Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17090] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that is designed to protect the Auckland regatta. It was not until Mr Peters made his statement that the organisers of the Auckland regatta realised that it was in any way under threat. There is no evidence that the Auckland regatta organisers will apply despite Mr Peters having provided this whole part for their benefit. What on earth would they apply for and who apart from Mr Peters thinks the Auckland regatta is under threat? 
This part brings MMP into disrepute because New Zealand First has said: “Let’s go back far enough then say that we’re applying the law to everyone.” and it picked on 1840. I ask Mr Dail Jones why 1840. If he was to look at the Canadian experience he would see that the Canadians have gone back to first contact. The reason they did that was that they said that once two cultures clash each culture changes. We know that— 
Dail Jones 
: Ask me. I have given you the answer. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I listened to Mr Dail Jones properly; now he does not want to hear me. We know that when Captain Cook first arrived he had considerable impact. But the Australians have gone the other way. They have said it should date from the point of sovereignty. Mr Dail Jones if he had been in New Zealand a bit longer would know that New Zealand did not get sovereignty in 1840. I tell Mr Jones that New Zealand did not get sovereignty until 1948 when we signed the Statute of Westminster. That is when we got full sovereignty. If Mr Jones’ logic was to be followed if he really wanted the same law to apply to all New Zealanders he would change the year from 1840 to 1948. No one believes that he will do that because Mr Jones is not actually interested in providing protection to every New Zealander; he just wants to make a simple slogan statement that New Zealand First is applying the same law to everyone. He has admitted that that is all he is doing. Why not be safe and date it from first contact—go back to 1642 when Abel Tasman turned up? That would be a good date. Then Mr Jones could really say that he was acting on behalf of every New Zealander and that this is one law for all. It is a nonsense. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to another matter and invite Mrs Donna Awatere Huata to take a call. I was in the High Court of New Zealand when I heard her lawyer say that she would vote with the ACT party. Because she has now discovered that she will hear the court’s decision tomorrow I heard her decide to start to vote with the Green Party. On the political spectrum we could not get two parties that were further apart. I would like her to explain to us how a person elected on the ACT party list can suddenly decide tonight that she is a Green MP. I would like her to take a call and explain that. It would be her valedictory. She could get up and explain how a person can tell the High Court that she is an ACT MP and that she will vote with the ACT party then when she finds out that tomorrow she will be going out of Parliament votes with the Greens the socialists in this Parliament. She could not vote more differently. 
There is a word for that; it begins with “h” but we are not allowed to use it. However I am perfectly entitled to invite Mrs Donna Awatere Huata to explain her vote to this Committee and to the 160000 people who voted for ACT and put her into Parliament. They voted for property rights and one law for all only to find that tonight at 9 o’clock she has suddenly discovered that she is a Green MP. I think that is such an extraordinary conversion that the whole Committee should hear about it. Let us have an explanation of the amazing voting that we are now getting from the member. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask what relevance this speech has to the bill.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Speaking to the point of order—which I am quite happy to speak to—I say that the relevance is that one can ask any member to explain his or her vote. Perhaps the member who made the interjection might be able to explain it because Mrs Huata is also now voting with the Maori Party. That is quite an extraordinary conversion 24 hours before she will probably be told she is no longer a member.  
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Good on them. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says “Good on them.” The Government has been telling us that people will behave honourably under this bill. Where is the evidence for that?