Business Statement

Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 1 March, priority will be given to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day, and it is anticipated that on Thursday the House will be considering the election of a new Speaker.

I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of where things are heading. If I may, I will refer to some difficulties the House got itself into, over the last couple of evenings, relating to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to make it clear that the bill is unique, insomuch as it is one of the first to have an extensive preamble printed in both English and te reo Māori. Certainly, members on the Opposition side of the House think that in these types of bills that is a good and an appropriate thing. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication that some of the difficulties that were experienced through the desire to have some translations and, indeed, interpretations, which was impinged upon by current Standing Orders, may be subject to discussion at the next Business Committee meeting, in order that some of those things can be put aside, the bill can be allowed to progress at a reasonable pace, and Ngāti Awa representatives to be accommodated in their desire to be in the Chamber for the bill’s third reading.

I am happy to give an assurance that we can discuss those matters at the Business Committee. The member will also receive very soon—if he has not received it already—some additional information that I think will help, in terms of the return to the Committee stage of the bill. With regard to the presence of Ngāti Awa, I can tell members that the third reading date has already been set, subject to later matters, and I simply urge members to get on with the proceedings. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is a business statement. I am prepared to let the Rt Hon Winston Peters have a word, but that is it.

I want to ask Dr Cullen whether he is able to give us an idea as to progress on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. I am sure that the august body called the Law Society would like to know where we are at with regard to that legislation.

Before we get to that point, I will no doubt have further discussions with the Minister of Justice and the incoming Attorney-General. I am hopeful that we will make some rapid progress on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill once we have completed the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill and one or two other matters that have to be done during the next session of Parliament. I am also hopeful that we will not take too long over the Committee stage of that bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the matters dealt with last night, but is a different point of order from those of last night. I am very hopeful that we may have the benefit of your considered views on the matter, and this, I believe, is the last day on which we can be sure of having those.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No.

It is not? Well, OK. Certainly, I hope that we would have—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A few more questions to ask; two more sleeps!

Thank you! The point of order arose out of the circumstance in which Supplementary Order Paper 327 was tabled to introduce a new text in Māori into the bill. There was some discussion about how that text should be translated and where it fitted in the English text. But in the course of the point of order, it became clear that the official interpreter was not going to be called upon to give that translation. The position we find ourselves in is that it appears that there may have been a significant difference between the two texts that were put forward by the Minister as being equivalent. The Minister had advised the House that the two texts were proper translations, and he had said that that had been confirmed by the Māori Language Commission.

The Chairperson gave rulings last night, and I do not review the rulings of other presiding officers. But I was briefed on this matter, and if the member would like to approach me or send me something in writing, I will be happy to consider it. I do not want to have any further comment on this matter. We have the proceedings of the House to get on with. That is not a matter for a point of order.

💬 STEPHEN FRANKS: Mr Speaker, I say that it is a point of order. It is an important point for this House to have an authoritative assurance that the two texts are the same. Whether that is a debating matter or whether it is something that requires, as was indicated, a decision of the Business Committee and the Standing Orders Committee, we need a Speaker’s ruling. Having consulted Mr McGee, we are in a position whereby the question of whether the two texts are the same appears to be treated as a debating matter. This country has suffered enough from having texts purporting to be one law that have two very different meanings. I ask that you consider the effect of the ruling that was given last night, against the ruling that could not be given last night on the matter of the role of the interpreter.

This matter is still before the Committee of the whole House, and, of course, it is the Committee’s duty to deal with the bill. But I will consider the matters the member has raised.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that when you are considering that matter you will also take into consideration the situation in which the House actually finds itself. We have the Government introducing a bill that is in Māori. The Government then produces a translation that is demonstrably false. Even non-Māori speakers know that, because the Māori words that are in the English text are not contained in the Māori text. So it cannot be right. We also know that when the courts come to interpret the legislation, it will not be the English translation that they look at; the Māori text will be the law of the land. So we have a situation whereby possibly 10 MPs know what is being passed, and the other 110 of us are being misled. I think that requires some action from the Speaker. I would say that a false translation must be a breach of privilege, and a very serious one.

I note that I brought these matters up at the time when the Leader of the House gave the business statement to the House. I suggested that the issue needed to be the subject of quite an important decision by the House Business Committee. Subsequent to that, I have realised that we are in a very interesting position, because the next meeting of that committee will be the last that you attend as Speaker. Also, the Business Committee does not meet until 4.30 on the Tuesday when the House will be expected, according to the business statement, to have begun consideration of that bill. This is not a minor matter. What a bill should do is clearly state the Government’s intention. This bill does not clearly signal in all cases, on all matters, what the Government wants. That is the point Mr Prebble makes. I wonder whether it may be possible for the Leader of the House to give us an undertaking that the bill will not come back to the House until the Business Committee has met and has been able to consider further the matters that have been raised, through various points of order, since last Tuesday evening.

It may be helpful if I reiterate what I said previously, which is that further material will be coming to members well before Tuesday week. If the member still has issues at that point—and I do not think he will, by that stage—then those matters will definitely be raised at the time when we enter into the Committee stage. But they cannot be discussed now, because that material is not yet available to members.

It is the job of the Committee of the whole House to debate these matters. The two texts are part of the bill; one is not a translation of the other. The staff of the Office of the Clerk do not give assurances about the text of bills. The interpreter is a member of staff, not a witness before a committee. But I do take seriously the point raised by the Hon Richard Prebble, and I will examine the transcripts and look at this whole issue.