Māori Television Service Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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—

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, you have.

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

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.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson—

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson—

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

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