Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18805] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This is in the nature of a point of order. I raised a point of order when we were last in Committee on this bill but the Committee rose before it was considered. The matter was quite simple. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu had spoken in Maori and as we had an interpreter in the House— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just correct the member. I cannot rule on a previous point of order. I presume that the member is raising a new point of order? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The subject matter of the point of order is still out there in a sense. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can raise the matter as a point of order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu made a statement in te reo Maori. We have an interpreter present in the Chamber who should have a record of those proceedings so I now seek for the elucidation of non-Maori speaking members of Parliament and members of the public an interpretation of those statements. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The interpreter can interpret only what is before the Committee right now. If the member wants to repeat the point of order the interpreter can interpret it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It was in fact my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who made the point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member calling a point of order? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Kaore nga kupu “te runanga” i roto i tenei pire mo nga kupu o te Minita. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
In respect of the Minister’s statement the words “te runanga” are not in this bill 
.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order for the Chairperson to rule on; it is really a matter for debate. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The point of raising that whole issue of course was because of the extraordinary situation we are confronted with here. In the proceedings when we were last on the bill the Government put forward an extensive Supplementary Order Paper that did not give a direct translation. That was the reason for the extensive points of order raised when the bill was last debated. Indeed that is the reason for my request at this point and the interpretation bears out the point exactly. The word “runanga” in the text on the Supplementary Order Paper was not properly translated. 
What has the Government done about it? It has taken the extraordinary step of completely replacing Supplementary Order Paper No. 327 with a new Supplementary Order Paper dated today—1 March 2005—stating that the amendments are totally and correctly translated. I refer directly to the explanatory note on page 27 of the Supplementary Order Paper under the heading “Amendments to Preamble” which states: “These amendments ensure that the content of the Maori and English texts of the Preamble and the number of recitals in both versions are the same.” The content is the same. That of course is what we would expect. We expect that such matters when they are presented to Parliament have equal validity and equal meaning. 
The Government has been embarrassed by the proceedings of 1 week ago to the extent that it now has had to make a correction—a correction I suggest that is not for just one occasion but that for hereon in sets a general precedent for ongoing New Zealand Parliaments under whatever Government whereby legislation in two languages—and let us be clear: we are talking about legislation not about speeches given in the House and so forth—from which legal rights and obligations flow should be directly translated. It raises the whole issue that members on this side of the Chamber have been raising for some considerable time: the use of the word “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi as if those principles were some kind of substitute for the treaty itself. 
Apparently the Deputy Auditor-General is supposed to have knowledge of those principles. All I can say is that if some of the nation’s finest accountants can explain to the rest of us what the principles mean then jolly good on them because frankly some of the finest legal minds in the country have not been able to get to grips with what the term means. The reason is that it is a totally imprecise statement. Why would one move from the text of the treaty which is quite simple and straightforward although admittedly in two languages and which is capable of a meaning under law and in the courts—and I see Mr Parker acknowledges that point—to another set of statements apparently derived from the text but not actually the text on which the courts then develop a whole new theory of law and which have benighted this country for some considerable time? I use that by way of analogy on the importance of the English and te reo texts being the same because legal rights and obligations flow from them. 
I ask this of the Minister with his new responsibilities: does this now set a general precedent that hereafter whenever legislation is presented to the House in two languages there will be a total commitment to ensuring the two texts mean precisely the same thing as much as languages actually can reach that situation? Do we have that assurance now or do we blunder on in the dark as was the proposal last week when the Government said: “Here’s sort of something that’s more or less the same as the other and the courts will just have to sort out the differences themselves.”? Given that the Government has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper today purporting that the content of the texts are the same the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to why the Government is doing this. What does it intend by it? Does it set a general precedent and is it intended to be a direction to the courts?