Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill

I am very loathe to vote in favour of this preamble, simply because we still do not know exactly what is in it. Despite repeated requests last evening—and, indeed, just now—for a simple translation of no more than seven lines, the request has been denied. [Interruption] The Minister says: “Rubbish! We have circulated a paper.” I ask the Minister whether there is a full translation in that paper. I think that this Committee is entitled to that. I am not surprised that we are dealing with this bill in such a messy way. Not only does it have the fingerprints of Margaret Wilson all over it but it has the footprints of Parekura Horomia all over it, as well. He is a Minister of Māori Affairs who is much more interested in using his ministry to promote the best interests of the Labour Party than he is in Māori interests.

💬 John Tamihere: Get on with the bill.

Mr Tamihere, the man who, as we all know, has an enormous amount of interest in things Māori, and must be wondering today why on earth he mucked around with a community trust when he could have set up a wānanga—a much more profitable enterprise than the one he was involved in—is telling me to get on with the bill. We are getting on with the bill. We are talking about the preamble, the explanation, at the beginning of the bill. I simply say to Mr Tamihere and Mr Horomia that one of the treaty partners would like to know what is in this bill. I cannot see the problem with having our translator, who is with us this evening, stand up and translate this piece of paper. If the Minister had allowed that to happen last night, an awful lot of mucking around this evening would not have happened.

We are asked to speak about this preamble, but it is difficult when we cannot be absolutely sure what is in it. I will respond briefly to the suggestion from the Minister that we were behaving in a disrespectful manner to Ngāti Awa. That is quite untrue. Personal attacks have always been a hiding place for the guilty—they personally attack the people who have questions about the procedures being used. This process has not been tidy. This is the only settlement bill that Labour has done on its own, without National holding its hand, in 5 years, and it has to be a messy process like this. The Government is creating new hapū here and there by a stroke of the legislative pen, and throwing in an extra three or four claims here and there to boost the numbers, without reference to a full select committee process. [Interruption] I ask Mr Okeroa whether he calls 2 months at the Māori Affairs Committee a full process, when the committee very seldom works for more than 2 hours once a week. That is hardly a full process. Without that translation, National will have some difficulty in voting for this preamble.

💬 Mahara Okeroa: You were on the committee.

That member is right, I was on the committee—and guess what? This Supplementary Order Paper did not hit the floor of the Chamber until yesterday. The select committee process totalled 6 months, and we had 2 months on a special Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister, and then another one was laid on the Table yesterday. Further, just to make it all look really shambolic, an amendment to yesterday’s Supplementary Order Paper was tabled today. All we want is a simple translation of seven lines. What is wrong with the Labour Party? Why does it not want us to know what that is all about? I suspect that the piece of text that Margaret Wilson wants to put into the bill is interminably boring, but, somehow, we cannot know what it is.

Once again I ask the Minister to allow the translator to take the microphone and give us a translation in order that this preamble debate may progress without the sort of interruption that those on that side of the Chamber have forced on the Committee since we commenced last night.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have in front of me Supplementary Order Paper 327. Its salient point is a provision that states: “I te rangi tuawaru o te marama o Hurae ka whakaretangia e te Karauna me Ngāti Awa he Whakaaetanga o Nga Whakataunga. Ka tatu i te Karauna me Ngāti Awa taua Whakaaetanga o nga Whakataunga i te 27 o nga ra o Maehe 2003, e whakatatu ana i nga take katoa e tika ana kia whakatauria tuturutia te katoa o nga kereme o nehe o te iwi o Ngāti Awa.” I apologise for my stilted pronunciation of that. I simply ask that we now have a translation.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek a translation of those comments by Mr Brownlee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am not giving any direction here, or denying the member, but it appears to me that Mr Brownlee read out, from the Supplementary Order Paper, recital (10A) of the Māori text, and a translation has been provided to all members here.

💬 Simon Power: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, no. I am just pondering a few things here, thank you.

If the Labour senior whip is giving a message, I cannot hear it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am dealing with a point of order, and unless members want fewer people in the Chamber, they will keep quiet. Did Mr Power want to assist?

💬 Simon Power: I am happy to assist if I can, Mr Chairperson. Page 33 of Speakers’ Rulings covers the use of the Māori language both in the House and in the Committee of the whole House. It seems to me that the third sentence of Speaker’s ruling 33/3: “Interpretation into English is for the benefit of members who do not understand Māori …” is particularly appropriate. Now that Mr Brownlee has made a contribution—and whether the contribution was read or not read is something the Speakers’ rulings do not seem to distinguish between—we seek, in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 33/3, that translation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. The member gave most of a point of order in Māori, and the translation for that is in fact in the bill, as members would have found when they read it.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: It’s not in the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, it is in the bill.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Where?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): On page 22.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: It can’t be.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am just making an observation.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: It’s not. You have been misinformed. If it was in the bill the Minister would not have circulated the letter.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If members had allowed things to move on a little, this matter would have been tabled. The Māori version of recital (10A) is in fact translated in the bill on page 22 under “recital”.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If you look at recital (10A) as per Supplementary Order Paper 327, I ask you to show me where those words are on “( … page 7)” , as the Supplementary Order Paper states. They are not on page 7. There is no translation in the explanatory note. In the rest of this bill, the preamble is first in Māori, and then it is translated into English. But there is no (10A )in the Māori version, and there is no (10A) on page 22. The recital (10A) is being proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 327, and that Māori insertion has no English translation. As a result, the Minister circulated a letter, apparently, before midday. The reason why Mr Brownlee was forced to read (10A) in the Chamber was so that the translator would then give us the English version, so that, as per Speaker’s ruling 34/5, a translation appears in Hansard. I would ask you to consider that recital (10A) does not appear in the Māori version—it is being inserted without an English translation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): On the back of the Supplementary Order Paper it states quite clearly that that Māori version is a “translation of recital 12 of the English text:”, which is on page 22.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: So why would they have different numbers?

💬 John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. On page 22 of the commentary on the bill it is quite clear—in terms of the understanding of Māori members—that from recitals (10) through to (12) inclusive the matters raised in recital (10A) are fully interpreted in English. Having said that, for the benefit of the Committee right now I am willing to express in actual detail exactly what Mr Gerry Brownlee read out in Māori, to put the matter at an end—notwithstanding Speakers’ rulings 33/2 through to 33/7 in terms of the Māori language. So I am prepared, with your permission, Mr Chairperson, to interpret exactly what the member Gerry Brownlee read out in terms of (10A), in order to place the matter at an end, and I would be grateful for your direction in that regard.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I do not need any further help. The member has spoken Māori and now seeks a translation. I am going to ask the honourable John Tamihere to translate.

Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No.

Mr Chairperson, you have a translator here. You cannot insult us like that. You have a proper translator here. I do not want to have my words translated by the Government—I am in opposition to them. That is a political insult, and the Committee should not be offering it to anybody.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Which is the insult?

I find it insulting that I can stand in the Chamber and speak in Māori, and then Mr Tamihere is asked to translate what I have said—while the taxpayer is paying a translator to sit in on proceedings. Now, if it were not a reasonable call for people to have their speeches accurately translated by someone fluent in te reo Māori, then we would simply, right at the start of this debate and at the beginning of the last Parliament, have said: “No, we will not have a translator present. We will simply ask someone in the Chamber to interpret what was said”. I cannot imagine that Mr Horomia, as a Minister, would be happy asking Mrs te Heuheu to translate his regular speeches in Māori to this House. I think it is very, very strange that I get my speech, apparently, translated by John Tamihere.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is not strange. I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 34/1 and 34/2. I can make that decision. I can ask anyone in whom I have confidence to interpret, irrespective of whether there is an interpreter in the Chamber. It is a bonus that we have one. What is more, Mr Tamihere has made the offer, which I am going to accept. If the member wants to take the matter further after that, we will deal with that then.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Is the point of order relevant?

I did wish to speak to the point of order, before you ruled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I will accept that.

Although those two rulings confirm that authority in the Chair, I do suggest that even in the way they are framed they assume that the translation is non-contentious, or they assume that it is given in circumstances where there is no reason for someone to raise a question about whether the translation might not generate confidence in the House. I am perfectly happy to accept that the Minister’s offer was made in good faith, and that he would, undoubtedly, simply read the English that Mr Burton has already provided to us—[Interruption]—sorry, the former Minister. But in a situation where we are trying to establish a principle, it would be seen as very odd not to use the official translator. When the official translator is available, it is almost inexplicable that the official translator would not be used for that purpose. I venture to suggest that those two rulings would have been given in relation to a circumstance where there would have been a delay or some other problem associated with using the official translator.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I really do not need any further assistance.

I rarely raise a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is true. I call the Hon Damien O’Connor.

I am not sure whether there are Speakers’ rulings on the situation, which appears to me to be one whereby a member has stood up and made a speech, and now we are seeking to have an interpretation of that speech because the member does not know what he said.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No. Mr Brownlee has asked for what he said to be interpreted. I have had an offer from Mr Tamihere to do that, and I have accepted that offer. In any case, common sense would say that what the member said is clearly set out in English in the bill itself. Reference to that is on the back of Supplementary Order Paper 327. If the members who are raising this issue had bothered to trace it through, they would have seen that. It may be convoluted, but it is in the bill. [Interruption] I am still talking, albeit I am sitting down. The translation that is on the paper that was sent around was made by Māori translators licensed via the Māori Language Commission, etc. I think we are getting a bit silly here. Either members want to hear a translation, which I am prepared to accept—in fact, I am calling the Hon John Tamihere to please translate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Because you have ruled, this is now a procedural matter. I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled