Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I almost do not like to do this, but I think that I must. The Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, which is designed to set up the receiving authority for the Ngāti Awa claim, has a commentary attached to it in both English and Māori. Much like the bill that we dealt with yesterday, the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, there is a little difficulty with the two translations. In fact, we are on the same ground again. It is not a translation. There are 13 paragraphs in the English commentary and 15 in the Māori commentary. Now, the member might say that they are split. We have a right to know that what is in place in one translation fits with the other. My understanding was that the Office of Treaty Settlements had indicated that bills like this would have those translations done appropriately.

I am sure that someone will stand up and say cleverly that this is not actually an Office of Treaty Settlements issue, because it is a private bill brought by an outside organisation appropriately for consideration here. But what we should have, if we are expected to support this legislation, is the same rules applying to the settlement bill—and to any bill, for that matter—and that we are led to believe will now be the convention: that the two translations do fit with each other appropriately. I notice that although this is a private bill, we have officials from the ministry here. Therefore, the Government influence and involvement in the preparation of this bill is pretty obvious, and I think that it would be inappropriate for us to deal with this today while there are these translation difficulties.

I say to the honourable member that it is my understanding that when this was dealt with on a previous occasion, it was decided the issue would be dealt with in a select committee. That is where I believe the matter rests.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We were told that a number of bills currently before select committees are settlement bills. The Office of Treaty Settlements has said that rather than bring Supplementary Order Papers to the House, or even bring them to the House for sending to a select committee, it will attempt to put an amendment through the select committee process. Let me tell members that it is a huge indulgence on the part of the Opposition to allow that to happen, because it is not the appropriate way for these things to be dealt with. Each one of those changes could be subject to quite a considerable amount of debate in the House.

I point out that the last time we got in this bind, the House lost almost 4 hours as we wrestled with what the process would be. This is a different bill. It is a private bill. Clearly, it has been put together by Te Puni Kōkiri. There are differences in the two commentaries, so the questions arise: what are we debating and what are we passing?

I make the point again that we have had 160 years of grievance, apparently because there are two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi. We are trying to sort those grievances out. We should not have settlement bills, or constructions around organisations receiving settlement, that have two versions, commentaries, or interpretations of what they are about. With all due respect to the position you outlined, Mr Speaker, it is correct as far as future settlement bills are concerned, particularly regarding those that are currently before a select committee, but it has nothing to do with the bill before us today.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find myself in great sympathy with the point raised by Mr Brownlee. It is a matter of regret to me that I am unable myself to translate the Māori language. When we receive a bill of this sort and we discover that half is in Māori and half is in English, and when we look at the texts, then from an intelligent point of view—paragraphing is one example—it does not appear that one text translates the other. We could debate this matter in the select committee—you are quite right in that ruling, Mr Speaker—but it appears to me that it would be helpful if the Speaker were at least to indicate that if the Government is going to bring bills that have translations, those translations must be accurate.

I am not saying that the translator has to certify that; I am just saying that it would be very useful if the Speaker were to make a ruling that there is an obligation on the presenter of a bill who decides to present a bill in more than one language—and, of course, only two are possible—to ensure that the translation is an accurate one. MPs are entitled to rely on that being the case.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is a little bit of confusion from members opposite. I will just consult. First of all, Te Puni Kōkiri is not involved in this bill—it is a private bill prepared outside. [Interruption] Sorry? To offer advice; they are allowed to offer advice. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have a point of order.

If ever the member is in Government, he may find that that is the case. The text of this bill—if the member would care to listen and not give a running commentary from his seat on a point of order—is in English. There is no Māori text in the bill. The only text in Māori is in the schedule, which is a quotation from an existing piece of legislation, and there is an English version in the schedule. The bill is only in English.

The two versions the member referred to relate to the select committee commentary being in English and Māori. The commentary is interesting, but it is not what the House will enact. The House enacts the bill, not the select committee commentary. The select committee has chosen to have a commentary whereby the numbering of the paragraphs is different, but I am informed that it has considered the translation and is satisfied that the actual translations match in terms of meaning. That is what the committee is for. Either way, it is irrelevant to the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. It is not a fault in the text of what will be considered by the Committee. The Committee does not consider at any point the motion that it agree to the text of the commentary from the select committee. All the Committee can be asked to agree to is the preamble, Parts 1, 2, and 3, and back to the commencement and title clauses. They are in one language, English. The member does not have a point, and we do not care to repeat the nonsense we had on the other Ngāti Awa bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister’s view of things, it is now well understood that where there is some difficulty in interpreting a law, courts will refer to the commentary on a bill. We are told so repeatedly by the Law Commission and by many others. The commentary is supposed to be the expression of what Parliament intended in passing a law. I am simply saying that when we have two texts that clearly are not literal interpretations of each other, then we have a difficulty—certainly National members, from our perspective, have a difficulty in supporting it.

As to the comments made about the Māori Affairs Committee making a decision to go ahead along those lines, let me be very clear that the select committee is dominated by Government members. Although no one wants to pick an argument and see a bill come back in a split way, there most certainly was an expectation that this issue would be dealt with, subsequent to the difficulties we had with the recital in the main bill.

All I am saying is that if one or two things in this bill are wrong, and if in the future some disgruntled people in Ngāti Awa challenge the right of this organisation to deal with settlement monies, then quite clearly the matter would end up in a court, and a judge would have at least to look at the commentary to see what Parliament intended. If those people were able to argue that there was a difference between the two texts, then we are establishing a real bind for the future.

The real point in this case is that the Government is choosing to pass the settlement, but more than 70 percent of the eligible voters and recipients of the settlement offer did not vote for it.

I first say that I am obliged to Dr Cullen for drawing to my attention—and now that I look at it again, I can see—the fact that the translation is almost certainly of the Māori Affairs Committee’s commentary on the bill rather than of the bill itself. But the point that I think would help Mr Brownlee—and I think it would be a very useful thing for you, Mr Speaker, to make this ruling—is that the custom of the courts to start to refer to what happens in Parliament for statutory interpretation is, in my view, very unsound.

When I was first elected, the courts could not consider anything that was said in the House and they certainly would not consider any select committee commentary. Mr Brownlee is right that some courts, not all, have started to do that. I do not want to be derogatory of this learned select committee, but I think that that shows a fundamental lack of understanding by the courts. What is said in Parliament is very political, and what is said about a bill sometimes bears little resemblance to what is actually in it.

It would be very helpful if the Speaker would take this opportunity to confirm what Dr Cullen said—that is, the select committee looks at the English text of the legislation and that alone. When that legislation comes out of a select committee and is finally passed by the House, that is all the courts should look at. They certainly should not go back to the views of a select committee that, for all I know, has put in all sorts of interesting observations that were not made from the viewpoint that some court would take any notice of them.

I have listened with interest to all the points that have been made. To Dr Cullen, I say that the member is correct. The English and the Māori parts of the report are not translations of each other. Both commentaries are part of the report as adopted by the Māori Affairs Committee. If the member has a problem with the text, that is a criticism of the committee. The member is entitled to criticise the committee, but this matter is not a point of order. It is not the same as the point that was raised last week. On that occasion, the bill contained text in two languages. This time, the matter the member is raising concerns a select committee report.

In Committee