Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18809] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is interesting that in this debate on the preamble to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill we seem to have moved already into congratulating ourselves on having got what is described as an exact translation of two very long passages—a very long passage in Maori and a very long passage in English—both of which in essence re-record history. I say that it is interesting because I do not think this House has resolved anything for the future. When we realised that there might have been discrepancies we were unable to resolve it on the spot. We were told that it was a debating matter. Although this House keeps an interpreter full-time in the Chamber when we are debating the Chair did not choose to refer that uncertainty to the interpreter. Instead the Chair invited a Crown Minister to translate. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: A former Minister. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry it was a former Minister. I thank the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. 
The position we ended up with was that we were told quite seriously by the Chair that if there were differences in two texts and no statement as to which would take priority that was simply a debating matter even though most of the people in this Chamber including Maori members were unable to tell us what the significance of that difference was. Although that may not matter in this bill if all we are doing is rewriting history for the purposes of giving colour to an apology it may matter very much if the practice of having two texts is extended. Inevitably there is ground for misery in dispute resolution when there are two texts. 
We have in the House time after time debate over things that must have seemed as simple as taonga to those who wrote them. I have been told for example that taonga does not include tupara or shotguns. There can hardly have been anything more of a treasure in 1840 than the guns that people had sacrificed so much to buy. We have been told that language is a taonga yet in context one cannot see how one could give exclusive use and possession of a language which is the context it appears in. So I believe that it is important for us to mark that it is not some kind of victory by the Opposition to get the texts regularised but instead a worry for the future. The Minister has come back and given us texts that the Minister tells us are now the same. But that is still not reassurance. 
I believe that this bill should have a provision that states what happens in the event a disagreement emerges over interpretation. The bill should not simply put two language texts without stating which one takes priority. It does not matter for these purposes whether it is an English text or a Maori text that takes priority but one language is likely to evolve faster than the other. One language is likely to have more attention focused on interpretation than the other. For those who come to this in 20 or 30 years’ time it would be sensible for the House to have a clause in here that states that one language is merely a convenience for those who do not read the other and to say which text is the authoritative text. 
I think it is poor drafting and poor practice by the Crown to come before this House and say: “Please pass something that we know from history and from our own experience only a week or so ago will be uncertain to those who read it in the distant future.” Languages do evolve. Understandings evolve. It may seem to the Government that sticking in long passages of Maori is a cute thing to do for the politics of it at the moment—or that sticking in long passages of English so that the English readers do not complain that there are long passages of Maori is a cute thing to do—but the Government should not be doing that without telling us which will be authoritative in view of the fact that it is not possible for exact translation. That is not achievable and we should know for the future which text would resolve dispute.