Smith Nick: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15428] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We see in the Chamber this evening a level of arrogance and a patronising attitude from this Government that are truly extraordinary. We have a bill of 281 pages and a Supplementary Order Paper of 30 pages and not one Government member has taken a call—not one. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Who believes this member? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to know from Rick Barker why not a single Maori Labour member is participating in this debate. I say to Mr Barker that it is no wonder the last opinion poll showed that Labour will lose every single one of the Maori seats. It is no wonder at all because those Maori members are not prepared to participate in this debate which is of vital importance to Maori and to all New Zealanders. Why have they not been down in the Chamber to debate this bill so that we can have a proper debate? 
Mr Barker is propping it up as is the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope. Neither of them is prepared to take a call but both chip in. The Minister in the chair said we should support this bill because Maori support it. I say to the Minister that Maori are no more homogenous in terms of having a single point of view than any other group. They have a range of views. 
What is paternalistic about this bill is that it is Parliament telling Maori how they are to manage their assets. That is what we are doing with this bill. If the responsibility is passed over to Maori and they want these structures—[ 
Interruption 
] We would not complain about that but that is not what the bill says. The bill says Maori must do it this way and do it this way forever. That is a nonsense. I challenge Mr Barker to tell me where in the 1992 settlement it says the fishing resource will be managed centrally. Clause 3 states that the Maori quota is to be managed centrally. I have to say that in 1992—and I participated in the debate at the time of that settlement—that was never part of the agenda. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Barker and Mr Benson-Pope want to get personal and raise irrelevancies because they do not have the substance to be able to argue the points in as simple a form as this. I ask Mr Barker where in the Maori fisheries settlement it supports the contention that the assets are to be managed centrally. Where? The silence is deafening. I will ask Mr Chris Carter; he might be able to answer the important question. Where in the Maori fisheries settlement does it say the fisheries assets will be managed centrally? 
Those members do not know. They have no idea. Here we are talking about $800 million worth of assets—a key issue for Parliament—and Ministers in the Chamber have no damn idea of what their bill even does and no idea whether it will serve the interest of Maori and other New Zealanders. And it will not. I want to know from the next speaker on the Government side—but I have to note that we have not heard a single speaker from that side of the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] It is all very well for Chris Carter to make personal attacks but will he have the courage to get to his feet— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Challenging someone’s courage is a personal reflection and is out of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Let us make it very clear: if your ears are closed to what we who sitting further away from that man than you are can hear and if you do not deal with it we will. If there is a question to be raised about someone’s courage then those people over there making those comments are putting their hands up for the allegation to be laid at their doorstep. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Brownlee for that contribution. I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to know what your ruling is. You get all upset when I say that Chris Carter does not have the courage— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated; I am on my feet. The member is a longstanding member. He has been in this House for a long time and he knows that to challenge someone’s courage is to make a personal reflection. It has been ruled out of order by a number of Speakers in the past. I recognise that there have been interjections from the other side. The member is making a hard-hitting speech and some interjections can be expected. When the interjecting is to the extent that the member cannot be heard then it is out of order and I will take note of that and rule accordingly. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would draw your attention to this fact. I point out with the greatest of respect that the fact that interjections and vigorous debate are occurring is not the point; the point is the nature of the interjections that are coming from the Government benches. You know as members on this side of the Chamber definitely know that if interjections such as those are allowed to continue you are inviting disorder from members on this side. I ask you to think very carefully before dismissing the matters that have been raised by the deputy leader of the National Party and the Hon Nick Smith and I invite you with the greatest of respect to rule accordingly if those interjections continue to occur. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Under Speaker’s ruling 50/7 I have to take into account the context in which words are used in the House. If the member is insinuating that there was a personal reflection—I refer to Standing Order 116—and if offence has been taken I would ask the member concerned on my right to withdraw. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Labour Party members are not prepared to play the ball so they play the man. The reason they will not play the ball is that their policies are patronising and arrogant towards Maori and deserve to be challenged. I ask the Labour Party again why a ministerial salary is being paid to not just a Minister of Maori Affairs but three Associate Ministers none of whom is prepared to get to his feet and defend this important part of the bill.