Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

The Speaker has been recalled and we will have some decorum in this House. This is disgraceful.

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled on a matter that relates to interpretation during the casting of a vote. The genesis of this matter goes back a little further. The honourable member from the Māori Party Te Ururoa Flavell challenged the vote cast by the Independent member Hone Harawira, saying that he included in his vote reference to whānau—to the family, as such. I ruled at that stage. Speaker’s ruling 67/7 states: “On a party vote, the Clerk names the party by its official name and the whip responsible for voting then gives the vote. No other comment at all is allowed.” As a consequence I asked for a reassurance from the member who had cast the vote on whether he had voted against the amendment that we were considering. He gave an assurance to the Committee, and I took him at his word that that was, in fact, correct.

Subsequent to that, when we moved to the next amendment to be voted on, the Hon Trevor Mallard cast the vote in Māori and the interpretation that came back satisfied, in my view, the Clerk at the Table, who told me that Labour had voted 42 votes against.

The question arises whether the interpreter has a role in just announcing the result, or whether he needs to interpret it further. My view is that when other parties cast their vote, they cast it for or against, and no other comment is made. That is what Speaker’s ruling 67/7 states. In my mind I was satisfied that the vote cast by Labour, when translated by the interpreter to the Clerk beside me, was correct. On that basis I was happy with that decision. Subsequently there has been a challenge to my ruling in that respect, and you have been recalled, Mr Speaker, to adjudicate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Chair.

I thank the Chairman for his summary. What he has said, as to what the issue is, is absolutely correct. The Standing Orders are clear that when someone votes, they give the number and the direction of the vote. We heard a series of votes from Hone Harawira that did not do that, but they were interpreted by the interpreter in a way that corrected his breach of the Standing Orders. As a result, the Clerk and the Chair were not aware of the fact that he breached the Standing Orders.

I suppose it is a little naughty to plead guilty to deliberately breaching the Standing Orders, but I wanted to test the system to see whether, in fact, the interpreter was correcting members to bring them within the Standing Orders when they were clearly outside. In my view, it is not the role of the interpreter to do that. If someone is breaching the Standing Orders in Māori, then the Chair should be made aware of that, just as all of our Chairs would be aware of breaches of the Standing Orders if they were made in English.

To use Hone Harawira’s example, he cast a vote on behalf of his family. If I did that when you were in the Chair in the House, Mr Speaker, I think it is fair to say that I would get a pretty quick reaction from you. It is my view that it is not the role of the interpreter to tidy up after members who are breaching the Standing Orders.

I endorse what the Hon Trevor Mallard has said. I think this is an area of the Standing Orders that works very well and very simply. There is a long-established tradition that a whip, or an individual voting on his or her own behalf, says only the number of votes in favour or against; anything else is out of order. That should be so, whether the comment is made in English or is made in Māori and then translated. It is out of order to add extraneous words. It is a very simply enforced part of the Standing Orders and I suggest that if it is not enforced, we will be allowing the introduction of extraneous words in English, as well as in Māori, in respect of voting because, of course, the same rule would apply in both situations.

I am speaking in support of Mr Mallard’s motion to call you back to the House, Mr Speaker. In actual fact, I first raised this issue. I challenged the Chair on whether the role of the interpreter was to interpret what was said or to give what the interpreter thought the Chair wanted to hear. I challenged the Chair on three occasions, and on the third occasion I was forcefully asked by the Chair to sit down. I called you back to the House last night, Mr Speaker, and I realised that it is a pretty tall order to do that. I accepted finally on the third occasion, and I sat down. But I was very pleased that Mr Mallard, who is more experienced than me, had the guts to recall you to the chair—something I did not do myself.

💬 Kelvin Davis: Speaking to the point of order—

I do not believe I need any further assistance on this matter; I have heard from three members. This is an important issue. The casting of votes in this House is a very, very important issue. I am pleased to make a ruling on the matter.

To me, the issue is not so much interpretation; it is how members cast their votes. The Speaker’s ruling is very clear on how votes are to be cast. The Chair of the Committee of the whole House and the Hon Trevor Mallard have both referred to Speaker’s ruling 67/7, which points out that in the casting of a party vote “No other comment at all is allowed.” So to me it is not a matter of interpretation. The interpreters do their best to give us the meaning of what is said in Māori. The responsibility must be on members to comply with that Speaker’s ruling.

I add to that Speaker’s ruling and make it very clear that if it is breached in the future, then the vote will not be counted. I make that very clear. The responsibility is on members to comply with that Speaker’s ruling. If they make other comments in their vote, then they have not complied with that Speaker’s ruling and it will not be a matter for the interpreter to decide what the members meant; their vote will not be counted. So the responsibility is on all members to comply correctly. Voting is too important to be fooled around with. With that, I declare the House—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you do that, I think we are still left with a problem. The problem is that when a member voting in Māori does not comply at the moment, the interpreter is not indicating that to the Chair and the Clerk.

The member makes a further very good point. I ask the interpreters to make sure that they make clear when interpreting a vote what has been said, so that the Chair is aware if the Speaker’s ruling has been breached. I realise I am taking a very strong position on this issue, but I feel that votes in this House are too important to be played around with. The member is quite right that the Chair must be aware when the Speaker’s ruling is breached, and if the Chair does not understand Māori sufficiently—and I certainly accept I do not—to judge that, then I expect the interpreters to make it clear in their interpretation. This matter is too important to be played around with. I make it clear to members that if they breach that Speaker’s ruling, then they cannot expect their vote to be counted.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Common marine and coastal area (continued)