Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10899] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am pleased to join in this debate in response to the Prime Minister’s statement and I particularly want to focus in on some of the family issues that that member parrots on about and bring him into the reality of some of the things that are going on in New Zealand society. 
It was so rich yesterday to read on the front page of the  
Dominion-Post 
 the Prime Minister of New Zealand asking how dare the National Party bring the Solicitor-General into politics. If there is any member for whom that is rich it is myself because in 2 weeks’ time I will be dragged across the road into the High Court because the Solicitor-General—this Government’s top law enforcement officer—is making me front up. What was the crime that I committed? I said a boy should be with his mum and dad. That is what I said and members of this Government want me to front up in the High Court. They are saying to me that somehow I have committed an offence and that they stick up for families. 
What is even worse is that it is a Maori family and I have not had one iota of support from any member on the Government benches for that Maori family which has been deprived of one of the most basic things: the right to raise their son in this country. I say to members opposite that I will be vigorously defending families and the rights of members of Parliament to stand up for their constituents—as their officer drags me before the High Court of this land. 
But let us come to the issue of what the Prime Minister was objecting to about the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General told the Waitangi Tribunal that the Government’s policy on the foreshore and seabed gave real power to Maori. That was interesting because the Prime Minister has told the people of New Zealand the opposite. I can understand why the Prime Minister would not want the National Party to publicise what the Solicitor-General was saying but we will and we will continue to do so because the people of New Zealand deserve to know the truth of the separatist policies that this Government is using to divide New Zealand. I stand by those 90 percent of New Zealanders who in a survey last night backed the comments and the leadership provided by Don Brash on those very issues. 
This afternoon I want to give some practical examples in this Parliament of those separatist policies and the way in which they are dividing New Zealand. Firstly I come to the issue of primary health organisations mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech. These are the great flagships of this Government in terms of that basic service—and let us call it what it is: this is about general practitioner services in communities like mine in Nelson. The primary health organisation that took effect on 1 January in my community of Nelson is run by a board. The board—would members believe it—has to have half its consumer representatives appointed by iwi. Let me share with the House the population figures for the area the primary health organisation will service. We have 84000 people who will be serviced by that organisation. Would members know what portion of the population to be served is affiliated to the iwi that will appoint half the representation? Nine hundred and thirty people— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Where did you get that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs. I am happy to table these figures from the last census. Yes in the Nelson region there are 6000 people of Maori descent but fewer than a thousand local iwi. I have more Ngai Tahu people in the Nelson region than there are from the eight iwi that are to appoint 50 percent of the representation—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to the smart-arse from Waimakariri who has just chipped in does he support— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows he must refer to members by their correct names. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Point of order— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just a minute please I am ruling on this. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When the Prime Minister gave her address the Speaker of the House said there would be no interjections. Why is it that you have allowed repeated interjections from members opposite all the way through this debate? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was not the rulinggiven. The ruling was that there would be no interjections during the leaders’ debate. I point out to the member that a reasonable amount of interjection has been tolerated including fairly constant interjections from him in the course of the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge the member for Waimakariri to debate the issue and to tell me why the primary health organisation set up by his Government will have 50 percent of the consumer representation automatically appointed by iwi. If that is not separatism I do not know what is. I say that a primary health care organisation should be appointed on the basis of merit and skills not on the basis of race. 
It is really interesting that when I raised this issue at the beginning of the year Damien O’Connor the Associate Minister of Health said it was because of a Government directive that there be representation. He defended it. But then the heat got a bit strong and when Dr Brash raised the issue in his speech the Minister of Health Annette King said: “Oh it was nothing to do with the Government. It was the doctors who provided for this.’’ 
At the end of my speech I will seek to table a document I received when I asked the district health board why 50 percent of the representation for the organisation controlling general practitioners in my area was granted to iwi. I was told that it was because of a memorandum of agreement between the district health board and the iwi health board. The document was faxed to me from the district health board—and I will include the date on which it was faxed. I say to members opposite that they cannot tell one story and have their little bureaucrats beavering away engineering the separatism they want for New Zealand then when the issue is made public disown it and blame the doctors. Government members should not blame the doctors they should take responsibility. 
There is another example of Government separatism. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Benson-Pope that right now the Canterbury Regional Council is considering submissions in respect of Lake Ellesmere. Lake Ellesmere as those from Canterbury will know is a large lake. Do members know what the regional council has said? It has said that under this Government’s Local Government Act it has to discuss the consent with Ngai Tahu. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Absolutely! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Righto! But will it consult the Fish and Game Council? No. Will it consult the adjacent farmers? No. Will it consult the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society? No. I ask members opposite why is it that when the Canterbury Regional Council is considering an important resource consent in respect of Lake Ellesmere and the potential for pollution from a large new dairy farm that iwi are to be consulted but nobody else? Is that fair? Is that right? 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Absolutely! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is interesting that the member for Te Tai Tonga says yes. Does Clayton Cosgrove agree with the Government? He is silent. That is because the Government is singing two different tunes. I will be interested to find out whether Labour will stick to its policy of saying that Forest and Bird Fish and Game or the neighbouring landowner will not be consulted but one would be consulted if one were Maori. That is wrong. Members on this side of the House say that we should consult all or none. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge Mr Tamihere to contact the Canterbury Regional Council and find out why Ngai Tahu is being consulted but nobody else. 
I want to turn to a further issue to show just how nutty the Government’s treaty policy has become. Many members will be aware of the large traffic jams that occur around the Kopu Bridge on the main road through to Coromandel. Do members know that Transit the authority responsible for that State highway wanted to get consent to drill two 2-inch diameter holes to be able to design a bridge to replace it? Do members know how long it took and how much cost there was to get consent for two 2-inch diameter holes for that bridge? There was a 2-year delay and it cost $200000. 
Members opposite somehow think that is sensible because the local iwi said that drilling investigation holes for the bridge was like drilling holes into the heart of their iwi. That spiritual argument was allowed to result in delays of 2 years. That sort of nonsense is holding back this country. That sort of cost means that thousands and thousands of New Zealanders put up with long delays every Christmas holidays and not just on that bridge. I could give 100 examples just like it. Members on this side of the House say enough is enough. People have had a gutsful of that sort of political correctness that is holding back this nation and dividing us. 
I want to compliment my colleague Lynda Scott who rightly highlighted the nonsense of Counties Manukau Health paying for massage and Maori spiritual treatment rather than getting on and providing quality health services. Ladies and gentlemen we want to have quality health service for all New Zealanders and to end this treaty nonsense. 
In the course of my speech I referred to the memorandum of understanding between the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and the local eight iwi that was the forerunner to the equal representation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Furthermore I seek the leave of the House to table the 2001 census data that was questioned by Mr John Tamihere. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.