Robertson GrantPAPAWAI AND KAIKOKIRIKIRI TRUSTS AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePreambleGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek a little bit of your guidance before we get into this debate. In the report of the Māori Affairs Committee to the House on this the committee devotes the first section of its report to the language of the bill and whether or not the bill could be enacted in Te Reo Māori. I am just seeking your guidance. In a clause by clause debate of this type at what point is it appropriate to discuss that given that it is in the committee's report but looking at the various clauses of the bill—I just do not want to upset you in the Chair as a person who I know likes us to stay very focused on the clauses that are in front of us. I just seek your guidance. It could potentially be the preamble debate that we do it in because that is a clause that provides some outline of the overall bill but it was clearly an issue of significant interest to the committee. So any guidance you have would be appreciated.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will give the member some pretty direct guidance. I think that both in the preamble and in clause 1 the member would be well within his rights—or other members would be—to discuss that issue at that point. After that I think we could consider it dealt with.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): On that recommendation it gives me pleasure to take a call on the preamble of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill—a private bill. I will start at your invitation Mr Chair with a discussion around the issue raised by the committee about whether or not this bill should be enacted in Te Reo Māori as well as in English. I would ask the member in the chair Alastair Scott or indeed members of the Māori Affairs Committee to perhaps take a call on this and clarify what has happened here because it appears to me that the trusts involved and whom this bill is for want the bill to be enacted in Te Reo Māori. That is what they want. In fact on introduction I have here two copies of the bill—one in English and one in Te Reo Māori. The issue that is raised in the select committee's report is that the Act as it exists now is only in English and so in order to actually facilitate the passing of the bill you would have to translate not only the amending bill into Te Reo Māori but also the existing Act into Te Reo Māori. I guess the question I have is: how difficult is that? If this Parliament is truly committed to having legislation that is in both English and Te Reo Māori why is what appears to be a logistical issue preventing us from doing what this Parliament is meant to do? I have got great respect for the members of the Māori Affairs Committee but the member in the chair Alastair Scott may wish to tell us why. Private bills are fundamentally not about the MPs who bring them to this House; they are about the private entities whose offices they affect and it is quite clear to me looking at the submissions that have been put into the select committee by the affected parties that they wanted this bill in Te Reo Māori. So I simply do not really buy the argument quite frankly. I note that in the committee's report it has said that it would be possible for the board to prepare a new bill that re-enacts the entire Act in both languages for later introduction. Quite frankly that just seems to me like an unnecessary imposition on those involved in this—on the trust boards—who have got other things that they want to be doing. The other option that was promoted by the select committee I note was for the member to withdraw the bill and redo it so that there was time for the whole Act to be translated. So perhaps the member in the chair would like to stand up and explain whether or not he has taken that advice and what he believes is the situation. The committee itself has made the recommendation that sponsors of private bills consider introducing them as dual-language bills. That is clearly a good recommendation but I think at this point I find it very unclear as to why this has not been done and I would like some clarification of that. Coming to the preamble itself I just want to note here that there are a couple of very important elements to this change. The first of those is around what the relationship is between the various parties to this bill. To better describe that you have the trust boards themselves you have the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika of Wellington and the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa—and it is just on that point that I want to pause. What we are amending here effectively gives what would seem on the outside to be a broader description of those who are impacted by this bill—the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa"—but actually on the other hand it is probably a more accurate representation. When the Act was originally put together it was much more specific around which whānau which hapū were actually going to be affected by this legislation and that has changed. In the original legislation it makes reference to the children of the Ngāti Kahungunu tribe other Māori or descendants from the East Coast of the North Island and Māori or descendants of Māori from any part of New Zealand. So I think I am clear on the fact that by changing this to "the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa" it gives the capacity not only for it to move beyond Ngāti Kahungunu but also for it not to take in those from across New Zealand. But again the member in the chair might want to clarify for those of us who have not had the opportunity to be on the select committee what has been done there. I know that many Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu would be those whom most of us would think of as the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa; Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne would represent most of that. But the member in the chair or other members of the committee might want to explain to us a little more about who else might be included in that terminology. I do not want to take up too much more time of the Committee with this call other than to seek some clarification. We will come in later calls to other matters contained in the preamble particularly around the question of the nomination process for board members the number of board members and also the question of the long-term use of land and what is appropriate use of the land for those who have traditionally been the owners of the land and what else it might be used for. So I look forward to those calls."