Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4986] 
Maori Television Service Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Maori Television Service Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question That  
the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 48 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 There are certainly some things to be said about the preamble. The preamble sets out the background to this bill both in Maori and in English. It traverses the history of the litigation starting with the Waitangi Tribunal litigation and then Privy Council findings. Having done that under the heading “Background in English” there is quite a weak kind of objective that establishes the Maori Television Service so that Maori have a secure place are recognised actively promoted blah blah blah. Nowhere in that preamble—and I want the Maori members to hear this—is there anything that basically states that the establishment of the Maori Television Service is in satisfaction of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. That is most of the problem with this bill—it is a mishmash of social objectives and so-called treaty objectives and Maori are none the wiser. We cannot have that mishmash. The litigation that went before both the Waitangi Tribunal and to the Privy Council was the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. If this service is being set up in satisfaction of that obligation then there is no room in here for social objectives. Those might flow in the long term but certainly not in stating why the Crown is setting this television service up. 
Quite frankly the preamble is absolutely deficient. It gives no clear explanation or recognition of the purpose of this service or of the reasons for it being set up yet it clearly sets out the background to the litigation but the background only. That is a major flaw. The Maori Television Service Board came before the select committee and pointed that out. The board proposed some changes to the preamble that would make it very clear just what this television service is about. The board suggested something along the lines that the Crown had agreed to establish and fund Maori television as a principal means of satisfying its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to actively protect our te reo Maori. There is nothing of that in this preamble and in my view the bill is flawed from the start. That is a slap in the face to all of those tribes and individuals who since the late 1980s have pursued this matter and particularly in the early 1990s when the Crown moved to dispose of its broadcasting assets. That clearly was the motivator for Maori to take their action to the Privy Council. 
I ask the Minister the Hon Parekura Horomia to take a call to explain not just to this Committee but also to Maori involved in all of that litigation why he is not prepared to have a clear statement in this bill that says without any equivocation whatsoever that the establishment of the Maori Television Service is the means of satisfying the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to actively protect the Maori language. This mishmash of a bill will have a serious impact if Maori take it in their minds at some future date to say: “This wasn’t in satisfaction of the treaty obligation. We will go back to the Government”—and that is likely to be the National Party in Government—“and say that the Government has not fulfilled its treaty obligation so what will it do about it?” 
I want the Minister to take a call to tell us why he is not prepared to put some clarity into this bill. It might be a big ask for that Minister because a notion of “Parekuraisms” has developed in the public arena. But he has an Associate Minister sitting there in John Tamihere and he is reasonably clear in expression. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The preamble includes a section on page 8 that is headed “Requirement for consultation when appointing the chief executive.” I have read that part of the preamble with great care and indeed the subsequent part of the bill. I have also read with some care material that the Minister has now been forced—and I use that word advisedly—to release under the Official Information Act which makes it very clear indeed why the Minister did not want us to know what has gone on in relation to the appointment of Mr Derek Fox as the chief executive of the Maori Television Service. 
I want the Minister to take a call and reconcile what is in the bill’s preamble with the facts as they are now clear to members who have read those papers. It is now clear that the appointment of Mr Derek Fox—formerly chairman—to the position of chief executive was nothing short of a monumental jack-up. It is clear from the papers that I have now seen and that have been released after the Ombudsman told the Minister’s officials their obligations under the Act that Mr Fox himself presided over the appointments committee process when people were interviewed. He sat in the board meeting while the report of that appointments committee was received and the other applicants seen off from the process. He left the room so that there could be a three-two vote amongst the directors of which one vote was a proxy. So Mr Fox who is supposed to enjoy the confidence of this Government and of the board in relation to the appointment outlined in this preamble actually got there by way of a process that he presided over that saw no one else emerge as an acceptable candidate and that saw Mr Fox leave the room so that he could be appointed on a vote of three against two of which one was a proxy vote. I ask the Minister how he reconciles that with the preamble to this bill and the requirements set out on page 8 and with the provisions that follow in parts of this bill. 
What has happened makes a mockery of what this Committee is considering today. Members are sitting here lamely debating a process that has already been completed. It was the result of a monumental jack-up involving the former chairman who had himself appointed as the chief executive. That appointment was announced on 11 February and I want the Minister to tell me how that is reconcilable with the provisions contained in the preamble on page 8. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The preamble is actually on pages 2 3 and 4 of the bill. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am referring to the notes that follow the preamble in this copy of the bill. If the Minister is able to refer me to some other pages I will be very happy to be referred to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry. The preamble is on pages 2 3 and 4. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I want the Minister to take a call because these are important matters. We are debating in this Committee a bill that relates to a process that has been already substantially completed and the Minister cannot pretend that those actions have not occurred. We are in the process of debating a bill by which vast amounts of public monies have already been expended and contracts entered into—most important the contract for the chief executive. I want the Minister to take a call to explain to the Committee why those events have already occurred now that this matter is coming at this belated stage before the Committee for its consideration. I want to know as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu wanted to know why the Minister has taken so long to get this matter before the Committee when over 2 years ago—as I told the Minister yesterday—the Prime Minister said that this bill was taking too long and that the Maori Television Service needed a hurry-up. She raised the matter in Cabinet and no doubt gave the Minister a good kick in the backside and asked what was going on. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 The tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Maori language. The Crown accepted those findings. The Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi imposed a continuous obligation to take such steps as were reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori. Will this bill protect te reo Maori? Will it help prospective students—those who can afford to sit down and literally take a class in the Maori language from the television screen—to be astute and fluent speakers of the language and thus retain and protect it? That is the question out there. If this amount of money is to be spent on Maori television for the purpose of protecting and retaining te reo how will te reo come across on the television screen for those who can afford to watch it and are able to learn from it? That is the question I leave with the Minister. 
If television programmes are promoted to teach the language how are 5-year-olds—up to people of whatever age who do not speak the language—supposed to learn? If a survey were to be taken of how teaching through the medium of the television screen promoted the language how many of those who watched it would come out speaking the language fluently? That is the question. If this language is to be retained the wheel has already been invented. It is in our homes maraes kohanga reo polytechnics universities and wananga. Can New Zealand First be guaranteed that for every person who watches programmes on Maori Television—if or when it gets off the ground—there will be a result? I urge members to think about that matter and I ask the Minister to take a call on it. I might think of joining Labour if its members came out speaking te reo but I doubt it very much. 
Brent Catchpole 
: There is no chance of that. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: There is no chance of that. I know it will fail if we—this Committee or this Government—say that Maori television programmes will teach our children mokopuna youth and those of adult age so that they come out speaking fluently in Maori. That is the challenge. 
Let us look at the bill again. Its preamble is very shallow; it refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that is all. But how what where and when? Will we come out with fluent speakers of Maori—yes or no? Will we come out with people who understand the tikanga of iwi throughout the country? Will the mita o te reo be recognised by Ngati Porou Ngapuhi Te Arawa Mataatua Tuhoe? Questions will be asked by our kaumatua. They will say: “E hoa e hara te ra i te reo o Te Arawa”—That is not the language of Te Arawa. We want our speakers to be there to teach them. How can te reo be taught if we sit in front of a screen and switch te reo off when we have had enough of it—especially if we do not understand it? The message is the same: if we do not do the job right when we are teaching in schools how can students learn? 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I think the name Maori Television Service Bill is a bit of a misnomer. The title of the bill should be the “Maori Television Black Hole Bill” because it seems to me that what we are setting up here is simply an organisation that will take—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sure the member was going to raise a point of order about the preamble. At the present time we are speaking about pages 2 3 and 4 of the preamble—not the title. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Thank you for that clarification. I will hold fire on that issue. I note that the preamble talks about the Te Reo Maori Report (Wai 11) which says that the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Treaty of Waitangi was directed to ensuring a place for two peoples in New Zealand. In reading that I noted the word “was”. That word refers back no doubt to the foundations of the treaty and one of the problems with this bill—and with the Government’s policy on Maori—is that there is a lack of thought about where we should be with regard to the treaty 150 years on. 
We are looking back at what the treaty meant 150 years ago but what does it mean today? This Government lacks vision in that respect and that fact is reflected in the “Background in English” section of the preamble. It states that the Treaty of Waitangi “was”—past—directed to ensuring a place for two peoples in New Zealand and then goes on to state that the tribunal found that the Maori language “is”—current—an essential part of Maori culture and must be regarded as a taonga a valued possession. I totally agree that te reo Maori is a taonga. It is a taonga I suggest of the whole of New Zealand not just of Maori. But the situation we need to address is how Maori and non-Maori should be relating together 150 years after the treaty. The fact that there is such a big gap between the word “was”—heading back to how things were 150 years ago—and the “is” of the Maori language today simply demonstrates that this Government has no vision whatsoever of how Maori and non-Maori relationships should be today and how we should be proceeding into the future. 
That dearth of vision conveys itself in the Government going in two opposite directions. In an earlier debate I referred to that as schizophrenic. On the one hand the Government is doing things that seem to suggest that it wants to bring about reconciliation between Maori and non-Maori—a sense of unity within this nation—so that we can move forward together. I commend that view. Certainly the resolution of treaty grievances is an absolutely vital part of that process. As I have already expressed a number of times I hope the Government moves with some speed in getting those issues resolved but so far my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. 
Then we find bills such as this—and also like the one we have recently passed allowing for separate Maori seats on local authorities—where the Government is doing things that seem to be trying to marginalise Maori and make them separate from the rest of this nation. The Maori Television Service Bill is a classic example of that. In order to promote te reo we are going to set up a separate Maori television station specifically for Maori and that Maori will watch while the rest of New Zealand carries on and watches Television One TV2 TV3 and regional television and has very little exposure to te reo Maori. In my view we should be looking to provide te reo not just for Maori but for all New Zealanders. We should be looking at ways to promote the language amongst all New Zealanders and that is by nationwide and regional television—television that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will watch. 
I am not at all convinced that many New Zealanders will watch this channel—Maori or non-Maori. Absolutely no research has been done to suggest what the viewer audience will be despite calls on my part for it. There is no research to suggest that there will be any sort of viewer audience for this channel. We will have $30 million—and in 2 years $40 million—just being thrown into this black hole of television that no one will watch and which will not further te reo within New Zealand. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I would like to share with the Committee a pretty major concern I have about the preamble to the bill. This is the first time that I have seen two separate sections in the preamble of a bill one in Maori and one in English. What concerns me as a member whose party is considering whether to vote for this part is that many of us here in the Chamber today do not have any idea what the first part of the preamble means because it is in Maori. Although I have done a few lessons here at Parliament to get myself a bit up to speed in te reo I do not know the language sufficiently well to be able to judge what we will actually be voting for or against. 
One would hope that the English version of the preamble was an exact reflection of the Maori version but if Government members had actually read the commentary on the bill they would know that one of the debates in the Maori Affairs Committee was about the translation of the preamble. I refer members on the Government side of the Chamber who obviously have not read the committee’s report on the bill to the fact that it states: “The preamble is in English followed by a Maori translation. Cabinet had previously decided there would be a Maori translation of the English preamble to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Chair of Te Putahi Paoho.”—there goes the limitation of my Maori pronunciation. The committee goes on to state: “Te Putahi Paoho is concerned that despite this agreement the translation that appears in the bill is an altered version of the translation it originally submitted to Te Puni Kokiri. It requests that the preamble revert to the version originally provided and also that it be presented in adjacent columns with Maori to the left and English to the right.” 
It further concerns me that the select committee also states there are concerns about the inaccuracy of the translation and that macrons have been used in an inconsistent manner. I ask how those members who are not fluent in te reo are supposed to have any confidence that what we are considering voting for or against is a correct reflection a correct translation of the English preamble. Unless the Minister wants to stand up and take a call and give the Committee a translation we will be none the wiser about what we are voting for. 
Hon Member 
: The interpreter might explain. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The interpreter could assist us and I would also seek the advice of the Clerk at the Table because I do not think I have ever faced a situation of this nature in my short time in Parliament and I do not think other members have done so either. I seek guidance from some of the more senior members of the Opposition. Certainly this would be one of the first cases I have seen where we are to vote on something that we do not have any understanding of in terms of its definition. 
Of course the “Background in English” in the preamble which we are able to follow highlights some of the background that has led us to debate this bill in the House. One of the things about the Privy Council’s decision which was that there was a Government obligation to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori by the use of both radio and television broadcasting was that it did not suggest there needed to be a totally separate television service. It just said there needed to be an understanding that when the Government funded radio and television justice had to be paid to the language. That has been done to a great extent through the work of New Zealand On Air and through the establishment of Te Mangai Paho. Both those organisations have funded a huge amount of Maori content over the last few years—not just in television programming but also in terms of radio stations radio programming etc. There has been a huge amount of State investment into the area of Maori programming which is played in prime time on channels that most New Zealanders are likely to watch. 
What bothers me about this separate service is that it is likely to be on an obscure part of the Sky digital remote and thus inaccessible to many New Zealanders. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this bill. Like my colleague Katherine Rich I too am somewhat astounded by the bill’s preamble. Certainly there is evidence of an emphasis on the “amble” bit because if we go to the commentary on the bill we find it is absolutely correct that what appears in the bill is probably an altered version of the translation originally submitted to Te Puni Kokiri. I note that there is a request that the preamble revert to the version originally provided and also that it be presented in adjacent columns with Maori to the left and English to the right. We do not see that in the preamble and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair Parekura Horomia would take a call and explain to the Committee why that simple request by the Maori Affairs Committee has not been met. 
There has been a huge amount of time in the genesis of this bill for it to be made simple for those who are not well versed in te reo. Surely that is one of the main aims of the bill. The Crown indeed has obligations to Maori to ensure that te reo and tikanga are preserved but surely they should be preserved for all New Zealanders. Undoubtedly there is an obligation to Maori to do that but as New Zealand evolves and as intermingling occurs it is just common-sense that a bill such as this should be easily understood and read by both partners to the treaty. So I hope that the Minister will indeed take a call and explain why that has not happened. 
My colleague Georgina te Heuheu mentioned that there is no clarity in terms of the Crown’s obligation in this preamble. After all we understand that the tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Maori language and in the ensuing litigation it became absolutely clear that it was appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori through its use both by Maori and in television broadcasting. But where do we see—and I hope the Minister will clarify what my colleague asked him to do—that clear obligation to Maori in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi? It is certainly not there. 
Again as my colleague Katherine Rich pointed out where in the preamble does it state that this stand-alone television service is an obligation under the treaty? Where is the clear evidence that this is the way and the preferable way to preserve te reo Maori and tikanga Maori? Where is the evidence that a stand-alone television service will do that? Where is the obligation to ensure that Maori can determine for themselves the way that this service is carried out? As I read the bill and its preamble there is nothing to suggest that Maori may themselves determine the direction of the service in discharging that very important obligation. 
I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee those absolutely fundamental and serious mistakes and deficiencies right at the very beginning of the bill. Also I want him to tell us why after so many years right from the genesis of the bill the Labour Government has failed so miserably to be succinct and clear in its obligations in terms of the recommendations that the select committee has made. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance on an issue. It is noted in the commentary on the bill that there is a difference between the Maori translation and the English version of the preamble that we are debating. Knowing the trouble we get into when it comes to Treaty of Waitangi issues when there are differences between the Maori version and the English version I wonder whether it would be appropriate to ask for a translation of the Maori version so that the Opposition members of the Committee can see before they vote on the preamble where the differences are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am advised that the translation has already been given and agreed to. The Maori translation on pages 4 and 5 has been struck out but the translation on pages 2 and 3 has been agreed to. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: In that case though the commentary on the bill quite clearly states that there is an outstanding debate about the translation we are debating and that one of the groups that submitted its version of the translation was quite unhappy about the version used in the preamble. That raises concerns on the Opposition side of the Chamber because we are not clear about what we will be voting on or what the differences are between the English and Maori versions. We do know that one version is not a totally accurate reflection of the other—or actually we do not know that until we hear a translation. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 This is one of those issues where we are breaking new ground a little and could get bogged down a bit. Katherine Rich has suggested that it may be useful to ask the interpreter to stand up and take a minute to read in English the Maori text of the preamble. Quite honestly we could then move on. This is a new issue and it is the first time I have seen a bill that has in it such a length of Maori text. To enable us to move on even though it is suggested that the English version is a replica of the Maori one maybe it would be useful if you could ask the interpreter to do what has been suggested. I suspect that would save us a lot of time in the end. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that the member’s suggestion has been made in good faith but of course somebody could equally take exception to that translation. We have in front of us a preamble that has an English and a Maori version. Those are the two official languages of our country. I think we should now proceed on the basis of what is provided in the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is quite clear from the explanation given in the commentary on the bill that this is a translation. It is not the role of the interpreter to do as suggested. This is a matter for debate. I have ruled on the matter. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the matter. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: To be perfectly frank I was going to contribute to the point of order because the translation of the preamble has already been done. But it seems to me that we have another problem which is this: there will potentially be some dispute in court over the interpretation of the preamble. Judges may be required to determine which translation has precedence or whatever. When they do so they will look to what the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia has said about the translation. I suggest through you Madam Chair that the way to resolve this matter very quickly and very simply is for the Minister in the chair to say that the translation provided in English is a correct and accurate translation of the Maori preamble. With due respect what a translator may say in Parliament or indeed what an ordinary member of Parliament may say will not carry any weight with a judge but what the Minister says will carry weight. So although there can be arguments over translations if the Minister whose name the bill is in takes the opportunity to say that the English translation is accurate and correct then I think we could end the matter right there. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I hope to clarify this matter to some extent for members opposite. I chaired the committee in respect of this report back. The issue that is confusing some members relates to the final paragraph of the commentary. What we endeavoured to do as one does when dealing with the official language—and with a predominantly Maori-dominated subject—was to get the Maori-language version and the English-language version technically side by side in terms of formatting. That is the first point of clarification with regard to something that may be causing some confusion. 
The second point of clarification is that as is the case with many languages when one endeavours to interpret one cannot get a specific and direct literal translation. That brings me to my third point. The Maori Language Act as the Deputy Leader of the House has indicated makes Maori an official language. The Act does not say that the Maori language must be interpreted for the benefit of English-speaking peoples. It does not say that. So I put it to members that the preamble as stated in Maori is as close as we can possibly get to the English version. It has been done to the best extent possible when comparing totally different languages. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you for your assistance to Mr Hide. If it is debated in the courts that is a matter for the courts. As the member has reiterated Maori is an official language and that is where it stands. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take a call in this debate on the preamble because an issue here worries me—an issue that some of the previous speakers have alluded to. Indeed I think Bill Gudgeon got as close to the specific problem I want to talk about as any of those who have spoken previously. 
The first paragraph of the preamble under the heading “Background in English” states: “The Tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the Treaty to take active steps to protect the Maori language. The Crown accepted these findings:” and it goes on to give a number of findings. It is a laudable objective to want to see the Maori language protected and developed right across the country where possible. I am supportive of it as indeed is the National caucus—absolutely. People like me will never be fluent in Maori but there are a number of young people who are and we should encourage them where we can. However my question to the Minister and the Government is whether they genuinely believe that the expenditure of $55 million a year of taxpayers’ money will actually help us achieve that objective. 
I wonder whether the Minister or one of the members on that side of the Chamber would stand and tell us whether the Government genuinely believes that one of the outcomes of this amount of money being spent on the development of Maori television is that the Maori language will be protected and indeed enhanced developed or encouraged. I do not believe it will. I think there are some major deficiencies here. For instance I draw to the Committee’s attention that in Northland we have a substantial population of people of Maori descent. Across Northland probably 40 percent of the population is of Maori descent. In the Hokianga and in some areas further north people of Maori descent are the majority. 
The point I make is that a whole lot of those people do not have access to television. If the Government is intent on expanding the Maori language—and I know it is saying that this is not just for Maori but for all New Zealanders and that is fine but the focus has to be on those people of Maori descent who do not speak Maori—then surely one of the outcomes we would expect from investing $55 million of taxpayers’ money is that all the mokopuna the children of Maori descent will have an opportunity to learn Maori. So what are we going to do about those children in Northland who will not have access to this service? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Have they got access to any services? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Indeed that is a problem in itself. But we are focusing today on the delivery of Maori television across the nation with the intent so we are told of protecting the Maori language and this Government will fail. It will not achieve its goal. I say to this Minister that at some stage—not that he will have to worry about this for long; he will not be a Minister for much longer anyway because there will be a change of Government shortly—someone from this side of the Chamber in the short time we will be on it will stand up and ask him where the delivery is. We will be asking that Minister to show us the delivery. He is telling us that we should protect the Maori language. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 We are in a very exciting phase of this great Parliament because we have had for some time two official languages and that has been a challenge to New Zealand a challenge to our legislators a challenge to the Government a challenge to the public and a challenge to Parliament—and a challenge to me. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: In that order? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: In that order. We have in this bill a preamble written in Maori and in English. In my time in the House I have not seen that—and I am looking at Mr McCully to see whether he has seen it before. I think we therefore need to debate this as a very very important step in our parliamentary constitutional and legislative procedure. This has a huge significance. We cannot say it is just there for a bit of window dressing and I would like to think that we will be debating the matter fully and properly in this Committee because I do not know where else we would do it. 
I would particularly like the ACT party to get a full proper opportunity to debate what this preamble and its implications mean because sadly as ACT is not represented on the Maori Affairs Committee our only opportunity to do so is here in this great House. That is why we are here. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Richard Prebble was there. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He is not there any more. So let us think about this. Have we heard from the Minister as to what happens when there is a dispute over this preamble in the courts? The Minister could stand up in the Chamber and say that these two languages have equal weight for the judge. That is one possibility and the courts will have to weigh it. He could say that if there is a dispute one language will take priority which it seems to me would be a smart position to take at this stage because then we could say we have a bit of history in the courts with English and we appreciate the movement to have te reo in statutes but we have a clear rule. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: That’s the one. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I hear Dover Samuels saying that is the one. I would like to hear that from the Minister because— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: It will probably be a Pakeha judge too. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It will probably be a Pakeha judge and that is why I am looking to this Minister. We can see it is significant. The background in English has not changed but the background in Maori has. Why? There has to be a reason. It has to change this bill somehow. It has to have had significance; otherwise why change it? Here we are voting on a bill that sadly most of members in this Chamber cannot read and do not understand—either in respect of the new majority or the old majority. I know that Mr McCully is on the committee and that he does his best. We know that judges in the courts will be in a similar position. We do need to take a full and proper debate on that principle. With the greatest respect we do need to hear from the great Minister of Maori Affairs who is sitting in the chair. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: A good fella! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He should rise and say that the intention of this Government and the purpose of this legislation is to put te reo into statute. However we believe that if there is a dispute in the courts in the meantime English should be the authority. That is not to demean the Maori language. It is to follow what Dover Samuel said was a good principle so that we can have clear law and not be arguing over how many angels dance on a pin because I see problems ahead for this. Imagine that there are Maori litigants who are vexatious—. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: No! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: There are and I know that may come as a surprise. They will get legal aid and they will not accept anyone’s decision. They are vexatious and they could be very vexatious if we start putting Maori into our statute book because the dispute will be over the interpretation. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 In relation to the translation this dictum here has a whole lot of different versions around single words. In relation to the language this Government is not shying away from its treaty responsibility. Can I say quite clearly—alluding to the lengthy period of time—that this Government has started. I have a chronological date dating back 40 years ago from the 1960s and 1970s to when that party in 1991 went through this thing and did nothing. I am proud to be the Minister of Maori Affairs and to be getting towards the end point. 
I refer members to the preamble. Members may have different views on whether we should have a preamble or what the preamble might state. However the preamble records and acknowledges past endeavours and events that have led to this bill now being before the Committee. The preamble refers to the Waitangi Tribunal  
Te Reo Maori 
 report and the litigation in the early 1990s first in the New Zealand courts and then the Privy Council in which the Crown gave undertakings at that time concerning the development of Maori television. This bill will bring those commitments of more than several years ago into being. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased that the Minister did get to his feet. That is very good but I would like him to think hard on this one. The Minister might say that he is fulfilling some obligations here but as I say if he reads the preamble very carefully he will see that there is nothing that necessarily connects the setting up of this television service to the satisfaction of an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi and that has long-term impacts around whether the funding will flow. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Ririnui can take a call if he wants to say something. In the meantime I am on my feet. As I said it has long-term impacts about ongoing funding. Presently the funding of this service is dependent upon the normal appropriations at Budget time. That does not indicate satisfaction of a treaty obligation. And who owns those assets? That is the other thing. For instance in the event of a winding-up who will own the assets? If this is in satisfaction of a treaty obligation then by rights there should be no question that Maori will own the assets. The transfer of assets is part of satisfying the Crown’s treaty obligations. That is what happens in settlements. I am saying to the Minister that nothing in the preamble makes any of that clear. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am mindful that we are having a fair wide and liberal debate with regard to the preamble. I am merely pointing out to the Committee that a number of the issues raised by colleagues opposite have addressed a number of matters that are in substance in the part-by-part debate. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s a debatable point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind the member that while points of order are being heard there will be silence. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: In the most deferential way I am merely indicating to the Committee that there is the issue of relevance. Notwithstanding the fact that we are having a wide debate a number of issues raised by colleagues opposite are able to be debated point by point as we go through the bill part by part. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member is right. It has been a broad debate. The preamble itself is quite wide in that it sets up what the bill does. The member is right—there are issues that we have debated that will come up later on in the debate as well. However the preamble endeavours to cover the principles of what the Government is trying to achieve. Logically a number of those things will be covered in the bill itself. Obviously the debate on the short title will be a lot narrower but this one is more general. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member but there is no need. I am not taking any more calls on this. I have indicated several times about keeping to the preamble. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have dealt with that matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. It is not usual in this House to be debating a preamble in two languages or indeed to be debating a preamble. Mr Tamihere’s point was that he felt that what Georgina te Heuheu was saying was out of order because it can be picked up in other parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. He knows very clearly that Maori is an official language. That point has been covered. 
Rodney Hide 
: That is not my point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the member’s point of order. Nothing is outside the Standing Orders. Please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: Am I going to have this point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. It is the prerogative of the Chair to rule on a point of order. I have ruled on the point of order. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I know that the Minister Mr Tamihere is probably frustrated about this because of course he did commandeer this bill through the Maori Affairs Committee and now he has to sit there like a nice quiet little boy and listen to matters of debate. I do not accept his point at all anyway and you did not either Madam Chair. My colleague is quite right. Basically the preamble is very important. It sets out and sets up what follows. 
What follows of course is a mishmash of what is supposed to be something that satisfies treaty obligations. But as we examine it—and we will certainly examine it further down the track—we will see that it does nothing of the sort. I refer to funding and to the way that this is set up It is a huge job to promote the Maori language—all that background is set out in the preamble. It is a very huge job and when we look at the detail of the bill we can see—and I agree with Deborah Coddington—that it is basically set up to fail. The Minister of Maori Affairs must think about that. He must also think about—he still has time—whether the bill is sufficiently explicit. Instead of say item (4) on page 3 he should think about an item that essentially links the setting up of this television service with the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to protect and promote the Maori language through broadcasting. There is no explicit statement anywhere in this bill least of all in the preamble that that is the intention—and for the Minister that has been a flagship. 
When this Government came in there were three flagships apparently for it in its first term. Nowhere in the preamble is there any indication that this Minister is sincere about this being a flagship—a flagship for Treaty of Waitangi obligations and satisfaction by the Crown in pursuit of those and a flagship for the protection and promotion of Maori language which is also a treaty obligation. This Minister must give real thought to the fact that the preamble does nothing of the sort. It does nothing to give anybody any assurance. His own cousin Derek Fox chair of the Maori Television Service came to the select committee with his lawyers and recommended three changes to the preamble—that is three additional items: first taking out the current item (4) and incorporating a different one; and adding two others that would make very clear—to this Government first of all because it seems that this Government is the first one that does not know what the purpose of the service is; whether it is in satisfaction of some social obligation or some legal treaty obligation—the treaty obligation that is now supposedly being satisfied. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt my honourable colleague after you had given her the call but I was under the impression that Ms Te Heuheu had already had a call in relation to this clause. I noticed when you gave her the call that Ms Coddington had called. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that we noticed that in fact ACT probably was entitled to it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is very interesting that when the Minister of Maori Affairs stood to take a call he started off by saying: “Can I say this quite clearly …”. I admire the restraint of members that they did not all fall about laughing because only the Minister can answer that question. Have we ever heard that Minister say anything quite clearly? I was waiting for a first time. He was going to say quite clearly the difference between why we have a translation— 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have been giving the member on her feet some space to get to the preamble. At no time at all has she referred to anything contained in the preamble. The debate is becoming very wide. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please speak to the preamble and keep to the point. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We have a problem. The Minister stood took a call and spoke for three-quarters of his speech—I timed it—about what the National Party had not done for 40 years. Nowhere was that in the preamble but the Chair did not comment. Deborah Coddington was two sentences into her speech talking about the Minister and this Chair shut her down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will continue. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Speaking to the preamble and to what the Minister said about the preamble the Minister told us that when he was talking to the preamble he would tell us quite clearly why we have and must trust this Maori translation I ask whether he quoted interpreted or translated. There are three different meanings we can take from that. Rodney Hide made a very good point when he spoke to the preamble and said that if litigation arises—and it surely will arise because this has been set up to invite litigation—it should be interpreted by the courts later on. 
We see in the “Translation of the preamble” in the commentary that the Maori version has indeed changed and the English version has not changed. I would have thought that if those members of the Government were committed to te reo—as they say they are—and to Maori television they would get up and explain why the Maori version has been changed. I think we are entitled to know why it has been changed. There would be an outcry if the English version had changed. Furthermore if Government members were totally committed to te reo they including Jill Pettis would get up and talk in Maori. So why do they not do that? 
Rodney Hide 
: They won’t even talk in English. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That is another good point. Katherine Rich made a good point when she spoke about the difference between a translation and an interpretation. We do not know what this preamble is; is it a translation or is it an interpretation? We do not know because we are told in the commentary that the English version and the Maori version were meant to be set out side by side. The commentary then states: “However it is not technically possible to achieve this within our timeframe for reporting back on the bill.” 
The Government has delayed for 2 years. We will get to the title soon but the date in the title clause is 2001. It is now 2003. 
Rodney Hide 
: It must be slow. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It is slow but not slow enough to have it set out so we know what we are voting for in this preamble—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister over there can take a call in Maori if he has got something to say instead of just chipping in every now and then. 
Rodney Hide 
: It was Mark Burton. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I am sorry I had forgotten his name; I thank Mr Hide. 
I come back to this difference in the translation. Here we are 163 years later still debating the Treaty of Waitangi—whether it is the English version or the Maori version or whether it is a translation or an interpretation. The least we can expect in this Committee stage is for the translator to translate this preamble for us word by word so that we see that it is a translation and not an interpretation. Quite frankly when the commentary refers to different versions that came to and fro from Te Puni Kokiri and Te Putahi Paoho we do not know what we have here. 
The fourth clause of the preamble says that the establishment of the Maori Television Service means that Maori language and Maori culture will have “a secure place”. Nothing that has been done so far by this Government leads us to believe that there is anything secure about Maori television in the way it has been set up. What is secure about a television service that was meant to be on air by the middle of last year? I believe that we still do not have a to-air date. Perhaps the Minister of Maori Affairs might like to take a call and tell us what the to-air date is. The last I heard was that it would be July but I doubt that we will see it going to air by July. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Noes 56 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members that there is to be silence during the voting process. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have been told before in this Committee that there is to be silence during voting and I clearly heard a member when New Zealand First voted say: “I’ll remember that.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct and I have drawn it to members’ attention. It is a final warning. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I was not going to raise the issue but now that it has been raised I say that the comment could be construed as threatening and the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right. 
Mita Ririnui 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Noes 56 
Preamble agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hide I have just warned people about talking during voting. The member should be in his seat while a vote is being taken. 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 Given this Government’s big sway over Maori and the big pronouncements of the Minister of Maori Affairs in particular over how the Government will support promote and protect te reo Maori and so on and so forth it surprises me that this bill does not have a Maori title when that would have been proper and appropriate. All that we have by way of a title is the Maori Television Service Bill—and it will be for 2003. Given that the Minister is a great promoter of te reo Maori I hope he will support my amendment that proposes we have another choice which is that the bill should also be cited as “Te Ture mo te Ratonga Pouaka Whakaata Maori 2003.” [ 
Interruption 
] I had to beat my colleague Murray McCully to that. He was going to put something similar in. 
I think we should mean what we say in this Committee when we say it is important to promote and protect the Maori language te reo Maori. We have the preamble which we have just discussed and some hard-fought-for litigation that went before both the Waitangi Tribunal and the Privy Council is referred to there. Maori members on the Government side of the Chamber will know from their own iwi involvement in that litigation that we are dealing with hard-won stuff here. This bill is about the protection and promotion of te reo and what better way is there of showing that than to have a Maori title for the bill as well as the English one? 
I sought some advice about the title from my own colleagues and particularly from Murray McCully who is on the Maori Affairs Committee. He made some suggestions but on balance we both agreed to the title that has been proposed here. He was not quite sure about the word “ratonga” but when we thought about it we decided that it best embodies the word “service” and that it is probably the most appropriate word. 
I heard Deborah Coddington say that we should mean what we say about protecting te reo so I am looking forward to the support of all members across the Committee for this amendment and particularly of the Government members because they are the ones whom Maori look to. They are the ones who gather up the Maori vote. The Prime Minister goes around the country attending lots of hui. I have been to two or three of those hui where the Government has talked about protecting te reo Maori. [ 
Interruption 
] Madam Chair can you quieten down the Committee? I can hardly hear myself speak and that is a big shame. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think that applies to members on both sides of the Chamber. I also remind the member to speak to the title. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can you please explain the meaning of the comment you have just made to me? I have been talking solely on the title except for a few little comments. By and large I have been talking on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has made some other comments over the last couple of minutes. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: So I propose that the bill be named “Te Ture mo te Ratonga Pouaka Whakaata Maori 2003.” Basically “Te Ture” means “the Act” “mo te Ratonga” means “for the service” and “Pouaka Whakaata Maori” means “Maori television”. I know everybody will support that. It makes sense and it is totally appropriate. It would be a dereliction of the duty and responsibility of all 120 members of this Parliament if we did not see the propriety and the appropriateness of having a Maori title for this bill. I am looking forward to the Minister’s support and if he does not support it we will want to know his reason for that as will Maori people outside this Committee and other New Zealanders given that they have been brought along as a result of the treaty obligation programme. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am mindful of the comments made earlier and wonder whether we could have the translator provide a translation of Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment—not necessarily right now but before we vote on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If Mrs te Heuheu wishes to translate it herself that is perfectly in order. 
Rodney Hide 
: No I have specifically asked for the translator to do that. I know that a member can translate what he or she has said during a speech but this amendment has Maori in it. I mean no disrespect to Georgina te Heuheu but and I think it would be good for us to get into the practice of having the translator help us to understand it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The translation can be given by the member if she chooses or by the translator. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I gave a literal translation of it but the member seems to want something more than that. I have no objection to that as long as the translator keeps to the wording of the amendment. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are getting into dangerous territory. The Speakers’ rulings are very clear and careful on this issue. They state that in situations where a member has interpreted the issues he or she has raised in Maori that member’s word is honourable and that is where the matter stays. The alternative is for us to get into a rolling campaign of bringing in the interpreter. That is why the Speaker’s ruling was made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is absolutely right. That is the end of the matter. I had not realised that the member had given an interpretation during her speech. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I will respond to what Mr Tamihere has said. I certainly am not implying any disrespect toward the member’s interpretation or questioning her word as was suggested. I am suggesting that the Speakers’ rulings that relate to accepting a member’s translation are about what a member says in his or her speech. That is fine. I accept that as a principle and I am not contesting that as I hope John Tamihere will appreciate. We have a bill before us with a preamble that has English and Maori wording side-by-side and we can vote on that. But this amendment has Maori in it and I think it would be a good practice for us to ask a translator to interpret it. I have said the interpreter would not have to translate the amendment right now but we should have it translated into English before we vote on it as we did with the preamble. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The matter has been dealt with. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a slightly different point of order but I think it is worth us getting the practice right on this matter. I refer you to Standing Order 360 which relates to the translation of documents. I think that the proper course here since we are dealing with an amendment—a written document that is clearly contemplated by Standing Order 360—is for us to invite you Madam Chair as the presiding officer to invite before the debate on this clause is concluded the interpreter or someone else of your direction to provide a written translation of the amendment proposed by my colleague. I think that would meet the request that Mr Hide has made and would be good practice for the Committee to get into on future occasions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has already indicated that it is a translation of the title that is already in the bill. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The matter has been dealt with. 
Rodney Hide 
: It hasn’t actually! 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: You have dealt with the matter on the basis of what you think I did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask Mr Hide to be seated. I have warned the Committee and I have particularly warned Mr Hide about speaking when a point of order is being dealt with. Mr Hide can leave the Chamber now—he has been warned. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. In my speech I translated the words as they were very literally. Whether that would serve as an interpretation that satisfies the Standing Orders is another matter. I am very open to that being debated. I would tend to say that my colleague Murray McCully has probably stated the position as it is. So although I stood in my speech and said “Te Ture mo te Ratonga” I said each of those words separately and explained what they meant. Essentially it is the Maori Television Service Act but on the other hand that was not necessarily an interpretation. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: I respect the comments made by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu concerning the title. In my mind’s eye I can visualise a title that would be more suitable for this occasion. I would describe it as “Te Huarahi mo te Ao Maori which may be translated as “the pathway of the Maori world.” I propose that because it gets away from the word “Act” and gets away from the legality of it— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Why are you voting against it? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Against what? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think the rest of us are entitled to a bit of order in this Chamber. To have a Minister from the Government side of the Chamber yelling out and engaging in a conversation with the speaker on his feet is not acceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member will know that there has been calling out on several occasions in this debate. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: We are talking about the title and if the bill is passed at least New Zealand First will have contributed to its title. “Te Huarahi mo te Ao Maori” may be translated as “the pathway of the Maori world” and as I was saying it gets away from the Act and the legalities that are being discussed in this Committee today. It is au fait with the Maori world and with Maori thinking out there. 
What effect would that title have on those people who are able to access this channel? It would attract some attention that would encourage people to make further inquiries in order to see for themselves whether the money is well spent. I am not saying that New Zealand First supports this bill but I am saying that when this bill is passed there should be a contribution to Maori thinking out there as far as the title is concerned. I am afraid that is how we think. That is how it is. Those words are a contribution to the title and if Maori are happy with that and are happy with the content of the programmes then they will be part and parcel of the service. That is all that I am saying. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
:  
Kia ora tatou. Kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere o tenei wahanga mo te pire e pa ana ki a tatou te iwi Maori. 
[ 
Greetings to us. I extend greetings to you Madam Chair who are chairing this session about the bill that concerns the Maori people 
.] 
I am certainly disappointed in some of the comments that have been made today by people who want to do a post-mortem on the title. I also say that the member for the National Party Georgina te Heuheu— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague— 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Do not be sorry; keep smiling! 
John Carter 
: I will keep smiling; that is one thing the member can rely on. Mr Samuels opened his speech with dialogue in Maori and I do not believe that he translated it for us. I wonder whether he would do so or would allow the interpreter to interpret? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Does the member choose to interpret? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I thank John Carter. I was referring to and making an acknowledgement of the Chairperson. I am somewhat bewildered about the discussions pertaining to the title and possibly the new renaissance from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu when in fact she had a chance to raise her concerns about the translation of the title into Maori during the debate that was held on the bill in the Maori Affairs Committee. I was on that committee with the member when this bill was being debated and she certainly did not raise at any time that there could be a need for a Maori version of the title. 
The reason she did not is that the title is quite simple. Clause 1 of the bill states: “This Act is the Maori Television Service Act 2001.” There was no debate about it; there was no raruraru there. There was no suggestion that we should do a sort of post-mortem on the language and have a Maori translation. Now that this issue has been raised in terms of the spirit of wairua of kotahitanga and of whanaungatanga I will support perhaps the appropriate translation. But I have to look at it from a Ngapuhi perspective and to make sure that it is not a Tuwharetoa translation. I think perhaps the time has come when we can talk about that. If there is a whanaungatanga or wairuatanga approach to this issue then I would suggest that perhaps members on the Government side of the Chamber would concur that we should get a Maori translation and I think we can come to some consensus in relation to the translation of the title. 
But I would ask whether if we go that far we will have the support of the member for Tuwharetoa. That is really the nub—the key—to it all. If we agree with the suggestion made by that member that this Act may also be cited as “Te Ture mo te Ratonga Pouaka Whakaata Maori” I ask the senior Opposition whip whether that means that the National Party and the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber will support their honourable colleague and will support the bill. 
Let us do a deal. Let us talk a bit of common sense. This debate is an example of the Treaty of Waitangi partnership emerging in this Chamber. So we have compromised on the title clause and I am looking forward to the National Party supporting the bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I just want to clarify something before we finish. Mr Hide will be out of the Chamber for the rest of the evening. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 730 p.m. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that prior to the dinner break in this debate there was some difficulty in the Committee. Specifically I refer to an amendment to clause 1 “Title” in the name of Georgina te Heuheu. The amendment that Georgina te Heuheu tabled was in the Maori language and my colleague Rodney Hide—I believe appropriately—sought a translation of that. Indeed I draw your attention Mr Chairman to Standing Order 360 “Translation of documents”: “The Speaker”—and of course you as the Chairman in the Committee stage—“may order that bills introduced into the House and reports petitions and papers presented to it are to be translated and printed in another language.” Those would certainly include amendments and Supplementary Order Papers. Why I raise the point— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not need any further assistance. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: If I may persist for a moment longer it may be helpful. My colleague was asked to leave the Chamber on the basis of asking for a translation. I believe he was justified in asking for a translation under the Standing Orders and indeed the Speakers’ rulings. I seek that he be readmitted to the Chamber this evening as I believe it was most inappropriate of the then Chairperson to ask him to leave. I accept that it was not yourself at that time but I would like you to rule in favour of that proposal. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I am not aware of the reason for Mr Hide being ordered to leave the Chamber so I cannot comment on that but I will comment on Standing Order 360. Standing Order 360 provides that the Speaker may order a translation. Therefore I have arranged for a translation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment to clause 1 to be made available. It is at the Table if members wish to inspect it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is very helpful and I think all members of the Committee will be grateful for your consideration on that point. It is precisely the point my colleague Mr Hide was seeking and was what saw him ejected from the Chamber for. On that basis I recommend that he now be allowed to return to the Chamber. He has had his time in the sin bin as it were and as it seems the Chair has acknowledged that the point Mr Hide was making was valid I therefore ask that he be readmitted for this debate. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Chair obviously you have made a decision on the translation which is entirely your prerogative but to assist you as you say you were not in the Chamber earlier my observation—I was sitting where I am now during the entire exchange—was that the Chair made a decision based perhaps more on frequent interjections speaking through points of order and during voting and so on by the member who was ejected than on the content of a particular point of order. Members who were in the Chamber at the time would have to acknowledge that that is a call for the presiding officer to make at the time. The Chair did so based on the conduct of the member. As I observed it that is how she reached her judgment and I think members should uphold the authority of the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I cannot overturn the decision that was made prior to the dinner break. There that matter rests. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to speak on that issue— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that I have ruled on that issue. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes you have. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It cannot be relitigated. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No but I want clarification of it now. Are you telling me that once the decision has been made by the Chair that a member is excluded from the Chamber for a certain time that decision cannot be revisited? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes that is what I am saying—exactly—as the Chairperson of the Committee on the bill. Normally in these circumstances when someone is ordered from the Chamber there are discussions between the whips concerned or between the Chair and the whip about how long the exclusion is to be. I cannot comment on how long that exclusion was for because I was not in the Chair. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled Mr Shirley. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I want to say that I took the liberty of discussing this matter. I accept that Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber. When he was instructed to leave prior to the dinner break my understanding is that no time was specified. I have discussed the matter with the ACT whip who advises me that she had no instruction about duration and on that basis now that you are in the Chair could I ask that you rule that Mr Hide’s time in the sin bin has expired and that he may return to the Chamber. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am trying to be helpful because I know the Chair was not in the Chamber at the time so it is difficult. As I observed the process the member was asked to leave for the reasons I stated earlier. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What were the reasons? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I said there were constant interjections. Again I am interpreting what I observed. What was in the mind of the presiding officer is obviously her prerogative and I uphold her authority as she exercised it. But I say to the member that Mr Hide observed the instruction he had been given by the Chair and left the Chamber immediately. That is to his credit. I further observe that the Chair as soon as members had completed what they were saying informed the then absent Mr Hide that the withdrawal from the Chamber was for the remainder of the sitting day. That information was given. It is quite possible Mr Hide did not hear it but I certainly did sitting in the vantage position that I have here which is very close to the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member very much. I am giving a ruling. The decision was made by the previous Chair prior to the dinner break and it is my understanding that Mr Hide was excluded from the Chamber until the rising of the House this evening. There the matter rests. I warn members that under Standing Order 85 I consider the Chamber is getting close to being disorderly. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take your point but we will get ourselves into some difficulty—and I want the Chair and the Committee to understand that I am also trying to be helpful in the same way as the Minister who has just resumed his seat—because two issues are important. 
I accept your point. You are saying you are unable to change a ruling—which I may at some stage seek some further advice on—but the issue here was this: it is true that the Chair at the time felt that Mr Hide was taking constant points of order and indeed had warned Mr Hide that that was so. She had even indicated that she was at the stage at which she felt that any further points of order on that particular point would be disorderly and cause difficulties for the member. So that indication was clearly signalled. Indeed your ruling now has perhaps exacerbated the problem because Mr Hide asked whether there could be an interpretation. 
But Mr Hide wanted to make a new point which was that even though the Committee had been told that Georgina te Heuheu had interpreted her amendment in English Ms te Heuheu herself had said however that she was quite happy for the interpreter to give an interpretation to the Committee if the Committee required it. The Chair had missed that and I think Mr Hide was trying to draw that to her attention. That was the stage at which the Chair sent him out. 
The second point is a matter of timing—and the senior Labour whip need not wave at me; I am trying to be helpful here. Mr Hide was ejected from the Chamber and there were a couple of speeches just before 6 o’clock. The Chairperson then said to the Committee: “And by the way Mr Hide is out for the rest of the night.” so there was no opportunity for the normal dialogue. In past cases when a member of the National Party has been excluded I have gone to the Chair or the Speaker asked how long the exclusion is for and there has been a bit of a debate and discussion. In this case none of that happened and I think that is unfortunate. I ask whether there may be an opportunity—not right now—for you to go back and readdress that because I do think that Mr Hide has been dealt with quite harshly under the circumstances. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thank the chief Opposition whip for that. The matter as I observed it was one not only of repeated points of order but also of other interjections as well. So I think it was a combination of those. That is how I saw it. 
As to the other matter I think the member is correct. It is unfortunate that the usual process did not follow but I think that was entirely an accident of two things. 
The Chair not wanting to interrupt the debate further waited until the immediate contributions were over and then it was 6 o’clock. I think that had that accident of time not happened then normal procedures might have followed. 
In any event I go back to perhaps the most important point which is that the Standing Orders are very clear. The Chair has the prerogative to do what the Chair did with or without consultation with whips. We must uphold the authority of the Chair to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I cannot interfere with the decision made by the previous Chairperson which was that the member be excluded from the Chamber until the rising of the House this evening. I cannot interfere with that. 
I understand where Mr Carter is coming from and I appreciate the points of view he has made but the matter of the interpretation has of course been dealt with. The interpretation is on the Table and it is available for members to look at. As for the exclusion I have already ruled on that and that is where the matter rests. I now wish to call some honourable member. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled and I am not prepared to relitigate this matter. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I understand that Mr Chairperson but you leave me with no alternative. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Madam Deputy Speaker you have been recalled at the request of the Hon Ken Shirley. The issue relates to the exclusion from the Chamber of the honourable member Rodney Hide prior to the dinner break. My understanding because I was not in the Chair prior to 6 o’clock was that Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber and was instructed to do so until the rising of the House this evening. The matter of the interpretation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s Maori amendment has been taken care of and that is sitting on the Table for members to look at. As to the exclusion I upheld the decision of the previous Chairperson. As a result of that there has been a request that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the matter. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We are in quite an extraordinary situation here Madam Deputy Speaker. We are in a situation—and my comment is not intended as a reflection on yourself—whereby you were serving members as our Chairperson in Committee when this incident arose. As matters have developed I have found it necessary at the recommencement after the dinner break to come down to the Chamber to raise the very serious point of the ejection of an ACT member Mr Rodney Hide. I have found it necessary to recall the Speaker and now of course I find that the same person who was acting as the Chairperson in the Committee has returned as the Speaker. I stress that I am not casting a reflection on you. I am just making the observation that that is the situation we are in. I concede that I was not present in the Chamber—I am sorry do we have a constitutional matter Madam Deputy Speaker? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It might pay just to wait a moment. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Simich is available. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: In the sense of natural justice I think it would be helpful if Mr Simich took the Chair. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: OK. Mr Simich will take the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Assistant Speaker prior to the dinner break during the debate on the Maori Television Service Bill the Chair excluded from the Chamber the honourable member Rodney Hide. When the Committee resumed at 7.30 p.m. a number of points of order were raised requesting that the honourable member return. One of the issues of concern was the interpretation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment. That matter has been taken care of and the translation of the amendment is now on the Table for members to see. In relation to Mr Hide’s exclusion from the Chamber he was excluded until the House rises tonight. I chose to support the recommendation of the previous Chairperson. The decision had been made and I upheld the decision of the Chairperson. That has not been acceptable to some members and as a result at the request of the Hon Ken Shirley you have been recalled. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I should say at the outset that I was not present in the Chamber when the incident occurred but I have had the situation reported to me. My understanding of the facts is that Mr Hide in response to a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Georgina te Heuheu on clause 1 “Title” sought a translation. The Supplementary Order Paper was presented in Maori as is a member’s right but Mr Hide not being fluent in Maori felt very strongly about the fact that he was not able to give meaning to it and therefore as a member of the House of Representatives was unable to participate fairly in the debate. He persistently sought a translation. He felt that he was protecting his right—and I agree that he was—to debate the matter from a position of understanding and knowledge of what the words actually meant. My understanding is that because of his persistence on that point he was ejected from the Chamber by the Chairperson. However at the point of ejection it was not conveyed to him what the duration of that ejection might be. I have consulted the ACT whip Muriel Newman and she assures me that she has not been advised of the duration of the period of ejection. We accept that it was the Chairperson’s right to eject any member for what was deemed at the time to be disorderly. 
However on reassuming the debate following the dinner break we have learnt that the incoming chairman of the Committee Mr Ross Robertson has seen fit to ensure that there is a translation available and I commend him for that. That really upholds the point of principle that my colleague Rodney Hide requested and for which he was unfairly I believe ejected from the Chamber. I do not wish to relitigate that. I accept that that would be inappropriate. The issue at hand now is what is fair and reasonable for that ejection period. I put it to you Mr Chairman that Mr Hide having had his time in the sin bin should be allowed to resume his place in this House of Representatives. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 As the member said he was not in the Chamber at the time but he is right in a number of the things that he said. However in one or two areas it is important to add to the information. As I sat in the chair that I am now in I observed that Mr Hide was not only warned with some frustration over the number of the points of order that were taken but perhaps more relevantly was warned over a number of interjections—indeed interjections during the taking of votes. The presiding officer exercised her judgment at the time as to the appropriateness of that. She took her decision and I hope as I said earlier that all members would uphold the authority of the Chair. That said in order to make progress and at the suggestion of the chief Opposition whip I seek leave of the House to have Mr Hide readmitted at 9 p.m. for the remainder of the evening as a demonstration of good faith on behalf of all members of the House to see progress made with the bill. Frankly most members would prefer to see progress made and useful and sensible debate engaged in rather than endless procedural points of order. Accordingly I seek leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that Mr Hide feels very passionately about this bill and is very keen to participate. I therefore seek leave of the House for Mr Hide to be readmitted at 8.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. Leave has just been sought and granted by the House for the term of exclusion to end at 9 p.m. Of course the member is entitled to seek leave to have that time changed. That is then entirely up to the House. Before the member seeks leave if he wishes to do so I will cover a few points. Firstly we are not here to decide on the fairness or otherwise of why the member was excluded from the Chamber. It is a simple fact that the member was excluded and that was done by the Chairperson at the time. The subsequent Chairperson has upheld that decision. Whether anyone was aware of the time of exclusion is relevant but the fact is that the Chair excluded the member for the remainder of the sitting. If the member was not aware of that or his whips were not aware of that then they could have checked with the Chair at the time or with the Serjeant-at-Arms. That is not a difficult procedure. I think that we should continue. The time set by leave of the House that Mr Hide may return is 9 p.m. If there is a further request to be made the member may do so. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek of the House for Mr Hide to resume his seat in the House of Representatives at 8.30. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. I now intend to place the House back into Committee.