Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16968] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise at the beginning of the Committee stage on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to say to the Committee that I realise I have been here only 26 years but I have never seen the House doing what we are now doing. We are now debating what is regarded by everyone I think as one of the most important pieces of legislation introduced by the Government and one of the more important pieces of legislation introduced by any Government. It is one of the few pieces of legislation that has caused a by-election so we can see it is important. This version of the bill was given to the Opposition only yesterday— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: At 5.30. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: —at 5.30 p.m. with the so-called redline amendments that we are now working from and there is no explanatory note—none whatsoever. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is on the Supplementary Order Paper. Look at the back. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says so but perhaps he can refer me to the explanatory note on new clause 2A because when I read it I say to the Committee that it is incomprehensible. I realise I am just a mere lawyer but I do not understand what on earth it means. It states: “The object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all people of New Zealand”. I think I understand that. But then it states: “including the protection of the association of whanau hapu and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.” What does that mean? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Gobbledygook. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Perhaps it is gobbledygook. What it appears to me to state is that we are protecting the whole of the foreshore but we are also protecting it all for Maori. Those two statements are in contradiction. A court is supposed to know what that means. I say to the Minister in the chair Michael Cullen that perhaps it is just flannel. I once said to Geoffrey Palmer when he said to me “It’s just window dressing” that the problem with window dressing is that a court will give it a meaning.  
It appears to me to be racist legislation. The Government is saying that “all New Zealanders” and “whanau hapu and iwi” are different. That is what that clause states. I would have said that “all New Zealanders” includes both Maori and non-Maori but not this Government. That is the heart of the problem in the bill. It is deeply racist legislation. I say to the Minister again that the ACT party would have left the matter to the courts. We have said that consistently. We are a party that believes in the rule of law and I took great exception although I did not raise a point of order to the member saying that we protect non-Maori property rights only. This party is in favour of property rights and we accept that there are some parts of New Zealand—not many but some—where Maori do have property rights on the foreshore. The ACT party stands for that. We do not get upset about that because they have had them since 1840 and it has not caused any trouble up until now and we would not have panicked. We would have said that they should go ahead with court cases. Let me make that clear.  
I object very strongly to Parliament passing provisions like clause 2A that no member opposite can explain. We tried to be parliamentarians. We said to the Minister that he could have unlimited time to explain the bill—a gift that most parliamentarians would accept. What did Dr Cullen do? He said no. He was the first person to say no and that was because he is not a fool. He realises that he cannot explain clause 2A. But on the face of it it is a deeply racist provision because it states that there will be protection on behalf of all people and then states that Maori are not all people—they are somehow different. I say to the Minister that “all people” ought to mean both Maori and non-Maori but that is not so under this deeply racist Government. As a parliamentarian I am appalled that we should be considering legislation like this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. He cannot say that.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I most certainly can! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that under the Speaker’s ruling by Doug Kidd he certainly cannot call the Government or a member “racist”.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I withdraw saying that the Government is racist. This is deeply racist legislation introduced by members who apparently are not racist. It has been introduced by members who say they would never be racist but it is deeply racist. We know it is. It is apartheid legislation.