Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18911] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I have a number of matters to raise on which I would like to hear from the sponsor of the bill. A private bill as opposed to a private member’s bill is legislation passed by Parliament for the benefit of a private organisation. It follows that that private organisation then has a special law for itself that does not apply to every other New Zealander. In my view the House should be extremely reluctant to agree to private bills because to do otherwise would mean if carried to its logical extreme that all sorts of organisations could claim that the law of the land should not apply to them. 
It may well be in this case that because of the nature of the settlement some special statutory structure did in fact have to be set up. But that raises a second question. If that is so and as the settlement was made with the Crown why did the Crown not include the new structure in its legislation? I would like to know what the argument was for this structure being set up in a private bill. I certainly hope it is not being set up in a private bill in order to bypass the procedures of the House. As I say I think private bills generally should be passed only very reluctantly. 
My next point—and I hope that a member of the Maori Affairs Committee is here to speak to this bill—is that I am shocked to learn from the Assistant Speaker that what I thought was an English translation of a commentary on the bill in Maori or maybe the other way round actually is not the case and that it is accepted by the Assistant Speaker that what is before the House in Maori is different from what is before it in English. I ask members of the select committee whether that is not treating the House with contempt. If what is said in Maori is legitimate then it ought also to be said in English. Why did the select committee think it should say something in Maori that it is either ashamed of or for some other reason does not believe should be translated accurately into English? 
From my own point of view if members of the Maori Affairs Committee want to put commentaries in Maori I will not object but I will object if we pass laws—in this case a special law for one Maori organisation that does not apply to any other New Zealander—then discover that they have a commentary that has not been translated. I would have thought that members of the Maori Affairs Committee could see for themselves that that is an insult to the House. It is not appropriate and I think we should record our grave concern that this has happened. 
I understand from Mr Brownlee’s remarks that this will be a practice of the Labour Government and that there are a number of bills in which the Government intends to have one commentary in Maori that states one thing and one commentary in English that states something different. Of course it follows—maybe I am just suspicious—that we might find that what is said in English is calming and reassuring and that most New Zealanders would say the content was fair enough but that if they read what is written in Maori they would not have that view. I form that opinion because I cannot see any reason why a Maori text is not accurately translated. 
The sponsor of the bill is asking the House for an indulgence because it is an indulgence to have a private bill passed. On the face of it if the Assistant Speaker’s comments in the point of order ruling are correct and the Maori text and the English text are not the same and if the members of the committee knew that the texts were not the same then I am very critical of those members. I call upon them in front of the whole House to explain their actions. I also say that the sponsor of the bill has a duty to the House. I think he should take the time to go through the two texts and explain to us where they differ and what the differences are.