Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3454] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
:  
What was absent from that Minister’s speech was any vision of the future of New Zealand and any accountability or explanation to the old people who were defrauded when they were told that legislation to remove asset testing would be introduced last year. That Minister was silent on the sorts of issues that ordinary New Zealanders are asking about.  
I want to support the leader of the National Party who has rightly put on the political agenda for the year 2003 the issue of the sickly political correctness of this Government on what the treaty means for ordinary New Zealanders. Government members opposite are so confused about what they are doing in that area that they do not want to debate it. Yet the way in which the treaty is being applied is changing the fabric of the country.  
I want to raise with this House my concern about what is occurring in education. On Monday I visited the new early learning centre at Christchurch Polytechnic. It is a shocker. Members have to see it to believe it. In the name of the treaty and biculturalism the taxpayer has funded New Zealand’s first apartheid pre-school. [ 
Interruption 
] I invite the members who are howling to visit it and see what is going on. It is a monument to political correctness gone wrong. The new centre—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Donnelly because he has been to see it. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I have heard a lot about it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell the member about it. The new centre has been built in two mirror halves with a central core that includes the entrance the administration area meeting room and staff room. That is all shared. It seems it is OK for Maori and non-Maori staff to share space in the staffroom but not OK for children to share space. Children are drafted at the entrance with Tamariki going to the left; other children to the right. It is not just the learning spaces that are separate; the children are fenced off from each other in the playing areas. The sleeping areas are separate. The toilets and changing rooms are also separate. During a normal day Maori and non-Maori children will see each other only on arrival and departure. I know that apartheid is an emotional term but it is the only term to describe such madness. This centre is licensed to care for and educate up to 85 children from newborn babies to 5-year-olds. I cringe at the message that we are giving young minds for the most influential 5 years of their lives and for their first encounter with the State education system.  
The Maori wing of the centre—Te Waka Huruhurumanu ki Otautahi—provides a bilingual programme. The non-Maori childcare centre also has a strong Maori component. The irony is that the 30 percent Asian and 70 percent Pakeha children get to sing Maori songs learn Maori greetings but are fenced off from being able to play with Maori children only a few metres away. I asked the centre why it was that way. I asked why Asian children were integrated with those of European descent whereas the Maori children were segregated. I was told that it was because of the treaty and the polytechnic’s commitment to biculturalism. What does the treaty say that means that children are to be segregated from birth? The centre seems to represent the exact opposite of those immortal words spoken on 6 February 1840: “ He iwi tahi tatou”. The reason that National is pressuring the Government about the treaty is that this is the exact sort of nonsense that will go on when Ministers parrot words like “biculturalism” “partnership” and “tino rangatiratanga” without the blindest idea of what the words mean. I stand on this side of the House and say that I do not want apartheid pre-schools. I do not want children to be divided by race. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has used inappropriate language. The member used the word “apartheid” when obviously he does not understand it in its appropriate context. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The most emotional experience I had last year was visiting the apartheid museum in South Africa. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The behaviour of the speaker is highly offensive and it should not be allowed in the House. If we are not allowed to use the word “racist” he should not be allowed to use the word “apartheid”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well what is it when they separate the kids? 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: It is not apartheid. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Point of order— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am just ruling on a point of order. The honourable member referred to an apartheid museum. Is that correct? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Correct. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not using the word in an offensive way.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: When I visited that apartheid museum in Johannesburg last year never in my worst dreams did I think I would see the same thing going on in this country—and in Christchurch. It makes me feel sick that that is the sort of society that Labour wants for New Zealand. I make no apologies for standing on this side of the House and saying that that is not the sort of New Zealand I want. I have young children going to pre-school centres today and I want them to live in a society where they go alongside Maori students where they learn Maori welcomes where they learn Maori songs and where they are proud to have friendships with Maori children. The policies of this Government are preventing that sort of approach. What members opposite do not seem to understand is that good race relations start in pre-school start in our classrooms and move out onto the playing fields. They want to segregate those areas. It is ironic that members opposite—those left-wingers who stood on the barricades protesting at apartheid only two decades ago—now want to fund apartheid pre-schools in our own dear country. 
Helen Duncan 
: I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to protest against the use of the word “apartheid” on the grounds that the member talked about Government policy and then about apartheid. The commonly held meaning of apartheid is a regime of government that enshrines racial segregation in law. That is not the case in this country and I object to the word being used in that way. It is contrary to order in this House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The term cannot be used to describe the Government.  
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just spoken to Ali Hughes the associate registrar at Christchurch Polytechnic and she has assured me that children of any ethnicity can enrol at either childcare centre. One is an immersion centre and the other is the old polytechnic crèche. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is actually a point of debate Mr Donald. We can take time to clarify that question in the debate. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had a succession of pointless interjections by various Labour Party members that you ruled not to be points of order. None of those members were under the control of the senior Government whip who sat there and blindly let it happen. That was followed up by another point of order which you ruled as not a point of order. All of that time including this time now—which I seek a redress for—is coming off this debate time. It affects other speakers from other parties further down the line. I seek the leave of this House that all of the time that has been lost be added on to the debate so that the speeches of no other members are disadvantaged. That includes Labour members who have yet to come forward. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: But the member has sought leave for that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: You prat! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is out of order Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: What is? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Commenting after the leave was refused. It was properly asked for and properly refused. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. I have faced six points of order in the course of this speech all of which you have ruled out. On a number of occasions speakers have said that where there has been a deliberate breaking up of a member’s speech we should properly allow for that member to express his or her point of view in this Parliament. I ask you to take the precedents that have been set by Speakers in the past to ensure that my speech is not further interrupted by inappropriate points of order and that I am given the time that is being taken up by those interjections and breaks in my speech which you have ruled out of order. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has been misleading the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot say that. The member needs to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I note from the speaking list that the very person who will be affected by a reduction in speech time as a result of the points of order that you have ruled out of order and which will bite into the 14 hours allocated is a Labour speaker. I seek the leave of the House that that Labour speaker will be permitted to have a full 10-minute speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders clearly state 14 hours. That is what we are continuing with. 
Ron Mark 
: I have sought the leave of the House and you are obligated to seek the leave that I have asked for. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You have sought the leave of the House and it has been refused. 
Ron Mark 
: Just now? I did not hear you put it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All right I will put it again. Leave is sought by Ron Mark to extend the time. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge those members to go and visit the centre. At the door they point “children” one way and “tamariki” the other. The children do not have any contact time at any point during the course of the day. I again challenge those left-wing members opposite—who were proud to stand on the barricades opposing apartheid 20 years ago who were part of the civil rights movement that in the 1960s tried to bus children so that they could be integrated together—to say why in God’s name we are building pre-schools that today separate Maori from other children. I say that is wrong. I say that it is not appropriate and that there needs to be a different approach. [ 
Interruption 
]  
At least Tariana Turia is honest. I give her credit for the fact that she is prepared to be honest and say that she favours segregation. At least I can have an honest debate with Tariana Turia about that sort of separatist approach. I have to say from this side of the House that that is not the future I want for New Zealand. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like the member to withdraw and apologise. I have never advocated separatism in this country. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence. There should not be any more personal reflections like that. Would the member please withdraw the comment he made about advocating separatism. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am unclear. I said that I respected the opinions honestly expressed by Tariana Turia in respect of that matter. Therefore I am unclear as to what I have said that requires me to withdraw and apologise. I have said nothing that is outside of the Standing Orders. 
John Carter 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith has made a statement that referred to the Hon Tariana Turia. If she believes that it is inaccurate her redress is to make a personal explanation to the House at an appropriate time. It is a debating point and Dr Smith is entitled to make a statement even if it might not be factually correct. If necessary a personal explanation can then be made. This is starting to bite into my speaking time.  
David Benson-Pope 
: My colleague Tariana Turia clearly stated that she had taken offence at the comments that were made. You made a ruling Madam Deputy Speaker and directed the member to withdraw. He has yet to do so and that is clearly in breach of the Standing Orders. I ask you to ask him to obey the directive from the Chair. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to make my position plain Madam Deputy Speaker. What I sought was an explanation from yourself as to what comment it was that you required me to withdraw. I make the point that this afternoon Labour Minister Trevor Mallard spent 5 minutes bagging my name and saying all sorts of things that were incorrect. I made a personal explanation and that is the proper course of action. I suggest to Tariana Turia that in relation to the comments that I have made there are provisions under the Standing Orders that enable her to make a personal explanation at the conclusion of my speech—just as I did earlier. 
Mark Peck 
: The matter in my view is very simple indeed. You have made a ruling Madam Deputy Speaker and the member opposite is challenging that ruling which has become a habit of Opposition members during this term of Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker your ruling must be upheld. The member must apologise. If he still has a point he can take a fresh point of order after that. He most certainly has no right to challenge your ruling in the way that he has done.  
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Nick Smith to withdraw. You will now withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am happy to withdraw but you need to tell me what it is you wish me to withdraw. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have already indicated that offence was taken by another member at the language the member used. Offence was taken I ruled in that way and I now ask the member to withdraw.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am befuddled but I withdraw. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a clear breach of the Standing Orders of this House. You know and the member knows that when a member is asked to withdraw he or she does so without any additional comment of any kind. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes the member does know that. Would the member like to withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. Is it not interesting that members opposite are so determined to stop a debate on just what they are doing to New Zealand with their political correctness over the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a disgrace. I ask the next Government speaker to justify why $880000 of public money has gone to build an apartheid pre-school in Christchurch where Maori children are separated from non-Maori children. I want to make it plain that this side of the House does not support that sort of approach to education in New Zealand. I ask members opposite what sort of signal we are sending children as they walk in the door and from the ages of 0 to 5 years are separated out. What sort of message are we sending those children about their first experience with the State education system in the first 5 years of their education? That is not the sort of approach I want for New Zealand. It is a disgrace and I want it changed.  
I have two challenges this afternoon. First I challenge Christchurch Polytechnic to reintegrate that early learning centre. One might be able to justify a separate area for the learning of the Maori language but why do we need to separate Maori children from other children when they sleep? Why do they need to have separate sleeping areas?