Speaker’s Rulings — Māori Language—Interpretation

During question No. 11 on 26 February, which was last Thursday, a number of points arose out of the interpretation of a reply by the Minister of Māori Affairs, and I undertook to respond to them. The Hon Roger Sowry raised the question of whether a member whose speech has been incorrectly interpreted is under an obligation to correct that interpretation. If the member gives his or her own interpretation, then the answer is yes. In the same way that any member who gives wrong information to the House is under an obligation to clear the matter up as soon as the error is appreciated—Speaker’s ruling 163/6—a member who gives an incorrect interpretation must do so, too, but where the interpretation is given by an interpreter I cannot hold that any such onus falls on the member. As Speaker’s ruling 34/3 makes plain, members do not own the interpretations of their speeches and are not responsible for them. I would hope, however, that members would, on a point of order, clear up any misunderstanding arising out of an interpretation of a speech.

A further point was raised as to whether, when the Minister’s speech was translated for inclusion in Hansard, I would come back to the House if it revealed any unparliamentary language. There was unparliamentary language used—the Minister addressed another member in the second person—but the Minister cleared this up himself by a personal explanation later in the day. That matter is now closed.

I wish to add some general remarks about interpretation. As Speakers’ rulings 34/4 and 34/5 make clear, an interpretation, especially one given off the cuff, is always liable to be rough and ready. Members must make allowance for that. We must appreciate, too, that the process of interpretation is not merely a matter of transliterating word for word from one language into another. Especially with languages as different in their origins as English and Māori, this is not possible. I am satisfied that the interpretation given last week did convey the broad sense of what the Minister said.

The one deficiency was a peculiarly parliamentary point—the personal pronoun the Minister used was not conveyed. In most settings whether someone is speaking in the second person or the third person is unimportant; in this Chamber it can be critical. The Clerk has spoken to the interpreters about the particular parliamentary context in which an interpretation is given, and attention will be paid to that in the future. If members would like a copy of either ruling the Clerk will provide it to them.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was also the matter raised yesterday by the Hon Bill English.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am still coming back on that one. I had quite a bit to do on those two today. I will come back on that one.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the ruling you have just given to the House, but also to Speaker’s ruling 34/5, which I note is also a ruling of yours, made in 2002. The difficulty as I see it is this: where a member responds in Māori, as a member certainly might, particularly a Minister replying to a question, and the member breaches the Standing Orders in so doing—and the rest of the House is not aware of that, and the interpreter does not make it clear in his interpretation that the Standing Orders have been breached—then, as the ruling stands now, we have an obligation to take a point of order immediately. But it might be some time before we learn of the breach of the Standing Orders that was not contained in the interpreter’s translation. What remedy and recourse do we have to raise that point of order at a later time when, under normal rulings, it would be regarded as out of time?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Firstly, in relation to that last sentence, of course a member would be able to do so at a later time, because that is an exceptional circumstance. I referred to Speaker’s ruling 34/5 in my ruling; the other matter is addressed in that ruling.

Points of Order—Minister’s Answers