Hunt Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6812] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all there was the repeated allegation which I did not take umbrage at about someone who was only half a man. The member then depicted Maori society as non-literate and non - wheel using. I want to make this point: when the member was crawling around the slums of Liverpool we had a degree of civilisation beyond his wildest dreams. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is out of order and he will cease immediately. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If I had been crawling around the slums of Liverpool I would have a far better football team to support than the one I do happen to support which is a North London football team. 
I repeat: if he really believes that a society of our sort would have been better off without immigration what on earth is he trying to argue? Who seriously believes that in New Zealand these days? What he tells us is that migrants change the nature of a country. Well that is a real piece of news to discover in the 21st century! Is that a rule we could apply to England in 1066? He would not have tried to fight at the Battle of Hastings; instead he would have said: “Sorry you are prohibited immigrants. We don’t want to change our society. Throw away your bows and arrows boys; you’re banned from coming in.” That would be the kind of approach Mr Peters would have taken. 
Looking around at the motley mob that makes up New Zealand First I say it is about time that we started celebrating diversity in this society and treasuring even those who do not contribute. I mean who has ever heard a member of New Zealand First other than Mr Mark add anything to Parliament since those members got in here? I assume they are representing the entire population that cannot speak and cannot hear within this particular Parliament. 
I want to come to the issue of the rule of law. Every party over there has been pouring sweat for the last week saying this Government should legislate yesterday—not even tomorrow—to overturn a unanimous Court of Appeal decision to remove property rights. There is a sudden silence now. They are thinking: “When did we say that? What were we talking about?”. Recently there was a unanimous Court of Appeal decision that said that the indigenous people of this country can apply for recognition of their property rights and those parties said we should legislate to remove those property rights and overturn a unanimous Court of Appeal decision. Yes those parties did say that including those members over on that side who might potentially be beneficiaries of that decision if I recognise ethnicity correctly. That degree of self-hatred is remarkable. 
Of course what we say is that we should legislate to recognise the rights of the rest of us as well which is slightly different so that half of Mr Peters can go to the beach and half of Mr Peters can have some customary rights derived from his ancestry. He can get on to the beach probably at about 3 a.m. because I understand that is his normal beach-visiting time and go fly-fishing—if he can work out by then in his usual state at 3 a.m. which way round the sea is and which direction to point in. 
Let us come back to this issue. Faced with a decision by one judge that says the current law is not sufficient to implement the Government’s policy—and that is the implication of the decision—Parliament as the sovereign body as the highest court in the land has the right which it has asserted time after time and every tax Act is littered with legislation of this sort to say: “No we will stick to the policy and change the law to fit the policy.” Mr Peters suddenly decides he wants to oppose a bill that does that and that would actually help his general approach in life; he would rather oppose that policy in order that he can grandstand and say that everybody who is an immigrant is sucking off the body politic of New Zealand and is contributing nothing to this country—nothing like as much as Mr Paraone who has been silent on the foreshore and seabed issue; nothing like as much as Mr Perry who has been silent on the foreshore and seabed issue; and nothing like as much as Mr Gudgeon who has been silent on the foreshore and seabed issue.