Brownlee Gerry; Peters Winston; Davis KelvinQuestion No. 12 to Minister 12 SeptemberHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitated to raise this yesterday because of the particular week that we've got but you've just pulled up a Minister for what you considered to be less than appropriate language in Parliament. I wonder if you might look at the—SPEAKER: No. No—too much language"; "too long."Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh too long. SPEAKER: Too long. The answer was too long.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh well there you are. OK.SPEAKER: The answers were too long.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well that's good. Right well there was a short answer yesterday that I'd like you to have a look at. It came from the Hon Kelvin Davis in answer to the question that was asked to him and had that been delivered I suspect in English then it would have brought some ire from you. And no big deal but I think if we are going to have more use of Te Reo—and I don't object to that—I think there should be—[Interruption] Well I'm just making it very clear that that's not what my point is about—SPEAKER: Order! Sorry can the member resume his seat. Can I just say that members know that it is a right of any member to raise a point of order that points of order are heard in silence and the fact that members might disagree with a point and call out when they're not meant to is an indication of a lack of tolerance which I find unacceptable. Now Mr Brownlee go back to the second part of your point.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well it was simply that if the Parliament is to see more use of Te Reo then I think it is important that when people are using it they're not using it to deliver insults or other comment that might not ordinarily be acceptable. I hope too that there is—while I'm on my feet—a greater level of tolerance for people that as it relates to the question yesterday do sometimes get the vowel sounds a little inappropriately pronounced. I've got to say I haven't used the language in 20 years because of a tirade that was dumped on me by the Māori Language Commission and its chief executive back then but the real point is have a look at that question yesterday. No big deal but I think reinforcing with people who are using the language that it must be respected firstly and its use in this House—it should respect the House.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member begins with a false premise for a start—he didn't understand the word he was talking about and then he uses yesterday's example and he's out of time. He had every opportunity yesterday to raise it but he didn't; he raises it the day later. And that's why sir it should be overruled.Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): There is an issue though when someone speaks Māori—there's a difference between the translation and the interpretation. So there are some words that can be translated in more than one way and so there is the issue around the interpretation of what I said. I think I know the answer that he was referring to which was one that Minister Jones put to me and there was a word I used that can be interpreted as "ignorant". I'm not sure what the translation said but the translation could well have been a word that was a lot more harsh. But I'm not responsible for the translation of what I say. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! I'm on my feet. This has highlighted an area where there is a potential for some problems. We all know that as translations or interpretation is occurring both into New Zealand Sign Language and into Māori or from Māori to English there is often a speed of discussion which people who are doing the interpretation are struggling to keep up with because obviously the members who are talking know what they're going to say but it's slightly unpredictable to people who are doing simultaneous translation. Anyone who has even a modicum of understanding of Māori language and is listening to the interpretation will understand that occasionally there are interpretations which are not quite what one would expect to occur and I think we do go with that. I'll certainly accept the word of Mr Davis that he thought it was possible that a harsher interpretation was given to a particular word that he used—harsher than what he would've given if he had been doing the interpretation—and while the interpretation might have been out of order the actual original comments were not. I say to Mr Brownlee that while I'm trying very hard one thing that is impossible for me to do with my level of language skills is to second-guess the interpretations even a day later.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just make the point that Hansard do provide transcripts to members to correct if they've been inappropriately quoted and it would be very interesting—given that the word that the Minister has suggested may have been used in the translation was not that word—to see how the word that has been used could be altered to give any context other than the insult it was meant to deliver.SPEAKER: While a lot of us don't look at the Hansard greens and don't adjust them I am going to ask the Minister in this particular case to look at that interpretation and if he is not satisfied with it to adjust it to something that he thinks is appropriate."