Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill

We were discussing the preamble, and following from that we come to a translation to be given by John Tamihere.

Supplementary Order Paper 327 has been read in large part by Mr Gerry Brownlee. The interpretation is as follows, and can be followed by all members in recital (12) of the preamble to the bill: “The Crown and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa initialled a deed on 8 July 2002. Ngāti Awa ratified the Crown’s settlement offer and entered into a deed of settlement on 27 March 2003 recording matters to give effect to a full and final settlement of all Ngāti Awa’s historical claims.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As it now seems that Mr John Tamihere is the pre-eminent Māori speaker and interpreter in the Chamber, I wonder whether he could prevent us from getting further into a bind by letting us know what the effect would be of the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 327 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to insert recital (10A).

I hope that the member could perhaps answer my question, as well. I freely admit that my knowledge of Māori is extremely limited, but in recital (10A) I can clearly see the numbers 27 and 2003 and I would, therefore, expect 27 and 2003 to be in the English version in recital (12) of the preamble. Furthermore, I cannot for the life of me see 8, 2002, or the Māori word for July in recital (10A). I am somewhat confused that recital (10A) clearly makes reference to 27 March 2003, but that it does not have any reference to 8 July 2002. Therefore, I ask whether recital (12) in English is an accurate translation of recital (10A) in Māori. Perhaps the member, another Māori member, or our interpreter could clarify that point.

I believe that this is one of the difficulties that was highlighted by Mr Brownlee when he questioned the appropriateness of another member in the Chamber making the interpretation. In the actual words that were read out by Mr Brownlee in Māori—notwithstanding that I had some difficulty understanding the Māori; I am not a teacher of Māori, as he is—no mention was made of the year 2002. Yet the interpretation that the honourable member Mr Tamihere read out referred to the year 2002. So one could essentially argue the technical point as to the accuracy of his interpretation.

I think the point has been made several times that there is a difference between giving a word-by-word translation and delivering the clear intent. The intent is clear, and that is precisely what Mr Tamihere delivered to the Committee, as I think the member would honestly agree.

I just wish to clarify. There is no mention, as Mr Paraone has said, in the Māori text of a particular date. I suspect I am right in saying that the amendment is supposed to do that. But although it amends the text to include the year, it does not include the date. So we are still left with the situation whereby the text in Māori is not the same as the text in English. That, incidentally, was my point last night. It could have been cleared up some hours ago, but some people in this Chamber are just too clever for their own good.

I think we need to move on.

💬 Stephen Franks: Mr Chairman, we will have to come back to it if we do not clear it up now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): All right. I will just say on the last matter that the amendment of the Hon Margaret Wilson and the version included in Mr Brownlee’s speech were what were interpreted by Mr Tamihere. We could run around in circles—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: We will have to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, we will not. My understanding of what was said is pretty clear.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This may be a similar point that can be readily clarified, and I would accept the interpreter’s assurance on it without reservation. Again, being cast to it, I see no reference to the rūnanga in the Māori text. That may be because there is a longer way of describing it or because something is summarised in the term “rūnanga”, but I would have assumed that “rūnanga” is a Māori word and would not need to be retranslated into Māori text. If the neutral interpreter had given us that statement, I guess we would not be asking these questions.

All of the matters raised are matters of debate. The matters raised will no doubt provide material for the debate as we go on with it. That process should be followed. If members do not agree with it, they can vote against it. I do not see any sense in further points of order on this. It is very clear to me.

💬 Stephen Franks: How can we debate translation matters?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The points being raised by members are incorrect as to specific words, and I am told that the month and the day are in the text.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to have a debate on that. The Greens support the bill. I just want somebody to explain to me where in recital (10A) of the Māori text are the Māori words for 8 July 2002, which are in the English text.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If the member wants someone to explain that to him, I will ask the Minister to do so.

Yes, because it just does not seem to be there. If I may ask a second question, then I will not say anything more in this debate. Why can the numbers in Māori not connect with the numbers in English, which would help to reduce the public’s confusion when this bill is finally passed, so that people could look at one number and text in English—

I understand. Mr Donald has asked for someone to attempt to explain that, and I have asked the Minister to make that attempt.

In the Māori translation, the fourth word on the first line, “tuawaru”, means “the eighth”. It is written as a word rather than a number and is therefore less obvious to members, but that is the translation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that the point of order raised by Mr Franks was a valid one in terms of talking about Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, as opposed to Ngāti Awa. Māori members of the Committee will know that when we talk about te rūnanga we are talking about a governance body, whereas in the translation, where the term “te rūnanga” has been omitted, we are talking about the whole tribe. The point Mr Franks raised is, I believe, a valid one.

This is one of the first bills during my time here for which the Māori interpretation has been provided, and I am saddened that there is a fear—particularly for me, as a Māori member—that in future our opportunity to promote our language may be lost because, unfortunately, on a technicality, people are unable to understand clearly the translation, or the interpretation; whatever word members want to use.

I do not think we need anything more on this. As we go on through, it will be entirely up to members to move an amendment if they think a word is out of place or is not understood. I think the Committee has made its best attempt to resolve the issue. There was a translation made for most purposes, and I accept it. It may not be acceptable to all members, but we could go on all night. All 119 other members in this Chamber could give their version, and no one need accept it. We will now move on to the preamble.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I asked for a ruling on the role of the interpreter in this Chamber and what he is here for if not to avoid just this kind of dispute.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry, Mr Franks. That ruling on the role of the interpreter was given by the Speaker.

The Speaker gave a ruling on that particular matter. I am now asking why we cannot ask the interpreter in order to stop us from looking as if we are arguing between ourselves on a matter of translation, when we are not. We are simply asking to know that the words being used in each provision mean the same thing. I believe that we would all accept the interpreter’s comment, but you, Mr Chairperson, said that we have to accept the Minister’s explanation and that of Mr Tamihere. I asked for a ruling about why we have an interpreter in the Chamber.

That is all the member was asking. I did not ask members to accept the Minister’s ruling. It was another member who asked for anyone to assist with the matter. That is why the Minister was asked. I am not asking members to accept Mr Tamihere’s translation of the text. It is all pretty obvious because it is there in the English text, which has been gone through by a translator who has a Māori translator’s licence.

💬 Stephen Franks: There is no “rūnanga”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Hang on.

💬 Stephen Franks: That is in the Minister’s statement, not in our man’s statement.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member’s question is about why we have an interpreter. It is a good question. The Speaker explained the role of the interpreter and the choice that the Chairperson has. I cannot tell members any more than that. I guess that we have an interpreter in order to enable members to gain a reasonable understanding of what was said in the debate. We do that, and we will continue to do it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Speaker gave us a ruling that confirmed the authority of the Chair to invite someone to interpret, but the Speaker did not give us a statement on the role of the interpreter. We are now on a separate matter from that. We are now asking why there is what appears to be such a significant difference as the omission of “te rūnanga”, which refers to the governing body as opposed to the whole tribe.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): These are matters of debate that members can raise later on.

No, they are matters of interpretation. I do not want to argue; I just want to understand. We have an interpreter in the Chamber who sits here night after night and is never called on, and now we want an explanation and he will not be called on. No one can tell me why.

I repeat that the Speaker covered that precise point. That is exactly what the Speaker covered.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. When the Deputy Speaker came back to the Chamber she quite rightly said that the role of the interpreter is to interpret, not to translate. The House accepted that, and Mr Tamihere translated. We are now saying that it is a concern to a number of people in the Committee that the translation was not correct. It comes down to the question of whether “te rūnanga” is mentioned in the Māori text. I cannot see it there, but there could well be a translation available that would state that the expressions convey that sentiment.

It strikes me as strange that we have had in this country 160-plus years of argument over what was actually said and meant in the Treaty of Waitangi, and here we are, 160 years later, trying to sort out grievances that apparently have arisen from the beliefs and understandings of obligations that were given, conferred, and accepted in that treaty. We ask for a simple interpretation from an interpreter who is provided to the Parliament, so that we can find out what is in this text. We are going round and round in circles, because you have told us that it is a debating matter. The last debate over a translation issue took 160 years. We would like to get on with this.

That is right. That is what I was suggesting quite some time ago, and I realise that we are going to get on with it. I say to Mr Franks that the interpreter is there to give an oral version, in English, of words that have been uttered orally in Māori. Members may well say that that is exactly what Mr Brownlee did, but that is not what he did. Mr Brownlee read out—very well—what he had in front of him, and there is a distinction there.

Members are effectively asking the interpreter to give evidence to the Committee. He cannot do so, any more than the Clerk can. If members do not like the Māori text, they can move amendments to it, but they cannot ask the interpreter to second-guess a member’s statement. There will always be variations when we are dealing with that sort of thing. Can we move on now, please?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I take from your ruling that we can actually move an amendment? Speaker’s ruling 102/4 states that we cannot amend what has been agreed by the parties, and I understood that this recital fell into that category. If it does not, then we can make a number of amendments—which I think New Zealand First members have felt unable to make—where the recital wrongly refers to the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I have assumed that New Zealand First wrote its Supplementary Order Paper, which does not try to correct that, on the basis that that was part of the agreement. If, in fact, we can now move amendments to the recitals, then we will do so.

The member is quite right. There was an agreement on clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10. Members can put in as many amendments to the preamble as they wish—from zero to many hundreds, if they want to. There is no limit on that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Kāore ngā kupu, “te rūnanga”, i roto i tēnei pire mō ngā kupu o te Minita.

[In respect of the Minister’s statement, the words “te rūnanga” are not in this bill.]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member, for my benefit and that of the Committee, please give the English interpretation?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Standing Order 104 and the Speakers’ rulings relating to speeches in Māori make it very clear that the trifling that has gone on with the Chair tonight is not just frustrating to members here but is absolutely disrespectful to the Ngāti Awa chiefs who are here tonight. I feel obliged to stand up to say that. The stunt that was just pulled in Māori is just another abomination this evening. My point of order is that Standing Order 104 does not state that the Māori language must be transliterated to the extent that other members like it.

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

Mr Franks does not and Mr Brownlee does not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It has gone past Mr Franks.

The point we have to get at is quite simply this. In the event that we express ourselves as Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, or Ngāti Awa, we are using movable terminologies that are dependent on the context of the expressions being used. Members opposite might not understand that, but that is the reality. The point I make is that we have now spent 30 minutes on a very special bill and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): And none of them have been points of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member please sit down. I have let this go on—I know what it is—because I have tended, in many ways, to let members run their course. The judgment on whether they have been misusing this Committee or trifling with the Chair is for other members to make, and I have no doubt that they will.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.