Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill

A few moments ago I raised with the Chair the issue of the use of te reo Māori in bills that come before the House. That issue was the subject of considerable discussion in this Chamber in relation to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. I appreciate the fact that the settlement bill itself was written essentially in te reo Māori, and that any translation therefore had to be very, very correct. But I have raised the issue of the commentary on the bill that is before us, because I am concerned that on a number of occasions members of this House have been told that courts will refer to commentaries from select committees, and will want to know, essentially, what a committee was thinking at the time of recommending that the House pass a bill. The Hon Richard Prebble has said that that is an unsatisfactory sort of practice by the courts. It is, but this House is having increasing difficulty with the way in which the courts choose to administer the law in this country. I will go no further than that, because it would be inappropriate for a member to criticise the courts unduly.

This bill sets up a governance entity for Ngāti Awa. It is a bill that has received considerable attention from the office of the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia. We assume that that attention was focused on assisting Ngāti Awa in getting the best structure for their settlement. Of course, their settlement is relatively modest when measured against, for example, the wasteful funding the Government has sent to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in recent years. This bill will enable Ngāti Awa to collect, as their settlement, about one-eighth of a year’s funding to the wānanga. We need to put things in that perspective.

I have said that I worry that the organisation that, once the bill is passed, will become Te Runanga o Ngāti Awa has, it would seem, authority from very few of the settled parties—in other words, the members of the tribe—to stand in this position. I think it is an indictment on the Office of Treaty Settlements that we have reached this point with 70 percent of Ngāti Awa not having expressed a view about the appropriateness and the acceptability of the settlement. This leaves open the opportunity for future generations to say that their people were not part of the process, that the settlement was forced on them, and that it is not something they are part of. Given that the settlement bill itself will legislate away some rights, I think the office has been far too cavalier in telling the Minister that the mandated process has been satisfactory.

The National Party wishes the Ngāti Awa people all the best with their settlement. We do think that getting these grievances off the table and moving on is appropriate, and we simply have to trust the advice before the Committee that this bill setting up this structure is appropriate, and therefore wish Ngāti Awa all the best with that.

I have a number of matters to raise on which I would like to hear from the sponsor of the bill. A private bill, as opposed to a private member’s bill, is legislation passed by Parliament for the benefit of a private organisation. It follows that that private organisation then has a special law for itself that does not apply to every other New Zealander. In my view, the House should be extremely reluctant to agree to private bills, because to do otherwise would mean, if carried to its logical extreme, that all sorts of organisations could claim that the law of the land should not apply to them.

It may well be in this case that, because of the nature of the settlement, some special statutory structure did in fact have to be set up. But that raises a second question. If that is so, and as the settlement was made with the Crown, why did the Crown not include the new structure in its legislation? I would like to know what the argument was for this structure being set up in a private bill. I certainly hope it is not being set up in a private bill in order to bypass the procedures of the House. As I say, I think private bills generally should be passed only very reluctantly.

My next point—and I hope that a member of the Māori Affairs Committee is here to speak to this bill—is that I am shocked to learn from the Assistant Speaker that what I thought was an English translation of a commentary on the bill in Māori, or maybe the other way round, actually is not the case, and that it is accepted by the Assistant Speaker that what is before the House in Māori is different from what is before it in English. I ask members of the select committee whether that is not treating the House with contempt. If what is said in Māori is legitimate, then it ought also to be said in English. Why did the select committee think it should say something in Māori that it is either ashamed of, or for some other reason does not believe should be translated accurately into English?

From my own point of view, if members of the Māori Affairs Committee want to put commentaries in Māori, I will not object, but I will object if we pass laws—in this case, a special law for one Māori organisation that does not apply to any other New Zealander—then discover that they have a commentary that has not been translated. I would have thought that members of the Māori Affairs Committee could see for themselves that that is an insult to the House. It is not appropriate and I think we should record our grave concern that this has happened.

I understand from Mr Brownlee’s remarks that this will be a practice of the Labour Government, and that there are a number of bills in which the Government intends to have one commentary in Māori that states one thing and one commentary in English that states something different. Of course, it follows—maybe I am just suspicious—that we might find that what is said in English is calming and reassuring, and that most New Zealanders would say the content was fair enough, but that if they read what is written in Māori, they would not have that view. I form that opinion because I cannot see any reason why a Māori text is not accurately translated.

The sponsor of the bill is asking the House for an indulgence, because it is an indulgence to have a private bill passed. On the face of it, if the Assistant Speaker’s comments in the point of order ruling are correct and the Māori text and the English text are not the same, and if the members of the committee knew that the texts were not the same, then I am very critical of those members. I call upon them, in front of the whole House, to explain their actions. I also say that the sponsor of the bill has a duty to the House. I think he should take the time to go through the two texts and explain to us where they differ and what the differences are.

It may be that the Minister was contemplating replying to the previous speaker’s query. Since he has not, I would like to hear his explanation of whether in the future the Māori Affairs Committee will continue to include commentaries in English and Māori in legislation.

Te Runanga o Ngāti Awa was constituted by the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act in 1988. That Act declared the rūnanga to be subject to the Maori Trust Boards Act. As we have all learnt since then, the Maori Trust Boards Act, under which a number of tribal authorities are constituted, has proved not to be adequate to receive settlement assets. So it is no surprise that at some stage this Parliament will also be looking at dealing with the governance entity of Ngāti Awa. The legislation that concludes the Ngāti Awa settlement is about to go through the Parliament over the next week or so. Of course, unless the iwi has an entity that satisfies certain requirements of the settlement framework that has been developed, then assets cannot pass. That is why National supports this bill. I take note of what the previous speaker said—that it is a member’s bill and not necessarily something that the Parliament should be entertaining. Be that as it may, Ngāti Awa is entitled to receive its settlement, and to do so this bill needs to pass.

I will comment on a couple of issues. The first is the issue of the low turn-out for ratification of governance entities that has been a feature of recent settlements and on which the Opposition has expressed concern. It will probably continue to be a feature of settlements in the near future. I understand that the Government is looking at a generic format for future governance entities. If that is the case, I hope the Government is doing it in consultation with iwi. We do not want the Government dreaming up a generic framework for future governance entities, into which iwi have had no input. But this is probably a good development because it is of no credit to the Government that the Ngāti Awa settlement has basically been in place for the last 5 years and the iwi has spent much of that time endeavouring to get the entity that it wanted.

My understanding was that originally the Labour Government was opposed to Ngāti Awa having a governance entity that needed to be legislated for. But here we are today and I think it behoves this Parliament, given that the third reading of the settlement bill is nigh, to ensure that this bill gets timely passage.

The other issue I will speak of was brought up by one of the submitters—the issue of asset-holding entities. I guess that that submission arises out of the concern of beneficiaries, whoever they might be, about the security of assets that are held, supposedly, on behalf of the collective and whether they will be held in a way that they can be passed on to future generations. At the Hui Taumata, which has been in progress for the last 2 days, there has been some discussion on the issue of governance and on the appropriate mechanism by which assets should be held. There has also been some discussion about whether it is time for Māori people to consider whether assets should remain inalienable.

I stand briefly to respond to some of the matters that have been raised. Firstly, I will respond to the matter raised by the Hon Richard Prebble in relation to the Māori Affairs Committee and the continued inclusion of bilingual commentaries in legislation. I want the member to know that the Government is a minority on the committee. In this particular case there was considerable discussion and it was agreed by the committee that there would be a bilingual commentary on this bill. Whether that practice continues in the future will be up to the select committee.

In respect of the other matters raised by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, I will say in relation to the low turn-out by Ngāti Awa for ratifying the governance arrangement that this is a problem that we seem to be confronting with a lot of settlement bills, particularly when it comes to the ratification of the governance structures.

Ngāti Awa has a long history of attempting to get its governance structure right. The first discussions about the appropriateness of the Ngāti Awa Trust Board began in 1995 and have continued week after week, month after month, year after year, right up until December of last year to determine whether the proposed rūnanga was the appropriate structure. It is fair to say that, like many claimant groups, by that time Ngāti Awa was suffering from treaty fatigue.

Basically, this double-step ratification process—one step to accept the settlement package, and the second to accept the governance structure—is probably a very difficult process for all claimant groups. That is why we believe we are seeing a low turn-out. This has happened in every case.

I say in response to another of Georgina te Heuheu’s concerns that one of the submitters expressed some concern about the rūnanga’s ability to not only hold assets but to retain them. I advise members to look at the charter that the Ngāti Awa rūnanga has put in place and they will find that there is a very, very rigid process to be undergone before any assets can be alienated from the rūnanga. That would happen if it were Māori land under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. It is a similar process.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner gong, I was responding to concerns raised by Richard Prebble, Gerry Brownlee, and the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu. I believe I responded sufficiently to Mr Prebble’s concern in terms of the ongoing inclusion of bilingual commentaries in settlement legislation. As I said, that would be a matter for the Māori Affairs Committee, and it is unfair to say that the Government has the numbers, because the Government is in a minority on this select committee. Any decisions in that regard would be required to be supported by more than just Government members.

I also touched on the history of this legislation and the length of time that Ngāti Awa had been involved in determining a suitable governance structure to manage their post-settlement assets.

Lastly, I responded to concern that was expressed at the select committee in terms of the ability of the rūnanga not only to hold assets but to retain them, and to ensure that there was a transparent process in place before any assets could be alienated from the rūnanga. If I had a concern at the select committee, it was not that the transparency was not there, but probably that, if anything, the charter that the rūnanga has agreed to might prevent its ability to grow those assets. But going by the explanation given to the select committee in Whakatāne, that certainly would not be the case. But it was important for the rūnanga to ensure that the assets were protected into the future, and at the same time to ensure the rūnanga could still do business in terms of growing those assets.

I heard what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, said regarding the translation, and I want to echo the views of Richard Prebble and Gerry Brownlee who said that when we have a document that we want to endorse—and in fact in National’s case we will be supporting this legislation—it is important that we can understand it. I do not understand Māori, I do not speak the language, so I think it is incumbent upon the Māori Affairs Committee, when reporting back, to provide a translation in this bill that accurately reflects the Māori text, for the benefit of those of us who want to support the legislation. That should be done for any legislation containing Māori text.

I say to the Minister that when I look at the bill I do not know whether the English version is the same as the Māori version. Maybe he can take another call and tell me. I heard what he said, but as somebody who does not understand the language I say that we certainly would expect that what has been written in English does translate what is written in Māori. That is our concern. I think the select committee should have done a translation. It would have been a courtesy to do a translation, so we would be able to understand exactly what is meant. All the Minister needs to do is to say yes or no as to whether the English translation reflects what is in Māori. A yes or no would help me quite considerably. I note that there are six and a half pages in Māori, and there are five and a bit pages in English. I do not know whether the translation is accurate, so I would be interested specifically in what the Minister can help me with.

I stand here to give more than just a yes or no response. I can satisfy the member’s concerns, that the Māori version and the English version of the commentary do reflect what the bill is intending. Furthermore, as I said earlier, Government members are in a minority on the Māori Affairs Committee and we did have the committee’s support, which included the support of the National Party representative.

I am pleased to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Committee stage of this bill. Firstly, much of the discussion so far has been about translation and I find it ironic that the people who have expressed concerns about the translation have not told us what is wrong. I suppose I have to bow in deference to the deputy leader of National, who was a teacher of Māori language, as I understand—and I am not a teacher—so perhaps he might want to come back to the Chamber to tell us what is wrong. I take some exception to the comments made by the previous leader of the ACT party, which cast aspersions on the integrity of the Māori members of the Māori Affairs Committee. I find it very ironic that the people who were concerned about the translation of the Māori text, and the quality of it, have admitted that they are not fluent Māori speakers.

Secondly, I felt that some of the aspersions cast by the previous leader of the ACT party on members of the Māori Affairs Committee suggest that the Māori translation of the English was wrong. Perhaps he is presuming that the Māori text is a translation of the English text, but perhaps it could be the other way round. Be that as it may, I stand to support this bill, which sets up a governance entity for Ngāti Awa. One of the reasons why we in New Zealand First support it is that this is a decision by Ngāti Awa. In fact, what it will do is to change its present governing legislation from the Maori Trust Boards Act to its own Act, and from that of a Māori trust board to that of a rūnanga. They considered that to be the best structure for them to administer the resources that they will get as a consequence of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which was debated in this House yesterday. It provides an opportunity for Ngāti Awa to change from their present situation of being an entity under the Maori Trust Boards Act, to becoming a rūnanga and having their own legislation.

But having said that, although Ngāti Awa are quite happy to transpose, to a certain extent, the references to hapū in the Maori Trust Boards Act, I need to repeat on behalf of New Zealand First our concerns that it has not been a complete transfer. In our view, new hapū have been added, and some of the titles of those hapū, or those divisions that have been listed in the Maori Trust Boards Act, are slightly at variance with those that are listed in the settlement bill. Some of those variances are dialectal variances and do not have too much of a consequence.

However, I need again to express some concern about the fact that in the regulations supporting their entity within the Maori Trust Boards Act, reference is made to one division, or one hapū, as they would like us to believe, known as Taiwhakaea. The settlement bill refers to “Ngai Taiwhakaea II”, and, similarly, to “Ngai Te Rangihouhiri II”. I need to ask what has happened to “Taiwhakaea I”. Perhaps the Minister might be able to enlighten members in that regard. But, given that that is the case in terms of what the new entity will provide, New Zealand First will continue to support this bill.

I am pleased, on behalf of United Future, to take a call on the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill and to express my congratulations again to the rūnanga on it. In particular, I note that this is a watershed bill. Its approach is actually quite distinctively different from the approach we have tended to use towards governance entities in treaty settlements. That is evidenced and crystallised in the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, which states in its commentary on the bill: “Under the bill Te Runanga will become a stand-alone body corporate to be administered under this bill and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Charter. The accountabilities set out in the Charter will replace the accountabilities to the Crown that are currently specified in the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955.” It is the move towards self-governance by rūnanga of their settlements in a form they adopt rather than in a form imposed upon them—often a model arising from our British heritage rather than being something that identifies with tikanga Māori—that is so noticeable here, and it is something to be commended. I think that it is a watershed—a sign that we are moving to a greater level of maturity in terms of our relationship with iwi, where we entrust to them the ability to govern their assets in a manner more akin to their own understandings of governance entities. I think that is to be applauded.

The key things, of course, that we must protect, in the interests of iwi as much as in the interests of the nation as a whole, are issues such as accountability. Under the structure in this bill, there is a lot more accountability to the members of the rūnanga and iwi than there is to the Crown, and that is fitting because we are passing settlement proceeds to them. We are passing them from the Crown into their hands in recognition that this is some compensation, albeit modest compensation, for wrongs done to them. How that money is used is really a matter for them to control, rather than the Crown being a watchdog. Indeed, I think that we as a nation often have been very patronising towards Māori, when we have said to them that they must follow a Pākehā model and that Pākehā, or the Crown, know best how to manage their assets, rather than Māori managing their assets themselves. I welcome that move, and I welcome that recognition.

The key thing, of course, is that the rūnanga must ensure that that accountability is genuine. Only too recently we have seen the Te Wānanga o Aotearoa fiasco, where the confidence of members of Parliament, in particular—and I guess the media, and through them the public in general—has waned somewhat because of accusations about accountability processes and management, and about other issues such as nepotism, which we in New Zealand tend to regard as unacceptable, that have been seen throughout that institution. I think that is a warning sign of their being quite a lot of scrutiny of Māori organisations. Some would say there is more scrutiny of Māori organisations than there is of Pākehā organisations, and I will not dispute that. Nevertheless, there are people who are watching. The model in this bill is a new way of going forward that gives more independence to iwi, which is welcome, but it comes with those sorts of cautions.

I note that one of the concerns picked up by the select committee related to the dispute resolution process, particularly about whether it preserves the right of an individual to access courts, when appropriate. I note that the select committee said that it had sought clarification and had been advised that, although clause 15 of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill will remove the jurisdiction of the courts, tribunals, and other judicial bodies in respect of matters regarding the settlement of Ngāti Awa’s historical claims, it does not remove any right a member of Ngāti Awa may have to access the courts in respect of disputes within the rūnanga about settlement assets and other matters. I am sure that is correct, but it would be a pity if, having achieved this, the iwi of Ngāti Awa were then put into a situation where they had to go back, effectively, to the Crown courts in order to resolve disputes within their own iwi.

Once again, from that aspect it is important that the rūnanga act in accordance with the ways that maintain accountability to their own members, which means that neither Parliament nor the members of Ngāti Awa become concerned about the way the assets are being managed. Obviously, the process of democratic elections will provide some degree of oversight, but, as we know, those happen only infrequently. A lot can happen on a fairly rapid basis that makes an iwi lose confidence and that election processes that occur only on an irregular basis cannot fix. Once again, we need only to look at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa to see that the problems that have arisen there are not ones that can wait until an election process can replace the board, if the board has been at fault. These things arise at very short notice and hit the media. For the sake not only of Ngāti Awa but of Māoridom throughout the country, it is important that Ngāti Awa, and the rūnanga in particular, look at this situation and take great care of the new provisions that relate to their self-sufficiency.

So I congratulate them on what they have achieved. I think the future is now looking a lot brighter for them. I trust they will take into account the comments I have made, and that they will also take into account the minority interests, because that is often from where the fuel comes. When I talk about minority interests, it is not only minority interests within Ngāti Awa itself; I know there are Pākehā who are affected by the provisions of this bill. I have discussed at length the interests of one such person who came to me and whose land is being used to provide particular rights under this bill. There are issues still that have to be resolved in terms of the ownership of the land that the rights have been granted over, and there is a lot of concern there that effectively the iwi coming on to that land will misuse the rights they have been given under this bill. This person thinks that those rights affect his land. He feels that the Crown took the land for one purpose, but nevertheless did not hand it back when that purpose was no longer fulfilled, and instead, held on to it and turned it into reserve, wrongly. The good relationships that need to be there among the landowners where they have rights over land is also an important one to protect. I think they need to be cautious about that. However, I am sure that there is considerable wisdom within the rūnanga, and that they will effectively be able to manage this well, and I wish them every success.

I recognise that National is supporting the bill, but I want to raise a question with regard to the definition of “customary rights”. Clause 3(1) states: “customary rights means rights according to tikanga Maori (Maori customary values and practices); including the following: (a) rights to occupy land;”, but I cannot see where it specifies which land. It leaves it somewhat open-ended. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, could take a call and explain that to me.

I may be overlooking something, but the bill does not actually specify the land in question; it leaves it completely open, in that, according to customary rights, Māori would have the right to occupy land, regardless of ownership. I raise that as a point of concern. I cannot see where the land is clearly identified—where the bill specifies that land. If the Minister could take a call to reassure me on this matter I would be most appreciative.

A number of points have come up with all speakers, but the most important matter is the one raised by the National Party member in terms of the land in question. The definition of customary rights states: “including the following: (a) rights to occupy land; and (b) rights in relation to the use of: (i) land: (ii) natural or physical resources”. The member’s concern was that the definition does not identify any particular blocks of land. It can apply only to the lands that are part of the cultural redress package, which is part of the settlement. There are no other lands concerned. They are listed in the schedule, and if the member cares to look through the bill she will find them.

💬 Sandra Goudie: That’s not what the definition states.

It cannot apply to any land other than the land that is subject to the settlement.

💬 Sandra Goudie: That’s not what the definition states.

Are we having an across-the-floor discussion, Madam Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. That was helpful in terms of clarification. I ask the Minister to continue.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can you ask the Minister to put the microphone closer to him. He is one Minister we appreciate listening to over here.

As I said to Sandra Goudie of the National Party, the land in question is the land that is included as part of the Ngāti Awa settlement. The lands are identified in the schedule of the settlement. It cannot apply to any other lands, because Ngāti Awa does not own them. It only talks about the lands that are part of its settlement.

I say in response to that that the point here, though, is that there is a definition for customary rights, but it does not ring-fence the area in question—it makes no reference to the area in question. It actually leaves it open-ended. If it is a customary right, I would have thought that that meant regardless of ownership. If it is a customary right to occupy land then, because of the tikanga Māori in this regard, the current ownership is overridden by that customary right—because the area of land in question has not been specified.

Maybe I can satisfy the member’s concerns. It does not apply to private property, but to the area where Ngāti Awa have an ancestral connection or their customary lands.

I am pleased on behalf of New Zealand First to rise in support of this bill. It may seem that those who heard New Zealand First in regard to the committee’s discussions, may, in turn, be surprised. But one of the reasons for our support of this bill is that it is a modern bill. It puts the Treaty of Waitangi in its place, exactly, without any reference, so far as I am able to ascertain, to the so-called principles of the treaty. It is for that very interesting reason, plus the fact that there is no mention of separate hapū. That issue was of contention with us in the previous debate. We are very pleased to stand and support this bill, particularly when we acknowledge, as we have done in the past, the longstanding wish of Ngāti Awa to be here at this time and at this place, particularly those negotiators, including Professor Mead, who, in my youth, I realised was an outstanding teacher. I am very pleased that I am able to pass on to him and others our regard for this bill. So, briefly, this is a modern bill. It recognises what New Zealand First has long believed. The treaty has a real place in our history, in practice, but this bill does not embellish it with the unproven, undefined, and therefore unwanted, “principles” in our legislation.

I rise to respond briefly to the points made by the New Zealand First MP, who criticised me for criticising the committee’s report. As far as I could judge, his criticism was that, firstly, I had not said what was wrong with the translations, and secondly, that the committee had not said whether it had translated Māori into English, or English into Māori. The Minister said he was not responsible, because the Government had a minority on the committee. Let me deal with the last bit first. That would sort of imply that Labour members on the committee had voted against having a translation and were somehow overwhelmed by other members on the committee, when of course, it is quite clear that that was not the situation. I think that is not a satisfactory answer from the Minister. The Minister did vote for a Māori version to be there. Just because his party is in a minority it is not an excuse for him to then imply to the Committee that he did not vote for it. As the promoter, he actually has a duty to tell us about it.

The second point is this, and I do not know whether the New Zealand First MP was listening to the Speaker. However, the Speaker made a very interesting point to the House about this bill, which is separate from the one we were dealing with last week. The Speaker ruled that the Māori version and the English version, as far as the House was concerned, are not translations of each other; that the committee was perfectly legally—I do not say in a moral sense in this Parliament—entitled to give a Māori commentary, followed by an English one, which bear no relationship to each other. The criticism I am making is that if each is a translation of the other, we in this Parliament are entitled to know that. The New Zealand First MP boasted about the fact that it might not be. I do not think that is good enough.

💬 Pita Paraone: No, I didn’t say that.

The member most certainly did. The member does not know whether we were translating English into Māori, or Māori into English. It is absolutely right; I do not know. But I say to the member that I am entitled to know that. Of course I am. I am a member of Parliament; I am asked to vote on this bill. I am entitled to know that. I say to that committee—and in that respect, I am criticising him and every other member of the committee—that if we are to have this as a practice, we are entitled to be able to read in the English translation, and I presume it should also be in the Māori translation, that one is a translation of the other. The member may not know this, but I shall tell him. I do not want to be the person responsible for this happening, but that committee is entitled to come to the House, according to the Speaker, with a Māori text and an English text that have no relationship to each other. There is no Standing Order that requires one to be a translation of the other. There is a convention.

I say to the Minister that I think the Minister was saying to the Parliament, but he did not use the words that make it clear, that in fact in his view he was giving his undertaking to the Parliament that the Māori and English versions are as comparable as any translation can be. If that is what the Minister in charge of the bill is saying, then, of course, all honourable members have to accept his word. I say to him that he is obliged to give that word. I think we are entitled to know that. I then say that if this is to be a practice, and I understand it is, of that committee to start to produce commentaries in both Māori and English, then I say that the text should state somewhere, because it is a commentary advising us all on the bill, that this is a translation of the Māori text; and the Māori text should state that this is a translation of the English text. There is a very good reason why we would want them to do that. If it is not, of course, it would be a very, very serious breach of privilege. But if it is, I perfectly accept that—if the member was fairer to me in his comments—I said that under the Standing Orders the committee is entitled to put forward text in Māori. But if it is going to, let us be told that they are translations and let the Minister give us his undertaking that it is a translation.

Once again, for the member’s benefit I stand to clarify the commentary on the bill. I made an attempt prior to the dinner break, I made a much longer attempt, and I now have to do it again, but I am more than willing to do that. Prior to the dinner break—and I still echo those words—I said that the Government does not have a majority on the select committee. That was in response to a comment made by the National Party member Gerry Brownlee prior to the dinner break, about the numbers in terms of the voting. The point is that, whilst we do not have the numbers, what we required was the full support of the select committee, and that we did get. I did not say at any time that we are not responsible for it. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Secondly, I attempted to satisfy the concerns of the National Party member Lindsay Tisch when he asked for some clarification from me about both versions reflecting the views of the select committee. I gave him that assurance, and I do so once again.

I want to pick up the points that Richard Prebble made. I say to the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, that he can solve this really, really quickly by standing up, not giving the speech he just made, and just answering the question. The question is quite simple: did the select committee write an English text and send it away to be translated, or did it write a Māori text and send it away to be translated—I suspect it did not do that—or did it, and this where I pick up on Mr Prebble’s comments, write two texts? They might be as close to the same as they could be made to be at that particular time, but did they write two texts? We will get into a great deal of difficulty in the future in this House if one select committee does, as is its right, report back a bill with both a Māori and an English text and the text is not done as a translation but is done as two separate texts, and we have to rely on that. So I ask that question of the Minister, as he was on the select committee. I was hopeful that the chair of the select committee would take a call but she is unable to at present. Could the Minister inform the Committee whether—and I think Mr Paraone is the only other member here who sat on the select committee—it is a translation from English or from Māori, or whether two texts were written.

The question is—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: Madam Chair—

I am putting the question. There was no further—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I will take another call.

I call the Hon Roger Sowry.

I now find myself in the situation, having sat down,expecting that the Minister would have answered the question—

💬 Hon Mita Ririnui: You hope!

He says I am hoping—obviously he is not going to. The issue that I have is whether it is appropriate for this Committee to proceed in this way, or whether it is appropriate for the Speaker to give a ruling as to whether the Committee is entitled to know whether we have two texts written separately or a translation of one to the other, and if we have it from one to the other, which one it is. I again appeal to the Minister. He clearly knows. My appeal to the Minister is to stand and tell the Committee what exactly happened.

The Minister and the New Zealand First MP may think it is clever to be able to get up, as the New Zealand First MP did, and say that they have not told anyone whether the English text is a translation of the Māori text, but that is exactly the point. The member may be making what he thinks is a clever point—that there are members in this Parliament who were not on the Māori Affairs Committee. He is right; we were not. However, leaving aside the question of whether the text is a Māori translation, I point out that the select committee is a servant of this Parliament and it should report accurately to it.

The question that was asked was a perfectly reasonable one. I say to the Minister that he may think that he answered it, but what he actually said to the Committee was that the texts reflect the views of the committee. Well, of course they do! They had to be passed, but that does not mean to say that the views in the Māori text and the English text are the same. He might think I am splitting hairs, but I am a lawyer and I tell him that what he just said to us could actually mean that the two texts are completely different. Now, he may not have meant to say that to the Committee, but that is an interpretation we could take from his words.

I say to the New Zealand First MP, who I think will now take a call, and who criticised me for asking those questions, that I am perfectly entitled to ask them. In that sense I do criticise the select committee, because I think its commentary is not as clear as it ought to be.

I would like to know exactly, before I vote, the answers to the questions that have now been asked by two parties. Are the two texts a translation of each other? If they are, it would be interesting to know which way around they occurred: did the select committee first agree on an English text and then do a Māori text; was it the other way around; or do we have two separate texts?

If we have two separate texts, then I understand from the Speaker’s ruling that under our Standing Orders it is possible to have that. Yes, we can put in a Māori text that is not translated. We can put into a Māori text statements that are not in the English text. However, when we look at the two texts in their paragraphing we see that that situation seems to be unlikely, so I think I am entitled to have that assurance.

We should really have that assurance from the promoter of the bill, because a private bill is a special privilege: an organisation is given the privilege of having the law written specially for it, and the law does not apply to anyone else. I think a promoter of a bill in that position has an added obligation to the Committee to answer those questions. I would like to know the answers. I make it clear that my party did not intend to vote against this bill, but I will not vote for something that I have not had properly explained.

First of all, I just want to reassure the last speaker that when I stand I am not standing to be smart.

The issue is that the first speaker in this debate made the allegation that there was something wrong with the translation. From that time subsequent speakers have stood to support that concern, but I have noted that none of them have actually identified just what is wrong with the translation. [Interruption] No, no. The member for National mentioned that there was something wrong with the translation, but no one has told this Committee what exactly is wrong. That is the point that I made.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: He claimed the paragraphs are equivalent; we don’t know that they are.

If we are talking about paragraphs, I say that that is nothing to do with the translation. But I can assure Mr Sowry that there was the English text, and the Māori is a translation of the English text.

In terms of verifying the translation I support the previous speaker, who said that the person who should give that confirmation is the promoter of this bill, or his or her representative.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In that case, we may have one problem with which we might be able to help the Minister. When he first spoke he had his microphone turned away and, like my colleague from New Zealand First, I might have missed his words, but I want him to understand my position, which is that I think he is not prepared to give the Committee an assurance, now that we know the order of translation, that the Māori is—how will I put it?—a valid translation.

I say to him that I understand that all translations can be a matter of argument—we need only look at the translations that have been made of the Bible. Given that, I do not think it is an unreasonable thing for him as the promoter of the bill to rise and give an undertaking that it is his belief that the Māori text is a valid translation of the English. I think that if he had given that undertaking an hour ago, we would have made a lot more progress.

I stand to say again: yes, it is.

Preamble, clauses 1 to 14, and schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.