accept. But that was not an answer to the question that the honourable Leader of the Opposition had asked. It seems to me that the only possible scenarios that would be consistent with the Prime Minister’s answer would be either that Cabinet has not made its decisions to fund the broadcast rights or, alternatively, that Cabinet has made an open-ended decision in respect of funding. I think that that would be a scenario that we would all be concerned about.
The Rugby World Cup will take place at a time of the year in terms of the electoral cycle that will be exciting and tricky for all of us. Many of us are likely to have a busier schedule at that time of the electoral cycle. We will be anticipating and responding to the many invitations to meetings around the country from people who are interested in the general election to be held in that year. From my point of view, as someone who has been anticipating this Rugby World Cup with a mixture of excitement but also trepidation, I wonder, with the cup back in New Zealand, whether it will prove possible for us to win it. But I will relish the opportunity of getting back from whatever election meeting I have attended and being able to turn on the TV and know pretty well that whatever channel that is already on, I will be able to catch the game that is on at that time. The games will be shown on so many channels. From the Green Party’s point of view, we certainly support the games being available free to air. This is an iconic event, the games are iconic, and it is very important that all New Zealanders should have access to them.
The Green Party has been a strong supporter of Māori Television. We have supported the role that Māori Television has played in the revitalisation of Māori language, and the availability of tikanga Māori and Māoritanga, to the wider New Zealand population. I guess a lesson we have learnt internationally is that television stations can play a crucial role in promoting the indigenous culture and language of a country. We believe that Māori Television has performed that role extraordinarily well. We love the philosophy that it has of zigging where the others zag. I was personally extremely excited to hear about the Māori Television bid for the broadcast rights, because not only would the world be exposed to Māori culture but more and more New Zealanders would be exposed to te reo Māori, which has been the experience to date with Māori Television.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that one of the things that has occurred in the past couple of weeks is that Government Ministers, perhaps feeling uncomfortable on behalf of those New Zealanders who harbour either prejudice or antagonism towards Māori culture and language, have stepped in to spare that group of New Zealanders from having to deal with being confronted with Māori language. I think that that is an extremely unfortunate turn of events, and I certainly would welcome the opportunity for there to be some kind of inquiry into the reasons behind the actions of Ministers and an investigation into Ministers’ compliance with standards of ethical behaviour for Ministers around their actions in relation to this matter.
In summary, I say that the Green Party supports the right of New Zealanders to free-to-air broadcasting of the games. We look forward to the Rugby World Cup, but we believe that something quite profoundly wrong has occurred in the process around these broadcasting rights, not only in the fact that New Zealanders have ended up paying beyond the odds—certainly, an unknown number of dollars beyond the odds; for some time to come we will not know how much this will cost us—but also around the ethical standards that Ministers have followed. We would welcome a proper independent investigation of compliance with those ethical standards.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
It is good to take a call in the Rugby World Cup snap debate. In thinking about rugby, I would say that if Trevor Mallard plays rugby like he plays politics, he would be playing a nasty game. He would be in the ruck, and members would not want to see what was happening in the ruck. I think that Pete Hodgson would probably be doing some detective work, some super-sleuthing, in the game. As for Phil Goff, no one would know that he was playing; he would probably be left right out. Indeed, probably more people watched him give that vein-popping speech in this debate than would vote for him. Mr Cosgrove, of course, would be angry. He would probably drop the ball, but he would be angry. And Parekura Horomia probably would not be playing, but would be looking for McDonald’s. David Cunliffe would be angry; he is angry now.
We have seen first-class leadership from the Prime Minister in respect of the Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights. It was first class. I agree with what Audrey Young said in the newspaper about John Key and that the way he has handled this Rugby World Cup has been absolutely first class, with perfect leadership. He has brought people together. He has brought the broadcasters together. He did a first-class job.
And what will we have? We will have free-to-air broadcasts coming for all. That is what New Zealanders want. They are not interested in the beltway issues that the Labour Party is interested in. They are not interested in the side winds and all that stuff. What they want is what they are getting from the National Government: free-to-air for everyone in the country. I want to tell members what the people of New Zealand want. They want a John Key - led Government, and they love rugby. Rugby is almost as popular in this country as John Key, and the people will get both in 2011.
For the last 6 years the Māori Television Service as a statutory corporation has earned a place at the very heart of every New Zealander for the way in which it presents a unique New Zealand identity within a global society. Although many people of Aotearoa thought that Māori Television would limit its service and be applicable only to Māori people, in fact, research tells us that large numbers of New Zealanders latch on to Māori Television for the way in which it presents New Zealand society.
It is in that context that we enter another space—a sacred space within our nation—the special respect accorded to the national sport of rugby. I stand here to celebrate and to salute the brilliant initiative pioneered by the Māori Television Service, Te Puni Kōkiri, and, of course, the Minister of Māori Affairs, focusing on the free-to-air broadcast of the Rugby World Cup. This is an idea that is transformational in essence, and I encourage the House to pause a few seconds and use that time to be proud of the showcase broadcaster.
Just over a month ago Māori Television won a gold award at a ceremony in Sydney for creative endeavours by promotion and marketing professionals who work in the electronic media. The Promax/BDA ANZ 2009 international award honoured Māori Television for the way in which its reporters are out there amongst the people, getting the stories on the ground and on the issues that matter right across every rohe of the country. In fact, the phrase that encapsulates Māori Television Service, “Ko Ngāi Mātou, Ko Ngāi Tātou”, is what gives Māori Television the edge over international competitors with far greater budgets and staffing levels.
Māori Television is the television of the people. This is the station of Aotearoa and we should be proud of it. In that regard, what better vehicle than this one to ensure that every All Black game, every element of the Rugby World Cup tournament, is also broadcast on Māori Television because it is a unique opportunity to showcase Aotearoa in our most positive light, including our culture, our society, and our economy. The Rugby World Cup is the most exciting opportunity that this country will have for a long period to present the face of the nation to the world.
Let us, for a second, consider what it means to Māori Television to be the lead broadcaster, because that is the term it has managed to secure with the help, of course, of the lead team working on this bid recently. I listened earlier to Mr Goff saying that here was an event that was a wonderful opportunity to present New Zealand to the world, and I absolutely agree. There is such a strong field of opportunities outside and beyond the goalposts and this is the sort of thing that Minister Sharples, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Māori Television Service were thinking about several months ago when they were pulling together the bid to submit to broadcast the occasion, for the satellite that we are looking at will now enable a huge amount of returns on the investment.
This is a Government that is prepared to promote Māori language and culture by supporting Māori Television, a broadcaster that, by its very definition, promotes Māori language as the cornerstone of Māori culture. This is a Government that is prepared to invest in Māori Television as a platform for Māori cultural development, to be proud of our national identity and to show that to the world. But, of course, there are many other outcomes and benefits that have been associated with the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act, which basically set up Māori Television as a statutory corporation. High in our priorities have been the significant opportunities for job creation in the Māori broadcasting sector, and well beyond, as a part of the Rugby World Cup. Minister Sharples was very much instrumental in trying to promote that cause to the nation. I am delighted that Dr Sharples has the vision and the insight to endorse the proposal to support training for young Māori in broadcasting and information and communications technology industries. That is an important drop-down from this bid.
As a natural consequence, surely the Māori broadcasting sector will grow, and that also provides huge benefits into the future. At its very minimum, of course, the success of the Rugby World Cup bid will enable Māori Television to increase its viewer base and to substantially increase its current advertising revenue of approximately $1 million per annum. We have to be behind that sort of discussion. The Māori Party supported the joint announcement by the Prime Minister, Mr Key, and Dr Sharples in supporting the joint bid as the best way to ensure free-to-air access to all matches, and, at the same time, showcase Māori culture.
There are, of course, many, many other outcomes that come from this broadcast—in fact, too many to limit to the 10 minutes I have today. We know that the Māori Television proposal has excited Māori people up and down the country. The Māori Party has been inundated with messages of support and congratulations on promoting, acknowledging, and supporting this bid by Māori Television, because of the energy and passion it will bring to this particular broadcast—an ability to strut its stuff on the national and international stage.
In the past, Māori Television has been well known for its high-calibre broadcasts: the broadcast of Sir Howard Morrison’s tangi; its broadcasts on Waitangi Day and Anzac Day; and the tangi for Kuini Te Atairangikaahu. In fact, Māori Television has taken Māori culture into our living rooms and kitchens so that all Aotearoa can celebrate our unique identity as Aotearoa. A part of that is, of course, that we need the Māori element that Māori Television brings to this discussion. It promotes “Brand Māori”; it celebrates Māori success; it promotes Māori tourism; but also it is a wonderful opportunity to include Māori language and culture as a way of celebrating our unique, iconic heritage. It reflects our national identity to an international audience, and we hope this will create lasting benefits for all New Zealanders.
There are some who have been pretty negative about the bid. We want to think that we can move forward positively with this bid as a unique opportunity that this country will be able to use to present itself not only to New Zealanders but also to address some of the issues raised about the possibility of every broadcast being in the Māori language. But that has not happened on Māori Television thus far for any event, so we do not have to worry about that. Also, the mere fact that Māori Television has engaged the other broadcasters allows us to address the issue of coverage to ensure that all New Zealanders can watch the World Cup in their home, without worrying about missing out. In that regard, we absolutely support the proposals that allow for all broadcasters to work together to produce a product that will be in the best interests of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I find that there is not a lot in what the member who has just spoken, Te Ururoa Flavell, said that I disagree with. In fact, there is a lot that he has not said. I think that right in his final comments he might have lacked a little bit of ambition for the Māori Television Service and broadcasting. It is my view, and I speak as someone who has listened, in particular in the area of Parekura Horomia, to the He Kaea Amohia Trophy broadcast totally in Māori on iwi radio stations in Mr Horomia’s electorate that it is a good thing to do and that real progress could be made if there was a simulcast in the Māori language in that way. I have found that even the radio broadcast was not that hard to follow because of the degree of transliteration between English and Māori in rugby commentary.
I agree with what Mr Flavell said about the Māori Television Service, the way it has been set up, and the leadership role it has been taking in public broadcasting. It has been doing a very good job. It is something I have spent some time on. I spent some time with the people involved in it when I was the Minister of Broadcasting, and I have been very impressed with the work they have done. I think they did a massive con job on Pita Sharples. I do not know how they convinced him that he could breach his ministerial responsibilities and not take a paper to Cabinet in regard to the original bid. I do not know how he could beat both the Te Puni Kōkiri Minister and the Māori Television Service Minister at the same time—that he could play both sides of the street in a negotiation, in a way that Ministers should not be able to do. But I congratulate them on having the ability to work through this in the way that they did.
I point out that I do not support taxpayer money going into what is essentially a commercial bid. I did not support it when Dr Coleman promised on 2 October that he would do it for Television New Zealand. I did not support it when Dr Sharples said that he would do it at an earlier stage; and I do not support it now that the Prime Minister is doing it. I want to ask members opposite what we are doing this for. I make it clear that I regard some of the senior executives of Rugby World Cup Ltd and the International Rugby Board as personal friends. I have spent a lot of time with them. I have watched the organisation grow. I have a particular interest in the area, and I will be seeing more of them in the relatively near future when I am given leave that I will put an application in for soon. They will not be happy with me for saying this but I do not see a good reason for us to inflate the bid for the New Zealand free-to-air rights with taxpayer funding when there is no beneficiary other than the Rugby World Cup and the International Rugby Board, and, to be a little bit fair, the New Zealand Rugby Union, by way of the dividend that comes back from the Rugby World Cup, will get a little bit of additional funding as a result of this bid going in.
But what person in this House thinks that a single household will buy a set-top box to watch this event if it does not already have one? People can watch it on Sky. They can watch it on any of the 19 big screens that will have live broadcasts around the country as it occurs, not slightly delayed. Every match that Māori Television broadcasts, and the opening and closing ceremonies, will be on either Television One, TV3, or both. So I just ask this question: why would someone who is not already interested in the Māori language who does not already get Māori Television, make the investment that will be necessary to get it through this method, and, therefore, what will the return be?
I want to ask some other pretty important questions. Why was it that a Minister—or Ministers—leaked the commercially sensitive documents, or, if not the documents, the amounts, the figures, to the representative of Television New Zealand?
Hon Annette KingHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Derek Fox said that it was McCully. We understand the cause of the tension over a period of time between those two. Other people said that it was Bill English, who also had that information. I just want to know what standard of ethics John Key is running in his Government when things that would get people barred as directors for breaching the Securities Act, and probably the Commerce Act, as well—that is another whole set of areas—is something that he will not even ask his Ministers about. I feel sorry for Jonathan Coleman because he did not know whether he had leaked it when he was interviewed by TV3. We are told by the documentation—and he can say that I am wrong—that he never knew and that his office was not given those figures.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Oh, they were given them. Oh, I am sorry, they were given the figures! They were; he has nodded. So there is another possibility—that in fact when he was confused, he might have been right and he had leaked them. Of course, we know that Mr Brownlee had the figures as well. I am not sure whether Mr Brownlee would know how to pass them on to Television New Zealand or even how to work a cellphone to get the number of the particular person who, when the evidence all comes out, will make it clear which Minister it was who gave him those figures.
I ask the Prime Minister what process he has in place to make sure that members who have conflicting portfolios manage those conflicts properly. Pita Sharples is the Minister of Te Puni Kōkiri and he is the Minister in charge of the Māori Television Service. When Labour had those conflicts, it would always delegate to another Minister one or other of those roles. That is the proper way of doing things. It makes sure that there is accountability. If we had a Cabinet paper, we had two names on it: one being the Minister who is generally responsible for both, and the other to whom there had been a delegation, in order to make sure that proper transparency and accountability was there. But we heard that for months and months Pita Sharples was playing both sides of that road, and that is not good enough. Just because he is new, just because he is outside Cabinet, and especially just because he is from the Māori Party, none of those are good enough reasons—none of them—for having a lack of accountability in that area.
The other question I ask is what will happen to Murray McCully. Is he to be allowed to do what he did to Leith Comer and get away with it? Is that a new standard for treating chief executives? And, by the way, while he is at it, why does he, along with Gerry Brownlee, not focus a little bit on how all the leverage from the Rugby World Cup is slipping out of our hands, and how there is not a proper programme in the United Kingdom associated with the All Blacks tour this year to encourage businesses to have their conferences in New Zealand during the Rugby World Cup. Why can we not have the UK taxpayers subsidise through tax deductibility their conferences, their meetings, in New Zealand, and, at the same time, boost sales to the Rugby World Cup, and especially high-end hotel sales? But there is no promotion happening there.
By the way, what is happening as far as the volunteers are concerned? Have members opposite been told—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I tell that member that it is not nearly as wide as he is, or his speech. What is happening with the volunteers? We have two volunteer programmes. We have a volunteer programme for the Rugby World Cup and we have a volunteer programme for Murray McCully’s tourism group. People who are volunteering now for McCully’s programme think they are volunteering for the Rugby World Cup but they are not, because McCully cannot agree on the branding. People are answering the website, they are volunteering in droves, they think they will get a Rugby World Cup T-shirt, but they will not. They will not get it, and the reason for that is that Gerry Brownlee, the Minister for Economic Development, and Murray McCully have not got their acts together.
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) Link to this
We are all going to get to see the rugby. Let us move on.
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I guess the question that is posed by this debate this afternoon is whose ministerial career is going to be the most damaged by the debacle we have seen over the last fortnight, involving the free-to-air coverage of the Rugby World Cup. There are no less than seven Ministers, including the Prime Minister, involved. No one has been in charge. No one has been looking after taxpayers’ interests. No one has actually been ensuring that this nation gets the best from the coverage of an event to which taxpayers are contributing hundreds of millions of dollars. It is almost at the point where New Zealand On Air might fund a soap opera entitled “Who is in charge of the Rugby World Cup?”.
Today in the House we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Leader of the House, for the second time in a week, being caught short on his knowledge of what is actually transpiring in Cabinet in relation to the Rugby World Cup. Today he attempted to deny that in fact the Government had made the decisions it made only yesterday in Cabinet. We have to ask what on earth the Minister has got the delegation for, in relation to the associate Rugby World Cup portfolio that involves “general assistance in the portfolio”, if he does not know what the heck is going on. How is he exercising that responsibility as a Minister in that portfolio? Is this job simply a photo opportunity when it comes to the Rugby World Cup, or is he actually doing some work in relation to that portfolio? Last week he was attempting to deny that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) had been given the indications of funding by this Government to counter-bid against Māori Television.
The second Minister in the line-up of those who have failed to deliver in respect of this imbroglio is the Minister of Broadcasting, Jonathan Coleman. I do not think we have ever seen a situation quite like this. This Minister has been badly damaged by the outcomes of the last week. Questions are being asked, for example, by Māori Television’s Chief Executive, Jim Mather. When have we ever seen a chief executive in the State’s indirect employ even challenging a Minister’s veracity publicly on no less than three counts? Who publicly has said that the option of funding TVNZ was basically throwing Māori Television the crumbs, and that the bid by TVNZ was being structured to be wholly untenable and unattractive to Māori Television? I ask members to look at the column last weekend by Deborah Coddington, a well-known friend of this party, who said that the broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman has to have serious questions asked of him, as “Mr Haughty”, trotting down the corridor looking like a possum caught in the headlights when asked whether he had tipped off TVNZ about Māori Television’s bid. I ask the Minister, if he is going to take the call, to answer the question—not to repeat the possum performance but to tell us the truth: what happened, and what was given to TVNZ by way of information, because the House and the nation deserve to know.
Let us look at the track record of Pita Sharples, the Minister of Māori Affairs. He has come out of this proclaiming “peace in our time”, waving the piece of paper saying that Māori Television is covered in glory by the announcements of yesterday. In fact it is a face-saving scenario, attempting to extract the best possible face and mana for the Māori Party. But the whole thing has damaged its credibility, not only in the eyes of the general public but, I think, also amongst Māori as well. Its members have put a very brave face on the announcements of yesterday. But if Māori Television is going to be the lead broadcaster in an event of the size and scale of the Rugby World Cup, that actually means one has a few more rights than other broadcasters that are involved. Māori Television has emerged from that, sadly, with that kind of outcome. So we had had Dr Sharples, I think, actually probably threaten to pull the Māori Party out of the coalition last week to extract the sort of outcome we had announced last Wednesday.
I will also talk about the Prime Minister’s role in this. What an irony for Simon Bridges to suggest that John Key comes out of this showing first-class leadership. My goodness! If this is first-class leadership, I would hate to see him exercise third-rate leadership, because he has scrambled to try to find a solution to this, in what has been an evolving fiasco of extraordinary proportions. He has acknowledged that. In the considerable understatement of last week, he said that Ministers needed to take a fair share of responsibility for what transpired. Now he is announcing that he is pleased with the outcomes. Obviously, Dr Sharples is delighted with the outcome, and of course they will maintain that this is a good outcome.
But this is not the first shambles and it will not be the last, because this Government’s hands-off policies on broadcasting have been exposed for what they are. Let us accept that broadcasting cannot be left alone to the vagaries of the market. Let us have some leadership from the Government.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) Link to this
Well, that was a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep. It is no wonder that the Labour members do not like it if that guy, Brendon Burns, asks a question in question time. I ask members whether they know who asks all the broadcasting questions. It is Pete Hodgson. I think we have seen a pretty good demonstration of why that happens.
I will briefly expand on the speech of the member the Hon John Carter. It was a good speech. It was very succinct. But, basically, I say the people of New Zealand are completely happy, because they will get to watch the rugby free to air. The members opposite do not get it; they do not get what is important to New Zealanders. I can tell members that all the stuff that Mr Burns was going on about is very important here in Wellington. It creates a lot of activity, and people get very excited about it. But do members know how many emails I have received about this issue? Two, and they were both from people who said they were very, very happy that they will be able to watch the rugby free to air.
I must say that Prime Minister John Key has put together a fantastic deal for New Zealanders. It is not surprising that he has taken National to 60 percent in the polls. Meanwhile, where is Phil Goff? He is at 6.2 or 6.1 percent—something like that.
I will tell members what was quite interesting about Trevor Mallard’s speech. I was at a function a few weeks ago, and many of the Opposition members would have been there as well. There are 2 years to go until the Rugby World Cup, and Trevor Mallard got up and said he was not going to politicise the Rugby World Cup. He said Labour was right behind the Government in wanting it to be the massive success for New Zealand that it should be. But what is the Labour Party doing? At every opportunity that it gets, it talks down the Rugby World Cup. It wants the Rugby World Cup to be a failure. We heard that from Trevor Mallard. That is completely unpatriotic talk. We also heard that from Brendon Burns. All that the Labour members want to do is to pick holes in the Government’s performance, and they are not getting behind this event. They are not acting in a New Zealand manner, and, quite frankly, that is being reflected in the polls. What the members opposite do not get is that people want them to get behind the Government and support the Rugby World Cup. I can tell members that Labour can talk all it likes about where information came from, but the reality is that what was happening was well known out there in the market place. Mr Mather, a man who was very keen to stand for the Labour Party, was telling all and sundry what he and the Māori Television Service would do.
I think we now have a great situation. We have had National working together with the Māori Party. It is true that in any relationship things will happen, but the overall relationship between the two parties is very, very strong. We have put together a deal that works for Māori, for the Māori Television Service, and for all New Zealanders. I am sure the Labour Party will want to support us in this. We can all look forward to a fantastic 2011 Rugby World Cup, which will be seen free to air throughout New Zealand. We are delivering a good thing. Roll on the rugby!