Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18722] 
Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 15 February. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You will recall that the last time the Committee was to consider this particular bill I raised the issue of getting a translation of the Minister’s own Supplementary Order Paper tabled yesterday which is to include a new recital (10A) in the Maori text of the preamble to the bill. The Minister in the chair on that evening said that a paper would be made available today to indicate exactly how all of this works. No such paper has been forthcoming. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Oh yes it has. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It has certainly not been sent to my office which would seem to be a major oversight on the part of the Minister. Rather instead we have on the Table of the House a proposed amendment to the Supplementary Order Paper also in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson which asks the Committee to consider inserting in the proposed new recital (10A) in her Supplementary Order Paper after the word “Hurae” the expression “2002”. Now that leaves the Committee no clearer at all about what the situation is. I think it is quite disrespectful of the Minister to expect us to continue at the present time and I move that the Committee defer this bill until the matter is cleared up. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I gave an undertaking and I regret that the member for whatever reason has not located the document. It was circulated both electronically and manually in hard copy to every member’s office close to midday today. I gave an undertaking and I honoured it. I have a hard copy of the paper which the member is welcome to. I do regret that he has not located it for whatever reason but I had it sent both by messenger and electronically. To the best of my knowledge every member should have received it and I see at least one of the member’s colleagues nodding that she has received it. So I cannot explain why the member has not got it but I certainly did circulate the document that I am holding in my hand. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I probably have not received that for the same reason that I did not receive an invitation to the Labour Party fest known as the Hui Taumata to take place the week after next. It seems to be a particular style of the current Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations; perhaps that is at play. None the less I do not think the matter is at all clear. I think perhaps the Minister should take a few minutes before we begin the debate to explain what is in his document. Because although members may well have been circulated quite clearly one member was left off the circulation list. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Brownlee. I undertook last night to have the matter looked into and some action taken. The Minister has done that. The member is welcome to a copy of the letter that was circulated—I see there is one there for him. The Minister is very happy to give any explanations that may be needed as we get into the debate. I do not propose to take the matter any further. I think it has been handled well. We are now on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and the question is— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The previous matter was not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am not going back over that. My point of order relates to the proposed amendments by way of a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Pita Paraone. These are interesting proposals and I think quite serious ones. For those who are unaware of the serious nature of this essentially if this bill were to pass in its current form then the House would for the second time this session be in a position of creating either new hapu or iwi by statute something that is quite new and inappropriate. I therefore seek leave to move a motion for this bill to be sent back to the select committee in order that this particular matter might be better considered. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The matters raised by Mr Brownlee could have been dealt with when we moved through the debate on the bill. They relate to Part 2. The Committee has no power to grant leave to refer anything back to a select committee. That is a matter for the House. So we will proceed with the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a proper point of order—I am asking for your advice here. If we were to recall the Speaker I assume that the House would then be in session and such leave could be sought and granted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is correct. If the member does that then that matter could be put to the House and dealt with by the Speaker. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Could I speak to that point of order before the member does that because I may be able to help. Far from this bill creating hapu I think when we get the opportunity to have a sensible debate on what I think is a genuinely intended but I would suggest an erroneous Supplementary Order Paper from the member that will be a matter for fair debate. But far from it being the case that this bill creates the hapu they actually exist in the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act. It is my understanding that they exist already in that Act. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
:  
The Minister referred to an earlier regulation and I think that perhaps he may have been misadvised. Because that earlier regulation in no way refers to the word “hapu”. It refers to divisions or specific sections. But it does not refer to the word “hapu”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: These are debatable matters which we could have reached when we went through the bill and very likely all members could have been satisfied. But I am in members’ hands. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I think this is a more serious matter than perhaps your understanding of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: All matters are serious in this Chamber and this one probably more so than most. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is why I am hearing from the member with a view to trying to accommodate the member’s wishes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to give some explanation because I do not want to sound trite in this. But you could perhaps appreciate the situation where this bill has had a haphazard approach to it from the Minister. The Maori Affairs Committee was given a very short time to consider an extensive Supplementary Order Paper that was put on the table last year early in October. As you know the House concluded its business in December. That Supplementary Order Paper has found its way into this bill. There was quite a bit of pressure in the select committee process to get it there. The desire of the Committee I am sure is that all parties would want to support a settlement bill. But matters like this are not inconsiderable. It is about the mandating opportunities that the iwi concerned has. And I have already expressed some severe reservations about that process. But here we have as Mr Pita Paraone has just made clear a bill that creates a new if one likes designation for a group within the Ngati Awa group—a hapu which is a much bigger status than a group that has the affiliations that Mr Paraone just spoke of. I do want to see this taken through and the House given the opportunity to send it back to the select committee for perhaps another week’s work. Accordingly  
I move that the Speaker be recalled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am afraid that I cannot resolve the matter for the member. We have commenced the Committee stage of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. If the member wishes to pursue the matter of whether the bill should be withdrawn or referred back to a select committee then that is a matter for the Speaker. If the member wants that process to commence it is over to him. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take it that the member has moved that the Committee reports progress? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If that is the correct procedure I am indeed moving to report progress. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The member moved that we recall the Speaker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. Reporting progress is something a Government does when it wants to suspend a bill. If we report progress we will not be able to get to the bill again today. I just want to recall the Speaker. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Madam Speaker on the motion of Gerry Brownlee you have been recalled to facilitate or otherwise a request he will put to you. This matter arose at the commencement of debate on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. No debate has been taken directly on any of the questions. We have been dealing with the matter that Mr Brownlee raised. I leave it there. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am sure the desire of the House overall is to see a bill such as this pass with a fair degree of unanimity of the whole Parliament. That is the intention with which we approach this particular matter. However there are a couple of matters that are of concern. The first one has to do with the Supplementary Order Paper put on the Table yesterday by the Minister. We discussed the matter last night and an undertaking was given to circulate today material relating to that Supplementary Order Paper. I understand that it was circulated to some members but most certainly it was not circulated to me—and I was the member who raised the matter. That may be of no account in the general scheme of things but it calls into question the reasons for the Minister’s office making such an obvious error. 
Leaving that aside we now have the issue of the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by Mr Pita Paraone. That Supplementary Order Paper calls into question the appropriateness of a settlement bill that will create two new hapu through legal statute. I would have thought it quite obvious that if a group has hapu status it is granted by Ngati Awa not by this Parliament—recognised of course in a settlement bill if Ngati Awa so wish but not created as a hapu. 
If we look at the whole process of this bill we will see that last October a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper was dropped on the Table by the Minister sent to the Maori Affairs Committee and in a very short time completely incorporated into this bill. The concern there is not only the speed and haste of that but also the fact that we are having to take up members’ days to pass a Ngati Awa runanga bill—a bill we are told by the Leader of the House that has to be passed separately from the claims bill. The claims bill itself sets up legal entities for the receipt of claims moneys in relation to the three claims or sub-claims that were dealt with in the October Supplementary Order Paper. It is only appropriate that the House consider whether it was appropriate for the Minister to handle this matter in that way. A process of handling settlement bills has been established and to have that process undone so unilaterally seems to me to be quite inappropriate. So I am moving that this House recommit this bill back to the select committee for a period of 2 weeks for full consideration to be given to Mr Paraone’s Supplementary Order Paper and the consequences of passing a settlement bill that establishes runanga authorities where in every other case that has been done quite separately. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member needs to seek leave. He cannot “move”; he needs to seek leave. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to so move. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 To address the matters the member raised in order: firstly last evening I gave an undertaking as the Minister in the chair to circulate physical information to explain a Supplementary Order Paper. I did that. The document was reproduced in my office and distributed via the parliamentary messengers. I note that one of the member’s own colleagues handed him a copy—not a Labour member a National member—during the course of the earlier debate in the House. The member implied that he was left out or for some other reason did not receive a copy. It is equally possible that the member simply did not clear his mail or that his staff failed to do so. Whatever the explanation I think he does himself and the House a disservice by the comment that he made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Don’t be so pompous. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister is speaking to the point of order. There will be silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He should stick to it then. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I was ruling on that. I ask Mr Brownlee to please stand and withdraw that remark. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw the remark. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No we are in the middle of a point of order. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Secondly the matter the member raised beyond that is a matter for debate. Mr Paraone quite legitimately introduced it into the debate by way of Supplementary Order Paper but it is a matter for debate. I repeat what I said to the Committee before you were recalled Madam Speaker: the newly created urban hapu were established by Parliament on the advice and with the full agreement of Ngati Awa in the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act. The member suggested that somehow that is a new creation. 
I would also like to assist the member because he made what I think is a very pertinent comment in his previous contribution: that this matter is ultimately one for Ngati Awa. I have a communication dated today sent directly to me on behalf of Ngati Awa in the name of Professor Hirini Mead the chairman of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. He said that Ngati Awa: “… has adopted a more open and inclusive attitude towards the establishment of hapu. More importantly how Ngati Awa determines its internal structures is a matter for it to decide. There is no one classical iwi model to follow.” Professor Mead made that comment in support of the proposal in this legislation because it constitutes part of a carefully negotiated settlement. We are being asked to respect the will of Ngati Awa. That is what is being put in front of Parliament and it is the will of Ngati Awa. I agree with the member that it is for Ngati Awa to decide. They have decided. Now the question is whether that member and all members will respect their wish and the negotiation that has been concluded. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have heard the two speakers and I am ready to proceed. The Speaker is recalled under Standing Order 178 to give a ruling on a matter of procedure. Whether or not a note was circulated is not a matter of order on which the Speaker can rule. The member has correctly sought leave that the bill be returned to a select committee. It is his right to do that. I am now putting that leave matter to the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is not the leave matter. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Might I say what it was? I sought leave to move a motion to send it back. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is right the member has sought leave to move a motion. That is exactly what I said. I am putting that leave now. Is there any objection for the matter to be put as Mr Brownlee asked? There is. That is the end of the matter. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I make the point that in the contribution you listened to from Mr Burton you allowed no point of order to be raised but provided him with an opportunity to engage in the sort of debate that should have taken place had the motion been moved. I think that from that point of view the disservice to the Opposition is quite notable. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that he was heard in silence and put his point. Mr Burton was certainly entitled to be heard in silence. That is the end of the matter. That is my ruling. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Preamble  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am very loathe to vote in favour of this preamble simply because we still do not know exactly what is in it. Despite repeated requests last evening—and indeed just now—for a simple translation of no more than seven lines the request has been denied. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister says: “Rubbish! We have circulated a paper.” I ask the Minister whether there is a full translation in that paper. I think that this Committee is entitled to that. I am not surprised that we are dealing with this bill in such a messy way. Not only does it have the fingerprints of Margaret Wilson all over it but it has the footprints of Parekura Horomia all over it as well. He is a Minister of Maori Affairs who is much more interested in using his ministry to promote the best interests of the Labour Party than he is in Maori interests. 
John Tamihere 
: Get on with the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Tamihere the man who as we all know has an enormous amount of interest in things Maori and must be wondering today why on earth he mucked around with a community trust when he could have set up a wananga—a much more profitable enterprise than the one he was involved in—is telling me to get on with the bill. We are getting on with the bill. We are talking about the preamble the explanation at the beginning of the bill. I simply say to Mr Tamihere and Mr Horomia that one of the treaty partners would like to know what is in this bill. I cannot see the problem with having our translator who is with us this evening stand up and translate this piece of paper. If the Minister had allowed that to happen last night an awful lot of mucking around this evening would not have happened. 
We are asked to speak about this preamble but it is difficult when we cannot be absolutely sure what is in it. I will respond briefly to the suggestion from the Minister that we were behaving in a disrespectful manner to Ngati Awa. That is quite untrue. Personal attacks have always been a hiding place for the guilty—they personally attack the people who have questions about the procedures being used. This process has not been tidy. This is the only settlement bill that Labour has done on its own without National holding its hand in 5 years and it has to be a messy process like this. The Government is creating new hapu here and there by a stroke of the legislative pen and throwing in an extra three or four claims here and there to boost the numbers without reference to a full select committee process. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Okeroa whether he calls 2 months at the Maori Affairs Committee a full process when the committee very seldom works for more than 2 hours once a week. That is hardly a full process. Without that translation National will have some difficulty in voting for this preamble. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: You were on the committee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That member is right I was on the committee—and guess what? This Supplementary Order Paper did not hit the floor of the Chamber until yesterday. The select committee process totalled 6 months and we had 2 months on a special Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister and then another one was laid on the Table yesterday. Further just to make it all look really shambolic an amendment to yesterday’s Supplementary Order Paper was tabled today. All we want is a simple translation of seven lines. What is wrong with the Labour Party? Why does it not want us to know what that is all about? I suspect that the piece of text that Margaret Wilson wants to put into the bill is interminably boring but somehow we cannot know what it is. 
Once again I ask the Minister to allow the translator to take the microphone and give us a translation in order that this preamble debate may progress without the sort of interruption that those on that side of the Chamber have forced on the Committee since we commenced last night. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have in front of me Supplementary Order Paper 327. Its salient point is a provision that states: “I te rangi tuawaru o te marama o Hurae ka whakaretangia e te Karauna me Ngati Awa he Whakaaetanga o Nga Whakataunga. Ka tatu i te Karauna me Ngati Awa taua Whakaaetanga o nga Whakataunga i te 27 o nga ra o Maehe 2003 e whakatatu ana i nga take katoa e tika ana kia whakatauria tuturutia te katoa o nga kereme o nehe o te iwi o Ngati Awa.” I apologise for my stilted pronunciation of that. I simply ask that we now have a translation. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek a translation of those comments by Mr Brownlee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am not giving any direction here or denying the member but it appears to me that Mr Brownlee read out from the Supplementary Order Paper recital (10A) of the Maori text and a translation has been provided to all members here. 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. I am just pondering a few things here thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If the Labour senior whip is giving a message I cannot hear it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am dealing with a point of order and unless members want fewer people in the Chamber they will keep quiet. Did Mr Power want to assist? 
Simon Power 
: I am happy to assist if I can Mr Chairperson. Page 33 of  
Speakers’ Rulings  
covers the use of the Maori language both in the House and in the Committee of the whole House. It seems to me that the third sentence of Speaker’s ruling 33/3: “Interpretation into English is for the benefit of members who do not understand Maori …” is particularly appropriate. Now that Mr Brownlee has made a contribution—and whether the contribution was read or not read is something the Speakers’ rulings do not seem to distinguish between—we seek in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 33/3 that translation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. The member gave most of a point of order in Maori and the translation for that is in fact in the bill as members would have found when they read it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s not in the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes it is in the bill. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Where? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: On page 22. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It can’t be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am just making an observation. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s not. You have been misinformed. If it was in the bill the Minister would not have circulated the letter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If members had allowed things to move on a little this matter would have been tabled. The Maori version of recital (10A) is in fact translated in the bill on page 22 under “recital”. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If you look at recital (10A) as per Supplementary Order Paper 327 I ask you to show me where those words are on “( … page 7)”  as the Supplementary Order Paper states. They are not on page 7. There is no translation in the explanatory note. In the rest of this bill the preamble is first in Maori and then it is translated into English. But there is no (10A )in the Maori version and there is no (10A) on page 22. The recital (10A) is being proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 327 and that Maori insertion has no English translation. As a result the Minister circulated a letter apparently before midday. The reason why Mr Brownlee was forced to read (10A) in the Chamber was so that the translator would then give us the English version so that as per Speaker’s ruling 34/5 a translation appears in  
Hansard 
. I would ask you to consider that recital (10A) does not appear in the Maori version—it is being inserted without an English translation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: On the back of the Supplementary Order Paper it states quite clearly that that Maori version is a “translation of  
recital 12 
 of the English text:” which is on page 22. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So why would they have different numbers? 
John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. On page 22 of the commentary on the bill it is quite clear—in terms of the understanding of Maori members—that from recitals (10) through to (12) inclusive the matters raised in recital (10A) are fully interpreted in English. Having said that for the benefit of the Committee right now I am willing to express in actual detail exactly what Mr Gerry Brownlee read out in Maori to put the matter at an end—notwithstanding Speakers’ rulings 33/2 through to 33/7 in terms of the Maori language. So I am prepared with your permission Mr Chairperson to interpret exactly what the member Gerry Brownlee read out in terms of (10A) in order to place the matter at an end and I would be grateful for your direction in that regard. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not need any further help. The member has spoken Maori and now seeks a translation. I am going to ask the honourable John Tamihere to translate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Chairperson you have a translator here. You cannot insult us like that. You have a proper translator here. I do not want to have my words translated by the Government—I am in opposition to them. That is a political insult and the Committee should not be offering it to anybody. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Which is the insult? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I find it insulting that I can stand in the Chamber and speak in Maori and then Mr Tamihere is asked to translate what I have said—while the taxpayer is paying a translator to sit in on proceedings. Now if it were not a reasonable call for people to have their speeches accurately translated by someone fluent in te reo Maori then we would simply right at the start of this debate and at the beginning of the last Parliament have said: “No we will not have a translator present. We will simply ask someone in the Chamber to interpret what was said”. I cannot imagine that Mr Horomia as a Minister would be happy asking Mrs te Heuheu to translate his regular speeches in Maori to this House. I think it is very very strange that I get my speech apparently translated by John Tamihere. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not strange. I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 34/1 and 34/2. I can make that decision. I can ask anyone in whom I have confidence to interpret irrespective of whether there is an interpreter in the Chamber. It is a bonus that we have one. What is more Mr Tamihere has made the offer which I am going to accept. If the member wants to take the matter further after that we will deal with that then. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is the point of order relevant? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I did wish to speak to the point of order before you ruled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will accept that. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Although those two rulings confirm that authority in the Chair I do suggest that even in the way they are framed they assume that the translation is non-contentious or they assume that it is given in circumstances where there is no reason for someone to raise a question about whether the translation might not generate confidence in the House. I am perfectly happy to accept that the Minister’s offer was made in good faith and that he would undoubtedly simply read the English that Mr Burton has already provided to us—[ 
Interruption 
]—sorry the former Minister. But in a situation where we are trying to establish a principle it would be seen as very odd not to use the official translator. When the official translator is available it is almost inexplicable that the official translator would not be used for that purpose. I venture to suggest that those two rulings would have been given in relation to a circumstance where there would have been a delay or some other problem associated with using the official translator. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I really do not need any further assistance. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I rarely raise a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is true. I call the Hon Damien O’Connor. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not sure whether there are Speakers’ rulings on the situation which appears to me to be one whereby a member has stood up and made a speech and now we are seeking to have an interpretation of that speech because the member does not know what he said. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. Mr Brownlee has asked for what he said to be interpreted. I have had an offer from Mr Tamihere to do that and I have accepted that offer. In any case common sense would say that what the member said is clearly set out in English in the bill itself. Reference to that is on the back of Supplementary Order Paper 327. If the members who are raising this issue had bothered to trace it through they would have seen that. It may be convoluted but it is in the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I am still talking albeit I am sitting down. The translation that is on the paper that was sent around was made by Maori translators licensed via the Maori Language Commission etc. I think we are getting a bit silly here. Either members want to hear a translation which I am prepared to accept—in fact I am calling the Hon John Tamihere to please translate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Because you have ruled this is now a procedural matter. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Madam Speaker at the request of Mr Brownlee you have been recalled to the Chamber to rule on a matter that I have dealt with in the Committee. As part of a point of order raised by Mr Brownlee he spoke what we have referred to as recital (10A). He gave a very good rendition of that recital as it is in Maori and then requested that it be translated. The Hon John Tamihere offered to translate. I have confidence that he is able to do that and I have asked him to translate it. But besides that the matter that Mr Brownlee has presented the Committee with is in fact translated in the bill itself and there is a translation on a paper circulated by the Minister which is actually a certified copy—that is the English version of the Maori. Mr Brownlee sought to recall you to deal with the matter. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I have heard the debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The difficulty that we are in is because of Supplementary Order Paper 327 put on the Table by the Hon Margaret Wilson which asks the House to consider placing a new recital (10A) in the preamble to the bill. There is also a proposed amendment to that Supplementary Order Paper on the Table in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to insert a further expression in the bill that expression being “2002”. The bill itself refers to activities that took place in 2003. The question is further made complex by the fact that the Maori text is to be numbered (10A) and we are told that the translation for that is (12) in the English version. The question that comes to mind is that if those recitals are translated one by one why do the numbers get out of order? We are just keen to understand that what is written in the letter that was circulated today is what is in the bill. That is not unreasonable and given that the insertion is going in because of a mistake and there is a mistake in the insertion itself I think it not unreasonable that we ask for the translation extraordinarily of just seven lines of text. 
I refer you in the matter of interpretation to Speaker’s rulings 34/1 and 34/2 because although Mr Tamihere has generously volunteered to interpret my contribution to the Committee he has done so while the Committee has its own interpreter here. You will see that Speaker’s ruling 34/3 states: “The interpreter is responsible to the Speaker (in committee the chairperson). If members do not like the way the interpreter is rendering their speeches into English they are at liberty to give their own interpretation. Members do not ‘own’ the interpreter’s contribution; it is controlled by the Speaker on behalf of the House. Members can seek to correct the subsequent  
Hansard 
 translation in the normal way.” 
I will not have access to Mr Tamihere’s translation in  
Hansard 
 before it is published so the question arises of why we have an interpreter in the House responsible to the Speaker where members are able to reasonably consider how well that interpretation has been given if we are to have the Chairperson of the Committee determine that we will not use the interpreter provided to the House. Rather the Chairperson has said we will use a member in political opposition to the person who has spoken to interpret that member’s words thereby denying the member who has spoken in Maori the opportunity to check that the  
Hansard 
 record is correct or to take issue with any aspect of the interpretation that a political opponent may like to put upon the originally stated words. In other words the situation would be a little like Parekura Horomia as Minister of Maori Affairs coming to the House to make a ministerial statement choosing to do so in his chosen language te reo Maori someone on the Opposition side of the House being asked to interpret what he has said and the House leaving him with no opportunity to question whether that interpretation was totally accurate. 
I would like your view on whether if we proceed with this particular course of action we will create a new Speaker’s ruling that will do away with Speaker’s ruling 34/3 which was given to the House in 1999 at about the time the interpreter’s services were required in the House on each and every sitting day. So the real question is why my rights as a member to have my speech interpreted by the official interpreter are being usurped in this case. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am ready to rule on the point of order. I heard the debate. There are three things that I want to say. It is the Chairperson’s absolute right to call on a member to interpret. He or she is perfectly entitled to do that and a member’s word in the House is to be taken. But the most important thing about this matter is that there is no translator in the House. There is an interpreter. The interpreter is here to interpret words used by members in the course of a debate not to give definitive translations of the texts of bills. If members are not satisfied with the words in a Minister’s amendments they should vote against them. The interpreter is an official of this House not a person to be brought into the debate. Where a Minister has an amendment questions about the amendment should be addressed to the Minister. What I would say though is that in future it would be helpful if Ministers in moving an amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper included the translation in the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper. Had that been done I do not think that this issue would have arisen. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Preamble ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We were discussing the preamble and following from that we come to a translation to be given by John Tamihere. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 Supplementary Order Paper 327 has been read in large part by Mr Gerry Brownlee. The interpretation is as follows and can be followed by all members in recital (12) of the preamble to the bill: “The Crown and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa initialled a deed on 8 July 2002. Ngati Awa ratified the Crown’s settlement offer and entered into a deed of settlement on 27 March 2003 recording matters to give effect to a full and final settlement of all Ngati Awa’s historical claims.” 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As it now seems that Mr John Tamihere is the pre-eminent Maori speaker and interpreter in the Chamber I wonder whether he could prevent us from getting further into a bind by letting us know what the effect would be of the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 327 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to insert recital (10A). 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I hope that the member could perhaps answer my question as well. I freely admit that my knowledge of Maori is extremely limited but in recital (10A) I can clearly see the numbers 27 and 2003 and I would therefore expect 27 and 2003 to be in the English version in recital (12) of the preamble. Furthermore I cannot for the life of me see 8 2002 or the Maori word for July in recital (10A). I am somewhat confused that recital (10A) clearly makes reference to 27 March 2003 but that it does not have any reference to 8 July 2002. Therefore I ask whether recital (12) in English is an accurate translation of recital (10A) in Maori. Perhaps the member another Maori member or our interpreter could clarify that point. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I believe that this is one of the difficulties that was highlighted by Mr Brownlee when he questioned the appropriateness of another member in the Chamber making the interpretation. In the actual words that were read out by Mr Brownlee in Maori—notwithstanding that I had some difficulty understanding the Maori; I am not a teacher of Maori as he is—no mention was made of the year 2002. Yet the interpretation that the honourable member Mr Tamihere read out referred to the year 2002. So one could essentially argue the technical point as to the accuracy of his interpretation. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I think the point has been made several times that there is a difference between giving a word-by-word translation and delivering the clear intent. The intent is clear and that is precisely what Mr Tamihere delivered to the Committee as I think the member would honestly agree. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I just wish to clarify. There is no mention as Mr Paraone has said in the Maori text of a particular date. I suspect I am right in saying that the amendment is supposed to do that. But although it amends the text to include the year it does not include the date. So we are still left with the situation whereby the text in Maori is not the same as the text in English. That incidentally was my point last night. It could have been cleared up some hours ago but some people in this Chamber are just too clever for their own good. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think we need to move on. 
Stephen Franks 
: Mr Chairman we will have to come back to it if we do not clear it up now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: All right. I will just say on the last matter that the amendment of the Hon Margaret Wilson and the version included in Mr Brownlee’s speech were what were interpreted by Mr Tamihere. We could run around in circles— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We will have to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we will not. My understanding of what was said is pretty clear. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This may be a similar point that can be readily clarified and I would accept the interpreter’s assurance on it without reservation. Again being cast to it I see no reference to the runanga in the Maori text. That may be because there is a longer way of describing it or because something is summarised in the term “runanga” but I would have assumed that “runanga” is a Maori word and would not need to be retranslated into Maori text. If the neutral interpreter had given us that statement I guess we would not be asking these questions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: All of the matters raised are matters of debate. The matters raised will no doubt provide material for the debate as we go on with it. That process should be followed. If members do not agree with it they can vote against it. I do not see any sense in further points of order on this. It is very clear to me. 
Stephen Franks 
: How can we debate translation matters? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The points being raised by members are incorrect as to specific words and I am told that the month and the day are in the text. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to have a debate on that. The Greens support the bill. I just want somebody to explain to me where in recital (10A) of the Maori text are the Maori words for 8 July 2002 which are in the English text. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the member wants someone to explain that to him I will ask the Minister to do so. 
ROD DONALD 
: Yes because it just does not seem to be there. If I may ask a second question then I will not say anything more in this debate. Why can the numbers in Maori not connect with the numbers in English which would help to reduce the public’s confusion when this bill is finally passed so that people could look at one number and text in English— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I understand. Mr Donald has asked for someone to attempt to explain that and I have asked the Minister to make that attempt. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 In the Maori translation the fourth word on the first line “tuawaru” means “the eighth”. It is written as a word rather than a number and is therefore less obvious to members but that is the translation. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that the point of order raised by Mr Franks was a valid one in terms of talking about Te Runanga o Ngati Awa as opposed to Ngati Awa. Maori members of the Committee will know that when we talk about te runanga we are talking about a governance body whereas in the translation where the term “te runanga” has been omitted we are talking about the whole tribe. The point Mr Franks raised is I believe a valid one. 
This is one of the first bills during my time here for which the Maori interpretation has been provided and I am saddened that there is a fear—particularly for me as a Maori member—that in future our opportunity to promote our language may be lost because unfortunately on a technicality people are unable to understand clearly the translation or the interpretation; whatever word members want to use. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not think we need anything more on this. As we go on through it will be entirely up to members to move an amendment if they think a word is out of place or is not understood. I think the Committee has made its best attempt to resolve the issue. There was a translation made for most purposes and I accept it. It may not be acceptable to all members but we could go on all night. All 119 other members in this Chamber could give their version and no one need accept it. We will now move on to the preamble. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I asked for a ruling on the role of the interpreter in this Chamber and what he is here for if not to avoid just this kind of dispute. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry Mr Franks. That ruling on the role of the interpreter was given by the Speaker. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Speaker gave a ruling on that particular matter. I am now asking why we cannot ask the interpreter in order to stop us from looking as if we are arguing between ourselves on a matter of translation when we are not. We are simply asking to know that the words being used in each provision mean the same thing. I believe that we would all accept the interpreter’s comment but you Mr Chairperson said that we have to accept the Minister’s explanation and that of Mr Tamihere. I asked for a ruling about why we have an interpreter in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is all the member was asking. I did not ask members to accept the Minister’s ruling. It was another member who asked for anyone to assist with the matter. That is why the Minister was asked. I am not asking members to accept Mr Tamihere’s translation of the text. It is all pretty obvious because it is there in the English text which has been gone through by a translator who has a Maori translator’s licence. 
Stephen Franks 
: There is no “runanga”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Hang on. 
Stephen Franks 
: That is in the Minister’s statement not in our man’s statement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member’s question is about why we have an interpreter. It is a good question. The Speaker explained the role of the interpreter and the choice that the Chairperson has. I cannot tell members any more than that. I guess that we have an interpreter in order to enable members to gain a reasonable understanding of what was said in the debate. We do that and we will continue to do it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Speaker gave us a ruling that confirmed the authority of the Chair to invite someone to interpret but the Speaker did not give us a statement on the role of the interpreter. We are now on a separate matter from that. We are now asking why there is what appears to be such a significant difference as the omission of “te runanga” which refers to the governing body as opposed to the whole tribe. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: These are matters of debate that members can raise later on. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: No they are matters of interpretation. I do not want to argue; I just want to understand. We have an interpreter in the Chamber who sits here night after night and is never called on and now we want an explanation and he will not be called on. No one can tell me why. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I repeat that the Speaker covered that precise point. That is exactly what the Speaker covered. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When the Deputy Speaker came back to the Chamber she quite rightly said that the role of the interpreter is to interpret not to translate. The House accepted that and Mr Tamihere translated. We are now saying that it is a concern to a number of people in the Committee that the translation was not correct. It comes down to the question of whether “te runanga” is mentioned in the Maori text. I cannot see it there but there could well be a translation available that would state that the expressions convey that sentiment. 
It strikes me as strange that we have had in this country 160-plus years of argument over what was actually said and meant in the Treaty of Waitangi and here we are 160 years later trying to sort out grievances that apparently have arisen from the beliefs and understandings of obligations that were given conferred and accepted in that treaty. We ask for a simple interpretation from an interpreter who is provided to the Parliament so that we can find out what is in this text. We are going round and round in circles because you have told us that it is a debating matter. The last debate over a translation issue took 160 years. We would like to get on with this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. That is what I was suggesting quite some time ago and I realise that we are going to get on with it. I say to Mr Franks that the interpreter is there to give an oral version in English of words that have been uttered orally in Maori. Members may well say that that is exactly what Mr Brownlee did but that is not what he did. Mr Brownlee read out—very well—what he had in front of him and there is a distinction there. 
Members are effectively asking the interpreter to give evidence to the Committee. He cannot do so any more than the Clerk can. If members do not like the Maori text they can move amendments to it but they cannot ask the interpreter to second-guess a member’s statement. There will always be variations when we are dealing with that sort of thing. Can we move on now please? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I take from your ruling that we can actually move an amendment? Speaker’s ruling 102/4 states that we cannot amend what has been agreed by the parties and I understood that this recital fell into that category. If it does not then we can make a number of amendments—which I think New Zealand First members have felt unable to make—where the recital wrongly refers to the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I have assumed that New Zealand First wrote its Supplementary Order Paper which does not try to correct that on the basis that that was part of the agreement. If in fact we can now move amendments to the recitals then we will do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. There was an agreement on clauses 7 8 9 and 10. Members can put in as many amendments to the preamble as they wish—from zero to many hundreds if they want to. There is no limit on that. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Kaore nga kupu “te runanga” i roto i tenei pire mo nga kupu o te Minita. 
[ 
In respect of the Minister’s statement the words “te runanga” are not in this bill. 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member for my benefit and that of the Committee please give the English interpretation? 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Standing Order 104 and the Speakers’ rulings relating to speeches in Maori make it very clear that the trifling that has gone on with the Chair tonight is not just frustrating to members here but is absolutely disrespectful to the Ngati Awa chiefs who are here tonight. I feel obliged to stand up to say that. The stunt that was just pulled in Maori is just another abomination this evening. My point of order is that Standing Order 104 does not state that the Maori language must be transliterated to the extent that other members like it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Mr Franks does not and Mr Brownlee does not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It has gone past Mr Franks. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The point we have to get at is quite simply this. In the event that we express ourselves as Te Runanga o Ngati Awa or Ngati Awa we are using movable terminologies that are dependent on the context of the expressions being used. Members opposite might not understand that but that is the reality. The point I make is that we have now spent 30 minutes on a very special bill and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: And none of them have been points of order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member please sit down. I have let this go on—I know what it is—because I have tended in many ways to let members run their course. The judgment on whether they have been misusing this Committee or trifling with the Chair is for other members to make and I have no doubt that they will. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.