Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Māori Television Service Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) : There are certainly some things to be said about the preamble. The preamble sets out the background to this bill, both in Māori and in English. It traverses the history of the litigation, starting with the Waitangi Tribunal litigation, and then Privy Council findings. Having done that, under the heading “Background in English” there is quite a weak kind of objective that establishes the Māori Television Service so that Māori have a secure place, are recognised, actively promoted, blah, blah, blah. Nowhere in that preamble—and I want the Māori members to hear this—is there anything that basically states that the establishment of the Māori Television Service is in satisfaction of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. That is most of the problem with this bill—it is a mishmash of social objectives and so-called treaty objectives, and Māori are none the wiser. We cannot have that mishmash. The litigation that went before both the Waitangi Tribunal and to the Privy Council was the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. If this service is being set up in satisfaction of that obligation, then there is no room in here for social objectives. Those might flow in the long term, but certainly not in stating why the Crown is setting this television service up.

Quite frankly, the preamble is absolutely deficient. It gives no clear explanation or recognition of the purpose of this service, or of the reasons for it being set up, yet it clearly sets out the background to the litigation, but the background only. That is a major flaw. The Māori Television Service Board came before the select committee and pointed that out. The board proposed some changes to the preamble that would make it very clear just what this television service is about. The board suggested something along the lines that the Crown had agreed to establish and fund Māori television as a principal means of satisfying its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to actively protect our te reo Māori. There is nothing of that in this preamble and, in my view, the bill is flawed from the start. That is a slap in the face to all of those tribes and individuals who, since the late 1980s, have pursued this matter, and particularly in the early 1990s when the Crown moved to dispose of its broadcasting assets. That clearly was the motivator for Māori to take their action to the Privy Council.

I ask the Minister, the Hon Parekura Horomia, to take a call to explain not just to this Committee, but also to Māori involved in all of that litigation, why he is not prepared to have a clear statement in this bill that says, without any equivocation whatsoever, that the establishment of the Māori Television Service is the means of satisfying the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to actively protect the Māori language. This mishmash of a bill will have a serious impact if Māori take it in their minds at some future date to say: “This wasn’t in satisfaction of the treaty obligation. We will go back to the Government”—and that is likely to be the National Party in Government—“and say that the Government has not fulfilled its treaty obligation, so what will it do about it?”

I want the Minister to take a call to tell us why he is not prepared to put some clarity into this bill. It might be a big ask for that Minister, because a notion of “Parekuraisms” has developed in the public arena. But he has an Associate Minister sitting there in John Tamihere, and he is reasonably clear in expression.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) : The preamble includes a section on page 8 that is headed “Requirement for consultation when appointing the chief executive.” I have read that part of the preamble with great care and, indeed, the subsequent part of the bill. I have also read with some care material that the Minister has now been forced—and I use that word advisedly—to release under the Official Information Act, which makes it very clear indeed why the Minister did not want us to know what has gone on in relation to the appointment of Mr Derek Fox as the chief executive of the Māori Television Service.

I want the Minister to take a call and reconcile what is in the bill’s preamble with the facts as they are now clear to members who have read those papers. It is now clear that the appointment of Mr Derek Fox—formerly chairman—to the position of chief executive was nothing short of a monumental jack-up. It is clear from the papers that I have now seen, and that have been released after the Ombudsman told the Minister’s officials their obligations under the Act, that Mr Fox himself presided over the appointments committee process when people were interviewed. He sat in the board meeting while the report of that appointments committee was received and the other applicants seen off from the process. He left the room so that there could be a three-two vote amongst the directors, of which one vote was a proxy. So Mr Fox, who is supposed to enjoy the confidence of this Government and of the board in relation to the appointment outlined in this preamble, actually got there by way of a process that he presided over, that saw no one else emerge as an acceptable candidate, and that saw Mr Fox leave the room so that he could be appointed on a vote of three against two, of which one was a proxy vote. I ask the Minister how he reconciles that with the preamble to this bill and the requirements set out on page 8, and with the provisions that follow in parts of this bill.

What has happened makes a mockery of what this Committee is considering today. Members are sitting here lamely debating a process that has already been completed. It was the result of a monumental jack-up involving the former chairman, who had himself appointed as the chief executive. That appointment was announced on 11 February, and I want the Minister to tell me how that is reconcilable with the provisions contained in the preamble on page 8.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The preamble is actually on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the bill.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am referring to the notes that follow the preamble in this copy of the bill. If the Minister is able to refer me to some other pages, I will be very happy to be referred to them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry. The preamble is on pages 2, 3, and 4.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I want the Minister to take a call, because these are important matters. We are debating in this Committee a bill that relates to a process that has been already substantially completed, and the Minister cannot pretend that those actions have not occurred. We are in the process of debating a bill by which vast amounts of public monies have already been expended and contracts entered into—most important, the contract for the chief executive. I want the Minister to take a call to explain to the Committee why those events have already occurred now that this matter is coming, at this belated stage, before the Committee for its consideration. I want to know, as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu wanted to know, why the Minister has taken so long to get this matter before the Committee, when over 2 years ago—as I told the Minister yesterday—the Prime Minister said that this bill was taking too long, and that the Māori Television Service needed a hurry-up. She raised the matter in Cabinet, and no doubt gave the Minister a good kick in the backside and asked what was going on.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : The tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language. The Crown accepted those findings. The Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi imposed a continuous obligation to take such steps as were reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Māori. Will this bill protect te reo Māori? Will it help prospective students—those who can afford to sit down and literally take a class in the Māori language from the television screen—to be astute and fluent speakers of the language, and thus retain and protect it? That is the question out there. If this amount of money is to be spent on Māori television for the purpose of protecting and retaining te reo, how will te reo come across on the television screen for those who can afford to watch it and are able to learn from it? That is the question I leave with the Minister.

If television programmes are promoted to teach the language, how are 5-year-olds—up to people of whatever age, who do not speak the language—supposed to learn? If a survey were to be taken of how teaching through the medium of the television screen promoted the language, how many of those who watched it would come out speaking the language fluently? That is the question. If this language is to be retained, the wheel has already been invented. It is in our homes, maraes, kōhanga reo, polytechnics, universities and wānanga. Can New Zealand First be guaranteed that for every person who watches programmes on Māori Television—if, or when, it gets off the ground—there will be a result? I urge members to think about that matter, and I ask the Minister to take a call on it. I might think of joining Labour if its members came out speaking te reo, but I doubt it very much.

Brent Catchpole: There is no chance of that.

BILL GUDGEON: There is no chance of that. I know it will fail if we—this Committee, or this Government—say that Māori television programmes will teach our children, mokopuna, youth, and those of adult age, so that they come out speaking fluently in Māori. That is the challenge.

Let us look at the bill again. Its preamble is very shallow; it refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that is all. But how, what, where, and when? Will we come out with fluent speakers of Māori—yes, or no? Will we come out with people who understand the tikanga of iwi throughout the country? Will the mita o te reo be recognised by Ngāti Porou, Ngāpuhi, Te Arawa, Mātaatua, Tūhoe? Questions will be asked by our kaumatua. They will say: “E hoa, e hara te ra i te reo o Te Arawa”—That is not the language of Te Arawa. We want our speakers to be there to teach them. How can te reo be taught if we sit in front of a screen and switch te reo off when we have had enough of it—especially if we do not understand it? The message is the same: if we do not do the job right when we are teaching in schools, how can students learn?

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I think the name, Māori Television Service Bill, is a bit of a misnomer. The title of the bill should be the “Māori Television Black Hole Bill”, because it seems to me that what we are setting up here is simply an organisation that will take—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sure the member was going to raise a point of order about the preamble. At the present time we are speaking about pages 2, 3, and 4 of the preamble—not the title.

MURRAY SMITH: Thank you for that clarification. I will hold fire on that issue. I note that the preamble talks about the Te Reo Māori Report (Wai 11), which says that the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Treaty of Waitangi was directed to ensuring a place for two peoples in New Zealand. In reading that, I noted the word “was”. That word refers back, no doubt, to the foundations of the treaty, and one of the problems with this bill—and with the Government’s policy on Māori—is that there is a lack of thought about where we should be with regard to the treaty, 150 years on.

We are looking back at what the treaty meant 150 years ago, but what does it mean today? This Government lacks vision in that respect, and that fact is reflected in the “Background in English” section of the preamble. It states that the Treaty of Waitangi “was”—past—directed to ensuring a place for two peoples in New Zealand, and then goes on to state that the tribunal found that the Māori language “is”—current—an essential part of Māori culture and must be regarded as a taonga, a valued possession. I totally agree that te reo Māori is a taonga. It is a taonga, I suggest, of the whole of New Zealand, not just of Māori. But the situation we need to address is how Māori and non-Māori should be relating together, 150 years after the treaty. The fact that there is such a big gap between the word “was”—heading back to how things were 150 years ago—and the “is” of the Māori language today simply demonstrates that this Government has no vision whatsoever of how Māori and non-Māori relationships should be today, and how we should be proceeding into the future.

That dearth of vision conveys itself in the Government going in two opposite directions. In an earlier debate, I referred to that as schizophrenic. On the one hand, the Government is doing things that seem to suggest that it wants to bring about reconciliation between Māori and non-Māori—a sense of unity within this nation—so that we can move forward together. I commend that view. Certainly, the resolution of treaty grievances is an absolutely vital part of that process. As I have already expressed a number of times, I hope the Government moves with some speed in getting those issues resolved, but so far my pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

Then we find bills such as this—and also like the one we have recently passed, allowing for separate Māori seats on local authorities—where the Government is doing things that seem to be trying to marginalise Māori and make them separate from the rest of this nation. The Māori Television Service Bill is a classic example of that. In order to promote te reo, we are going to set up a separate Māori television station, specifically for Māori and that Māori will watch, while the rest of New Zealand carries on and watches Television One, TV2, TV3, and regional television, and has very little exposure to te reo Māori. In my view, we should be looking to provide te reo not just for Māori, but for all New Zealanders. We should be looking at ways to promote the language amongst all New Zealanders, and that is by nationwide and regional television—television that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will watch.

I am not at all convinced that many New Zealanders will watch this channel—Māori or non-Māori. Absolutely no research has been done to suggest what the viewer audience will be, despite calls on my part for it. There is no research to suggest that there will be any sort of viewer audience for this channel. We will have $30 million—and in 2 years, $40 million—just being thrown into this black hole of television that no one will watch, and which will not further te reo within New Zealand.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : I would like to share with the Committee a pretty major concern I have about the preamble to the bill. This is the first time that I have seen two separate sections in the preamble of a bill, one in Māori and one in English. What concerns me, as a member whose party is considering whether to vote for this part, is that many of us here in the Chamber today do not have any idea what the first part of the preamble means, because it is in Māori. Although I have done a few lessons here at Parliament to get myself a bit up to speed in te reo, I do not know the language sufficiently well to be able to judge what we will actually be voting for or against.

One would hope that the English version of the preamble was an exact reflection of the Māori version, but if Government members had actually read the commentary on the bill they would know that one of the debates in the Māori Affairs Committee was about the translation of the preamble. I refer members on the Government side of the Chamber, who obviously have not read the committee’s report on the bill, to the fact that it states: “The preamble is in English, followed by a Māori translation. Cabinet had previously decided there would be a Māori translation of the English preamble, to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Chair of Te Pūtahi Paoho.”—there goes the limitation of my Māori pronunciation. The committee goes on to state: “Te Pūtahi Paoho is concerned that despite this agreement, the translation that appears in the bill is an altered version of the translation it originally submitted to Te Puni Kōkiri. It requests that the preamble revert to the version originally provided, and also that it be presented in adjacent columns, with Māori to the left and English to the right.”

It further concerns me that the select committee also states there are concerns about the inaccuracy of the translation, and that macrons have been used in an inconsistent manner. I ask how those members who are not fluent in te reo are supposed to have any confidence that what we are considering voting for or against is a correct reflection, a correct translation, of the English preamble. Unless the Minister wants to stand up and take a call and give the Committee a translation, we will be none the wiser about what we are voting for.

Hon Member: The interpreter might explain.

KATHERINE RICH: The interpreter could assist us, and I would also seek the advice of the Clerk at the Table, because I do not think I have ever faced a situation of this nature in my short time in Parliament, and I do not think other members have done so, either. I seek guidance from some of the more senior members of the Opposition. Certainly, this would be one of the first cases I have seen where we are to vote on something that we do not have any understanding of, in terms of its definition.

Of course the “Background in English” in the preamble, which we are able to follow, highlights some of the background that has led us to debate this bill in the House. One of the things about the Privy Council’s decision, which was that there was a Government obligation to assist in the preservation of te reo Māori by the use of both radio and television broadcasting, was that it did not suggest there needed to be a totally separate television service. It just said there needed to be an understanding that when the Government funded radio and television, justice had to be paid to the language. That has been done to a great extent through the work of New Zealand On Air and through the establishment of Te Māngai Pāho. Both those organisations have funded a huge amount of Māori content over the last few years—not just in television programming but also in terms of radio stations, radio programming, etc. There has been a huge amount of State investment into the area of Māori programming, which is played in prime time on channels that most New Zealanders are likely to watch.

What bothers me about this separate service is that it is likely to be on an obscure part of the Sky digital remote, and thus inaccessible to many New Zealanders.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this bill. Like my colleague Katherine Rich, I too am somewhat astounded by the bill’s preamble. Certainly, there is evidence of an emphasis on the “amble” bit, because if we go to the commentary on the bill, we find it is absolutely correct that what appears in the bill is probably an altered version of the translation originally submitted to Te Puni Kōkiri. I note that there is a request that the preamble revert to the version originally provided, and also that it be presented in adjacent columns, with Māori to the left and English to the right. We do not see that in the preamble, and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, Parekura Horomia, would take a call and explain to the Committee why that simple request by the Māori Affairs Committee has not been met.

There has been a huge amount of time in the genesis of this bill for it to be made simple for those who are not well versed in te reo. Surely, that is one of the main aims of the bill. The Crown indeed has obligations to Māori to ensure that te reo and tikanga are preserved, but surely they should be preserved for all New Zealanders. Undoubtedly, there is an obligation to Māori to do that, but as New Zealand evolves and as intermingling occurs, it is just common-sense that a bill such as this should be easily understood and read by both partners to the treaty. So I hope that the Minister will indeed take a call and explain why that has not happened.

My colleague Georgina te Heuheu mentioned that there is no clarity in terms of the Crown’s obligation in this preamble. After all, we understand that the tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language, and in the ensuing litigation it became absolutely clear that it was appropriate that the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Māori through its use both by Māori and in television broadcasting. But where do we see—and I hope the Minister will clarify what my colleague asked him to do—that clear obligation to Māori, in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi? It is certainly not there.

Again, as my colleague Katherine Rich pointed out, where in the preamble does it state that this stand-alone television service is an obligation under the treaty? Where is the clear evidence that this is the way, and the preferable way, to preserve te reo Māori and tikanga Māori? Where is the evidence that a stand-alone television service will do that? Where is the obligation to ensure that Māori can determine for themselves the way that this service is carried out? As I read the bill and its preamble, there is nothing to suggest that Māori may themselves determine the direction of the service in discharging that very important obligation.

I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee those absolutely fundamental and serious mistakes and deficiencies right at the very beginning of the bill. Also, I want him to tell us why after so many years, right from the genesis of the bill, the Labour Government has failed so miserably to be succinct and clear in its obligations in terms of the recommendations that the select committee has made.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance on an issue. It is noted in the commentary on the bill that there is a difference between the Māori translation and the English version of the preamble that we are debating. Knowing the trouble we get into when it comes to Treaty of Waitangi issues when there are differences between the Māori version and the English version, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to ask for a translation of the Māori version so that the Opposition members of the Committee can see, before they vote on the preamble, where the differences are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am advised that the translation has already been given and agreed to. The Māori translation on pages 4 and 5 has been struck out, but the translation on pages 2 and 3 has been agreed to.

KATHERINE RICH: In that case, though, the commentary on the bill quite clearly states that there is an outstanding debate about the translation we are debating, and that one of the groups that submitted its version of the translation was quite unhappy about the version used in the preamble. That raises concerns on the Opposition side of the Chamber, because we are not clear about what we will be voting on, or what the differences are between the English and Māori versions. We do know that one version is not a totally accurate reflection of the other—or actually we do not know that until we hear a translation.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) : This is one of those issues where we are breaking new ground a little and could get bogged down a bit. Katherine Rich has suggested that it may be useful to ask the interpreter to stand up and take a minute to read in English the Māori text of the preamble. Quite honestly, we could then move on. This is a new issue, and it is the first time I have seen a bill that has in it such a length of Māori text. To enable us to move on, even though it is suggested that the English version is a replica of the Māori one, maybe it would be useful if you could ask the interpreter to do what has been suggested. I suspect that would save us a lot of time in the end.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) : I think that the member’s suggestion has been made in good faith, but of course, somebody could equally take exception to that translation. We have in front of us a preamble that has an English and a Māori version. Those are the two official languages of our country. I think we should now proceed on the basis of what is provided in the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is quite clear from the explanation given in the commentary on the bill that this is a translation. It is not the role of the interpreter to do as suggested. This is a matter for debate. I have ruled on the matter.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on the matter.

RODNEY HIDE: To be perfectly frank, I was going to contribute to the point of order, because the translation of the preamble has already been done. But it seems to me that we have another problem, which is this: there will, potentially, be some dispute in court over the interpretation of the preamble. Judges may be required to determine which translation has precedence, or whatever. When they do so, they will look to what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, has said about the translation. I suggest through you, Madam Chair, that the way to resolve this matter very quickly and very simply is for the Minister in the chair to say that the translation provided in English is a correct and accurate translation of the Māori preamble. With due respect, what a translator may say in Parliament, or indeed what an ordinary member of Parliament may say, will not carry any weight with a judge, but what the Minister says will carry weight. So although there can be arguments over translations, if the Minister whose name the bill is in takes the opportunity to say that the English translation is accurate and correct, then I think we could end the matter right there.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) : I hope to clarify this matter to some extent for members opposite. I chaired the committee in respect of this report back. The issue that is confusing some members relates to the final paragraph of the commentary. What we endeavoured to do, as one does when dealing with the official language—and with a predominantly Māori-dominated subject—was to get the Māori-language version and the English-language version technically side by side in terms of formatting. That is the first point of clarification with regard to something that may be causing some confusion.

The second point of clarification is that, as is the case with many languages, when one endeavours to interpret, one cannot get a specific and direct, literal translation. That brings me to my third point. The Māori Language Act, as the Deputy Leader of the House has indicated, makes Māori an official language. The Act does not say that the Māori language must be interpreted for the benefit of English-speaking peoples. It does not say that. So I put it to members that the preamble, as stated in Māori, is as close as we can possibly get to the English version. It has been done to the best extent possible when comparing totally different languages.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you for your assistance to Mr Hide. If it is debated in the courts, that is a matter for the courts. As the member has reiterated, Māori is an official language and that is where it stands.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) : I want to take a call in this debate on the preamble, because an issue here worries me—an issue that some of the previous speakers have alluded to. Indeed, I think Bill Gudgeon got as close to the specific problem I want to talk about as any of those who have spoken previously.

The first paragraph of the preamble, under the heading “Background in English”, states: “The Tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the Treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language. The Crown accepted these findings:”, and it goes on to give a number of findings. It is a laudable objective to want to see the Māori language protected and developed right across the country, where possible. I am supportive of it, as indeed is the National caucus—absolutely. People like me will never be fluent in Māori, but there are a number of young people who are, and we should encourage them where we can. However, my question to the Minister and the Government is whether they genuinely believe that the expenditure of $55 million a year of taxpayers’ money will actually help us achieve that objective.

I wonder whether the Minister or one of the members on that side of the Chamber would stand and tell us whether the Government genuinely believes that one of the outcomes of this amount of money being spent on the development of Māori television is that the Māori language will be protected and, indeed, enhanced, developed, or encouraged. I do not believe it will. I think there are some major deficiencies here. For instance, I draw to the Committee’s attention that in Northland we have a substantial population of people of Māori descent. Across Northland, probably 40 percent of the population is of Māori descent. In the Hokianga, and in some areas further north, people of Māori descent are the majority.

The point I make is that a whole lot of those people do not have access to television. If the Government is intent on expanding the Māori language—and I know it is saying that this is not just for Māori but for all New Zealanders, and that is fine, but the focus has to be on those people of Māori descent who do not speak Māori—then surely one of the outcomes we would expect from investing $55 million of taxpayers’ money is that all the mokopuna, the children of Māori descent, will have an opportunity to learn Māori. So what are we going to do about those children in Northland who will not have access to this service?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Have they got access to any services?

JOHN CARTER: Indeed, that is a problem in itself. But we are focusing today on the delivery of Māori television across the nation, with the intent, so we are told, of protecting the Māori language, and this Government will fail. It will not achieve its goal. I say to this Minister that at some stage—not that he will have to worry about this for long; he will not be a Minister for much longer, anyway, because there will be a change of Government shortly—someone from this side of the Chamber, in the short time we will be on it, will stand up and ask him where the delivery is. We will be asking that Minister to show us the delivery. He is telling us that we should protect the Māori language.

MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki) : I move, That the question be now put.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : We are in a very exciting phase of this great Parliament, because we have had, for some time, two official languages, and that has been a challenge to New Zealand, a challenge to our legislators, a challenge to the Government, a challenge to the public, and a challenge to Parliament—and a challenge to me.

Mahara Okeroa: In that order?

RODNEY HIDE: In that order. We have in this bill a preamble written in Māori and in English. In my time in the House I have not seen that—and I am looking at Mr McCully to see whether he has seen it before. I think we therefore need to debate this as a very, very important step in our parliamentary, constitutional, and legislative procedure. This has a huge significance. We cannot say it is just there for a bit of window dressing, and I would like to think that we will be debating the matter fully and properly in this Committee, because I do not know where else we would do it.

I would particularly like the ACT party to get a full, proper opportunity to debate what this preamble and its implications mean, because, sadly, as ACT is not represented on the Māori Affairs Committee, our only opportunity to do so is here in this great House. That is why we are here.

Hon John Tamihere: Richard Prebble was there.

RODNEY HIDE: He is not there any more. So let us think about this. Have we heard from the Minister as to what happens when there is a dispute over this preamble in the courts? The Minister could stand up in the Chamber and say that these two languages have equal weight for the judge. That is one possibility, and the courts will have to weigh it. He could say that if there is a dispute, one language will take priority, which, it seems to me, would be a smart position to take at this stage, because then we could say we have a bit of history in the courts with English, and we appreciate the movement to have te reo in statutes, but we have a clear rule.

Hon Dover Samuels: That’s the one.

RODNEY HIDE: I hear Dover Samuels saying that is the one. I would like to hear that from the Minister, because—

Hon Dover Samuels: It will probably be a Pākehā judge, too.

RODNEY HIDE: It will probably be a Pākehā judge, and that is why I am looking to this Minister. We can see it is significant. The background in English has not changed, but the background in Māori has. Why? There has to be a reason. It has to change this bill somehow. It has to have had significance; otherwise, why change it? Here we are voting on a bill that, sadly, most of members in this Chamber cannot read and do not understand—either in respect of the new majority or the old majority. I know that Mr McCully is on the committee and that he does his best. We know that judges in the courts will be in a similar position. We do need to take a full and proper debate on that principle. With the greatest respect, we do need to hear from the great Minister of Māori Affairs who is sitting in the chair.

Hon Dover Samuels: A good fella!

RODNEY HIDE: He should rise and say that the intention of this Government, and the purpose of this legislation, is to put te reo into statute. However, we believe that if there is a dispute in the courts, in the meantime, English should be the authority. That is not to demean the Māori language. It is to follow what Dover Samuel said was a good principle so that we can have clear law and not be arguing over how many angels dance on a pin, because I see problems ahead for this. Imagine that there are Māori litigants who are vexatious—.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: No!

RODNEY HIDE: There are, and I know that may come as a surprise. They will get legal aid and they will not accept anyone’s decision. They are vexatious, and they could be very vexatious if we start putting Māori into our statute book, because the dispute will be over the interpretation.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : In relation to the translation, this dictum here has a whole lot of different versions around single words. In relation to the language, this Government is not shying away from its treaty responsibility. Can I say quite clearly—alluding to the lengthy period of time—that this Government has started. I have a chronological date, dating back 40 years ago, from the 1960s and 1970s, to when that party, in 1991 went through this thing and did nothing. I am proud to be the Minister of Māori Affairs and to be getting towards the end point.

I refer members to the preamble. Members may have different views on whether we should have a preamble, or what the preamble might state. However, the preamble records and acknowledges past endeavours and events that have led to this bill now being before the Committee. The preamble refers to the Waitangi Tribunal Te Reo Māori report and the litigation in the early 1990s, first in the New Zealand courts and then the Privy Council, in which the Crown gave undertakings at that time concerning the development of Māori television. This bill will bring those commitments of more than several years ago into being.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) : I am pleased that the Minister did get to his feet. That is very good, but I would like him to think hard on this one. The Minister might say that he is fulfilling some obligations here, but as I say, if he reads the preamble very carefully, he will see that there is nothing that necessarily connects the setting up of this television service to the satisfaction of an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi, and that has long-term impacts around whether the funding will flow. [Interruption] Mr Ririnui can take a call if he wants to say something. In the meantime, I am on my feet. As I said, it has long-term impacts about ongoing funding. Presently, the funding of this service is dependent upon the normal appropriations at Budget time. That does not indicate satisfaction of a treaty obligation. And who owns those assets? That is the other thing. For instance, in the event of a winding-up, who will own the assets? If this is in satisfaction of a treaty obligation, then, by rights, there should be no question that Māori will own the assets. The transfer of assets is part of satisfying the Crown’s treaty obligations. That is what happens in settlements. I am saying to the Minister that nothing in the preamble makes any of that clear.

Hon John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am mindful that we are having a fair, wide, and liberal debate with regard to the preamble. I am merely pointing out to the Committee that a number of the issues raised by colleagues opposite have addressed a number of matters that are, in substance, in the part-by-part debate.

Rodney Hide: That’s a debatable point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind the member that while points of order are being heard, there will be silence.

Hon John Tamihere: In the most deferential way, I am merely indicating to the Committee that there is the issue of relevance. Notwithstanding the fact that we are having a wide debate, a number of issues raised by colleagues opposite are able to be debated point by point as we go through the bill part by part.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member is right. It has been a broad debate. The preamble itself is quite wide, in that it sets up what the bill does. The member is right—there are issues that we have debated that will come up later on in the debate, as well. However, the preamble endeavours to cover the principles of what the Government is trying to achieve. Logically, a number of those things will be covered in the bill itself. Obviously, the debate on the short title will be a lot narrower, but this one is more general.

Rodney Hide: Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member, but there is no need. I am not taking any more calls on this. I have indicated several times about keeping to the preamble.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have dealt with that matter.

Rodney Hide: Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

Rodney Hide: Yes. It is not usual in this House to be debating a preamble in two languages, or indeed to be debating a preamble. Mr Tamihere’s point was that he felt that what Georgina te Heuheu was saying was out of order because it can be picked up in other parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. He knows very clearly that Māori is an official language. That point has been covered.

Rodney Hide: That is not my point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the member’s point of order. Nothing is outside the Standing Orders. Please be seated.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated.

Rodney Hide: Am I going to have this point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. It is the prerogative of the Chair to rule on a point of order. I have ruled on the point of order. That is the end of the matter.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I know that the Minister, Mr Tamihere, is probably frustrated about this, because, of course, he did commandeer this bill through the Māori Affairs Committee, and now he has to sit there like a nice quiet little boy and listen to matters of debate. I do not accept his point at all, anyway, and you did not either, Madam Chair. My colleague is quite right. Basically, the preamble is very important. It sets out, and sets up, what follows.

What follows, of course, is a mishmash of what is supposed to be something that satisfies treaty obligations. But as we examine it—and we will certainly examine it further down the track—we will see that it does nothing of the sort. I refer to funding, and to the way that this is set up, It is a huge job to promote the Māori language—all that background is set out in the preamble. It is a very huge job, and when we look at the detail of the bill, we can see—and I agree with Deborah Coddington—that it is basically set up to fail. The Minister of Māori Affairs must think about that. He must also think about—he still has time—whether the bill is sufficiently explicit. Instead of, say, item (4) on page 3, he should think about an item that essentially links the setting up of this television service with the Crown’s obligations, under the Treaty of Waitangi, to protect and promote the Māori language through broadcasting. There is no explicit statement anywhere in this bill, least of all in the preamble, that that is the intention—and for the Minister, that has been a flagship.

When this Government came in, there were three flagships, apparently, for it in its first term. Nowhere in the preamble is there any indication that this Minister is sincere about this being a flagship—a flagship for Treaty of Waitangi obligations, and satisfaction by the Crown in pursuit of those, and a flagship for the protection and promotion of Māori language, which is also a treaty obligation. This Minister must give real thought to the fact that the preamble does nothing of the sort. It does nothing to give anybody any assurance. His own cousin, Derek Fox, chair of the Māori Television Service, came to the select committee with his lawyers and recommended three changes to the preamble—that is, three additional items: first, taking out the current item (4) and incorporating a different one; and adding two others that would make very clear—to this Government, first of all, because it seems that this Government is the first one that does not know what the purpose of the service is; whether it is in satisfaction of some social obligation or some legal treaty obligation—the treaty obligation that is now, supposedly, being satisfied.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt my honourable colleague after you had given her the call, but I was under the impression that Ms Te Heuheu had already had a call in relation to this clause. I noticed when you gave her the call that Ms Coddington had called. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that we noticed that, in fact, ACT probably was entitled to it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for that.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : It is very interesting that when the Minister of Māori Affairs stood to take a call he started off by saying: “Can I say this quite clearly …”. I admire the restraint of members that they did not all fall about laughing, because only the Minister can answer that question. Have we ever heard that Minister say anything quite clearly? I was waiting for a first time. He was going to say, quite clearly, the difference between why we have a translation—

Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have been giving the member on her feet some space to get to the preamble. At no time at all has she referred to anything contained in the preamble. The debate is becoming very wide.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please speak to the preamble and keep to the point.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We have a problem. The Minister stood, took a call, and spoke for three-quarters of his speech—I timed it—about what the National Party had not done for 40 years. Nowhere was that in the preamble but the Chair did not comment. Deborah Coddington was two sentences into her speech, talking about the Minister, and this Chair shut her down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will continue.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Speaking to the preamble, and to what the Minister said about the preamble, the Minister told us that when he was talking to the preamble he would tell us quite clearly why we have, and must trust, this Māori translation, I ask whether he quoted, interpreted, or translated. There are three different meanings we can take from that. Rodney Hide made a very good point when he spoke to the preamble and said that if litigation arises—and it surely will arise because this has been set up to invite litigation—it should be interpreted by the courts later on.

We see in the “Translation of the preamble” in the commentary that the Māori version has indeed changed, and the English version has not changed. I would have thought that if those members of the Government were committed to te reo—as they say they are—and to Māori television, they would get up and explain why the Māori version has been changed. I think we are entitled to know why it has been changed. There would be an outcry if the English version had changed. Furthermore, if Government members were totally committed to te reo, they, including Jill Pettis, would get up and talk in Māori. So why do they not do that?

Rodney Hide: They won’t even talk in English.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: That is another good point. Katherine Rich made a good point when she spoke about the difference between a translation and an interpretation. We do not know what this preamble is; is it a translation or is it an interpretation? We do not know because we are told in the commentary that the English version and the Māori version were meant to be set out side by side. The commentary then states: “However, it is not technically possible to achieve this within our timeframe for reporting back on the bill.”

The Government has delayed for 2 years. We will get to the title soon, but the date in the title clause is 2001. It is now 2003.

Rodney Hide: It must be slow.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: It is slow, but not slow enough to have it set out so we know what we are voting for in this preamble—[Interruption] The Minister over there can take a call in Māori if he has got something to say, instead of just chipping in every now and then.

Rodney Hide: It was Mark Burton.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I am sorry, I had forgotten his name; I thank Mr Hide.

I come back to this difference in the translation. Here we are, 163 years later, still debating the Treaty of Waitangi—whether it is the English version or the Māori version, or whether it is a translation or an interpretation. The least we can expect in this Committee stage is for the translator to translate this preamble for us, word by word, so that we see that it is a translation and not an interpretation. Quite frankly, when the commentary refers to different versions that came to and fro from Te Puni Kōkiri and Te Pūtahi Paoho, we do not know what we have here.

The fourth clause of the preamble says that the establishment of the Māori Television Service means that Māori language and Māori culture will have “a secure place”. Nothing that has been done so far by this Government leads us to believe that there is anything secure about Māori television, in the way it has been set up. What is secure about a television service that was meant to be on air by the middle of last year? I believe that we still do not have a to-air date. Perhaps the Minister of Māori Affairs might like to take a call and tell us what the to-air date is. The last I heard was that it would be July, but I doubt that we will see it going to air by July.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have been told before in this Committee that there is to be silence during voting, and I clearly heard a member, when New Zealand First voted, say: “I’ll remember that.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite correct, and I have drawn it to members’ attention. It is a final warning.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I was not going to raise the issue, but, now that it has been raised, I say that the comment could be construed as threatening, and the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right.

Mita Ririnui: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) : Given this Government’s big sway over Māori and the big pronouncements of the Minister of Māori Affairs, in particular, over how the Government will support, promote, and protect te reo Māori, and so on and so forth, it surprises me that this bill does not have a Māori title, when that would have been proper and appropriate. All that we have by way of a title is the Māori Television Service Bill—and it will be for 2003. Given that the Minister is a great promoter of te reo Māori, I hope he will support my amendment that proposes we have another choice, which is that the bill should also be cited as “Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori 2003.” [Interruption] I had to beat my colleague Murray McCully to that. He was going to put something similar in.

I think we should mean what we say in this Committee when we say it is important to promote and protect the Māori language, te reo Māori. We have the preamble, which we have just discussed, and some hard-fought-for litigation that went before both the Waitangi Tribunal and the Privy Council is referred to there. Māori members on the Government side of the Chamber will know from their own iwi involvement in that litigation that we are dealing with hard-won stuff here. This bill is about the protection and promotion of te reo, and what better way is there of showing that than to have a Māori title for the bill, as well as the English one?

I sought some advice about the title from my own colleagues, and particularly from Murray McCully, who is on the Māori Affairs Committee. He made some suggestions, but, on balance, we both agreed to the title that has been proposed here. He was not quite sure about the word “rātonga”, but when we thought about it, we decided that it best embodies the word “service”, and that it is probably the most appropriate word.

I heard Deborah Coddington say that we should mean what we say about protecting te reo, so I am looking forward to the support of all members across the Committee for this amendment, and particularly of the Government members, because they are the ones whom Māori look to. They are the ones who gather up the Māori vote. The Prime Minister goes around the country attending lots of hui. I have been to two or three of those hui, where the Government has talked about protecting te reo Māori. [Interruption] Madam Chair, can you quieten down the Committee? I can hardly hear myself speak, and that is a big shame.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think that applies to members on both sides of the Chamber. I also remind the member to speak to the title.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can you please explain the meaning of the comment you have just made to me? I have been talking solely on the title, except for a few little comments. By and large, I have been talking on the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has made some other comments over the last couple of minutes.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: So I propose that the bill be named “Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori 2003.” Basically, “Te Ture” means “the Act”, “mo te Rātonga” means “for the service”, and “Pōuaka Whakaata Māori” means “Māori television”. I know everybody will support that. It makes sense, and it is totally appropriate. It would be a dereliction of the duty and responsibility of all 120 members of this Parliament if we did not see the propriety and the appropriateness of having a Māori title for this bill. I am looking forward to the Minister’s support, and if he does not support it, we will want to know his reason for that, as will Māori people outside this Committee and other New Zealanders, given that they have been brought along as a result of the treaty obligation programme.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) : I—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am mindful of the comments made earlier, and wonder whether we could have the translator provide a translation of Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment—not necessarily right now, but before we vote on it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): If Mrs te Heuheu wishes to translate it herself, that is perfectly in order.

Rodney Hide: No, I have specifically asked for the translator to do that. I know that a member can translate what he or she has said during a speech, but this amendment has Māori in it. I mean no disrespect to Georgina te Heuheu, but and I think it would be good for us to get into the practice of having the translator help us to understand it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The translation can be given by the member if she chooses, or by the translator.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I gave a literal translation of it, but the member seems to want something more than that. I have no objection to that, as long as the translator keeps to the wording of the amendment.

Hon John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are getting into dangerous territory. The Speakers’ rulings are very clear and careful on this issue. They state that, in situations where a member has interpreted the issues he or she has raised in Māori, that member’s word is honourable, and that is where the matter stays. The alternative is for us to get into a rolling campaign of bringing in the interpreter. That is why the Speaker’s ruling was made.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is absolutely right. That is the end of the matter. I had not realised that the member had given an interpretation during her speech.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I will respond to what Mr Tamihere has said. I certainly am not implying any disrespect toward the member’s interpretation or questioning her word, as was suggested. I am suggesting that the Speakers’ rulings that relate to accepting a member’s translation are about what a member says in his or her speech. That is fine. I accept that as a principle and I am not contesting that, as I hope John Tamihere will appreciate. We have a bill before us with a preamble that has English and Māori wording side-by-side, and we can vote on that. But this amendment has Māori in it, and I think it would be a good practice for us to ask a translator to interpret it. I have said the interpreter would not have to translate the amendment right now, but we should have it translated into English before we vote on it, as we did with the preamble.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The matter has been dealt with.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a slightly different point of order, but I think it is worth us getting the practice right on this matter. I refer you to Standing Order 360, which relates to the translation of documents. I think that the proper course here, since we are dealing with an amendment—a written document that is clearly contemplated by Standing Order 360—is for us to invite you, Madam Chair, as the presiding officer, to invite, before the debate on this clause is concluded, the interpreter or someone else of your direction to provide a written translation of the amendment proposed by my colleague. I think that would meet the request that Mr Hide has made and would be good practice for the Committee to get into on future occasions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has already indicated that it is a translation of the title that is already in the bill.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The matter has been dealt with.

Rodney Hide: It hasn’t, actually!

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: You have dealt with the matter on the basis of what you think I did.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask Mr Hide to be seated. I have warned the Committee, and I have particularly warned Mr Hide, about speaking when a point of order is being dealt with. Mr Hide can leave the Chamber now—he has been warned.

• Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. In my speech I translated the words as they were, very literally. Whether that would serve as an interpretation that satisfies the Standing Orders is another matter. I am very open to that being debated. I would tend to say that my colleague Murray McCully has probably stated the position as it is. So, although I stood in my speech and said “Te Ture mō te Rātonga”, I said each of those words separately and explained what they meant. Essentially it is the Māori Television Service Act, but on the other hand that was not necessarily an interpretation.

BILL GUDGEON: I respect the comments made by my colleague Georgina te Heuheu concerning the title. In my mind’s eye I can visualise a title that would be more suitable for this occasion. I would describe it as “Te Huarahi mō te Ao Māori, which may be translated as “the pathway of the Māori world.” I propose that because it gets away from the word “Act”, and gets away from the legality of it—

Hon John Tamihere: Why are you voting against it?

BILL GUDGEON: Against what?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think the rest of us are entitled to a bit of order in this Chamber. To have a Minister from the Government side of the Chamber yelling out and engaging in a conversation with the speaker on his feet is not acceptable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think the member will know that there has been calling out on several occasions in this debate.

BILL GUDGEON: We are talking about the title, and if the bill is passed at least New Zealand First will have contributed to its title. “Te Huarahi mō te Ao Māori” may be translated as “the pathway of the Māori world”, and as I was saying it gets away from the Act and the legalities that are being discussed in this Committee today. It is au fait with the Māori world and with Māori thinking out there.

What effect would that title have on those people who are able to access this channel? It would attract some attention that would encourage people to make further inquiries in order to see for themselves whether the money is well spent. I am not saying that New Zealand First supports this bill, but I am saying that when this bill is passed there should be a contribution to Māori thinking out there as far as the title is concerned. I am afraid that is how we think. That is how it is. Those words are a contribution to the title, and if Māori are happy with that and are happy with the content of the programmes, then they will be part and parcel of the service. That is all that I am saying.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) : Kia ora tātou. Kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere ō tēnei wāhanga mō te pire e pā ana ki a tātou te iwi Māori.

[Greetings to us. I extend greetings to you, Madam Chair, who are chairing this session about the bill that concerns the Māori people.]

I am certainly disappointed in some of the comments that have been made today by people who want to do a post-mortem on the title. I also say that the member for the National Party Georgina te Heuheu—

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague—

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: Do not be sorry; keep smiling!

John Carter: I will keep smiling; that is one thing the member can rely on. Mr Samuels opened his speech with dialogue in Māori, and I do not believe that he translated it for us. I wonder whether he would do so or would allow the interpreter to interpret?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Does the member choose to interpret?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I thank John Carter. I was referring to and making an acknowledgement of the Chairperson. I am somewhat bewildered about the discussions pertaining to the title, and possibly the new renaissance from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, when, in fact, she had a chance to raise her concerns about the translation of the title into Māori during the debate that was held on the bill in the Māori Affairs Committee. I was on that committee with the member when this bill was being debated, and she certainly did not raise at any time that there could be a need for a Māori version of the title.

The reason she did not is that the title is quite simple. Clause 1 of the bill states: “This Act is the Māori Television Service Act 2001.” There was no debate about it; there was no raruraru there. There was no suggestion that we should do a sort of post-mortem on the language and have a Māori translation. Now that this issue has been raised, in terms of the spirit of wairua, of kotahitanga, and of whanaungatanga, I will support perhaps the appropriate translation. But I have to look at it from a Ngāpuhi perspective and to make sure that it is not a Tuwharetoa translation. I think perhaps the time has come when we can talk about that. If there is a whanaungatanga or wairuatanga approach to this issue, then I would suggest that perhaps members on the Government side of the Chamber would concur that we should get a Māori translation, and I think we can come to some consensus in relation to the translation of the title.

But I would ask whether, if we go that far, we will have the support of the member for Tuwharetoa. That is really the nub—the key—to it all. If we agree with the suggestion made by that member that this Act may also be cited as “Te Ture mō te Rātonga Pōuaka Whakaata Māori”, I ask the senior Opposition whip whether that means that the National Party and the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber will support their honourable colleague, and will support the bill.

Let us do a deal. Let us talk a bit of common sense. This debate is an example of the Treaty of Waitangi partnership emerging in this Chamber. So we have compromised on the title clause, and I am looking forward to the National Party supporting the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I just want to clarify something before we finish. Mr Hide will be out of the Chamber for the rest of the evening.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 730 p.m.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that, prior to the dinner break in this debate, there was some difficulty in the Committee. Specifically, I refer to an amendment to clause 1, “Title”, in the name of Georgina te Heuheu. The amendment that Georgina te Heuheu tabled was in the Māori language, and my colleague Rodney Hide—I believe appropriately—sought a translation of that. Indeed, I draw your attention, Mr Chairman, to Standing Order 360, “Translation of documents”: “The Speaker”—and of course you, as the Chairman in the Committee stage—“may order that bills introduced into the House and reports, petitions and papers presented to it are to be translated and printed in another language.” Those would certainly include amendments and Supplementary Order Papers. Why I raise the point—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not need any further assistance.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: If I may persist for a moment longer, it may be helpful. My colleague was asked to leave the Chamber on the basis of asking for a translation. I believe he was justified in asking for a translation under the Standing Orders and, indeed, the Speakers’ rulings. I seek that he be readmitted to the Chamber this evening, as I believe it was most inappropriate of the then Chairperson to ask him to leave. I accept that it was not yourself at that time, but I would like you to rule in favour of that proposal.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I am not aware of the reason for Mr Hide being ordered to leave the Chamber so I cannot comment on that, but I will comment on Standing Order 360. Standing Order 360 provides that the Speaker may order a translation. Therefore, I have arranged for a translation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment to clause 1 to be made available. It is at the Table if members wish to inspect it.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is very helpful, and I think all members of the Committee will be grateful for your consideration on that point. It is precisely the point my colleague Mr Hide was seeking, and was what saw him ejected from the Chamber for. On that basis, I recommend that he now be allowed to return to the Chamber. He has had his time in the sin bin, as it were, and, as it seems the Chair has acknowledged that the point Mr Hide was making was valid, I therefore ask that he be readmitted for this debate.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) : Mr Chair, obviously you have made a decision on the translation, which is entirely your prerogative, but, to assist you, as you say you were not in the Chamber earlier, my observation—I was sitting where I am now, during the entire exchange—was that the Chair made a decision based, perhaps, more on frequent interjections, speaking through points of order and during voting, and so on by the member who was ejected, than on the content of a particular point of order. Members who were in the Chamber at the time would have to acknowledge that that is a call for the presiding officer to make at the time. The Chair did so, based on the conduct of the member. As I observed it, that is how she reached her judgment, and I think members should uphold the authority of the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. I cannot overturn the decision that was made prior to the dinner break. There that matter rests.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to speak on that issue—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that I have ruled on that issue.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, you have.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It cannot be relitigated.

JOHN CARTER: No, but I want clarification of it now. Are you telling me that, once the decision has been made by the Chair that a member is excluded from the Chamber for a certain time, that decision cannot be revisited?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, that is what I am saying—exactly—as the Chairperson of the Committee on the bill. Normally in these circumstances, when someone is ordered from the Chamber, there are discussions between the whips concerned, or between the Chair and the whip, about how long the exclusion is to be. I cannot comment on how long that exclusion was for, because I was not in the Chair.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) : Point of order, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled, Mr Shirley.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I want to say that I took the liberty of discussing this matter. I accept that Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber. When he was instructed to leave, prior to the dinner break, my understanding is that no time was specified. I have discussed the matter with the ACT whip, who advises me that she had no instruction about duration, and, on that basis, now that you are in the Chair, could I ask that you rule that Mr Hide’s time in the sin bin has expired and that he may return to the Chamber.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) : I am trying to be helpful because I know the Chair was not in the Chamber at the time, so it is difficult. As I observed the process, the member was asked to leave for the reasons I stated earlier.

Hon Ken Shirley: What were the reasons?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I said, there were constant interjections. Again, I am interpreting what I observed. What was in the mind of the presiding officer is obviously her prerogative, and I uphold her authority as she exercised it. But I say to the member that Mr Hide observed the instruction he had been given by the Chair and left the Chamber immediately. That is to his credit. I further observe that the Chair, as soon as members had completed what they were saying, informed the then absent Mr Hide that the withdrawal from the Chamber was for the remainder of the sitting day. That information was given. It is quite possible Mr Hide did not hear it, but I certainly did, sitting in the vantage position that I have here, which is very close to the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member very much. I am giving a ruling. The decision was made by the previous Chair, prior to the dinner break, and it is my understanding that Mr Hide was excluded from the Chamber until the rising of the House this evening. There the matter rests. I warn members that, under Standing Order 85, I consider the Chamber is getting close to being disorderly.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take your point, but we will get ourselves into some difficulty—and I want the Chair and the Committee to understand that I am also trying to be helpful in the same way as the Minister who has just resumed his seat—because two issues are important.

I accept your point. You are saying you are unable to change a ruling—which I may, at some stage, seek some further advice on—but the issue here was this: it is true that the Chair at the time felt that Mr Hide was taking constant points of order, and, indeed, had warned Mr Hide that that was so. She had even indicated that she was at the stage at which she felt that any further points of order on that particular point would be disorderly and cause difficulties for the member. So that indication was clearly signalled. Indeed, your ruling now has perhaps exacerbated the problem, because Mr Hide asked whether there could be an interpretation.

But Mr Hide wanted to make a new point, which was that, even though the Committee had been told that Georgina te Heuheu had interpreted her amendment in English, Ms te Heuheu herself had said, however, that she was quite happy for the interpreter to give an interpretation to the Committee, if the Committee required it. The Chair had missed that, and I think Mr Hide was trying to draw that to her attention. That was the stage at which the Chair sent him out.

The second point is a matter of timing—and the senior Labour whip need not wave at me; I am trying to be helpful here. Mr Hide was ejected from the Chamber and there were a couple of speeches just before 6 o’clock. The Chairperson then said to the Committee: “And by the way, Mr Hide is out for the rest of the night.”, so there was no opportunity for the normal dialogue. In past cases, when a member of the National Party has been excluded, I have gone to the Chair or the Speaker, asked how long the exclusion is for, and there has been a bit of a debate and discussion. In this case, none of that happened, and I think that is unfortunate. I ask whether there may be an opportunity—not right now—for you to go back and readdress that, because I do think that Mr Hide has been dealt with quite harshly under the circumstances.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) : I thank the chief Opposition whip for that. The matter, as I observed it, was one not only of repeated points of order but also of other interjections as well. So I think it was a combination of those. That is how I saw it.

As to the other matter, I think the member is correct. It is unfortunate that the usual process did not follow, but I think that was entirely an accident of two things.

The Chair, not wanting to interrupt the debate further, waited until the immediate contributions were over, and then it was 6 o’clock. I think that had that accident of time not happened, then normal procedures might have followed.

In any event, I go back to perhaps the most important point, which is that the Standing Orders are very clear. The Chair has the prerogative to do what the Chair did, with or without consultation with whips. We must uphold the authority of the Chair to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I cannot interfere with the decision made by the previous Chairperson, which was that the member be excluded from the Chamber until the rising of the House this evening. I cannot interfere with that.

I understand where Mr Carter is coming from, and I appreciate the points of view he has made, but the matter of the interpretation has, of course, been dealt with. The interpretation is on the Table, and it is available for members to look at. As for the exclusion, I have already ruled on that and that is where the matter rests. I now wish to call some honourable member.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) : Point of order, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled, and I am not prepared to relitigate this matter.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I understand that, Mr Chairperson, but you leave me with no alternative. I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

• Motion agreed to, and House resumed.