Cunliffe David: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6759] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 This is a very sensible bill. One could say it is a no-brainer. It allows the Immigration Service to prioritise applicants based on their contribution to New Zealand and how could any party possibly object to that? What did we learn from this debate? We learnt that Dail Jones does not like immigrants—sure he now has his New Zealand passport and tossed in his Pakistani one. We heard that Winston Peters does not like immigrants but I guess that makes sense: even though he reckons he is Chinese. He does not like Maori either. It is a good bill; let us get it passed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member cannot get up and claim that somebody said that he was from some other race when the person never made that claim at all. I tell that green-behind-the-ears lad that he cannot say that in the House otherwise he will get something back in the way of a personal response that he will not like. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I put it to you that some words were spoken over which offence was taken. I would have thought it was the practice of the House in such a circumstance that the member who has caused the offence should be invited to withdraw and apologise. I heard the words and I think Mr Peters was perfectly entitled to take offence. I put it to you that the proper course is for you to ask the member to take the normal steps. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: This is rather an interesting point. I am not sure that it is as easy to decide as it might be. We now have the race relations legislation so if one accuses somebody of being another race can that person take objection? Is that within the rules? I think what the member is really objecting to is that the honourable member who was just speaking whom I understand has just discovered he is Maori—and Christian Cullen is a Maori as well apparently— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Speak to the point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am speaking to the point of order. The point of order is whether the member should be required to withdraw and I think the real objection that Mr Peters was raising was that he never claimed he was Chinese. I was there and I do not think he did. What he said was that if one goes back far enough one finds that Maori came from China. Some people have said that that means Maori are Chinese but of course that is not so. There are many people in China who are not Chinese and so there are possibly Maori in China. I do not know whether that is right but I think the member was saying that if one goes back far enough— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Five and a half thousand years. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am obliged to the member for that. I think that he is asking the member to withdraw because of his claim that Mr Peters had claimed to be Chinese. In fact Mr Peters did not say that he just said that some of his relatives came from China 5500 years ago. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think the member is right. I just caution members about referring to race like that. Perhaps the member might like to stand up and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am delighted to do so. I withdraw and apologise. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. We have about 30 seconds to go before the House lifts and rather than having someone start and then have his or her speech interrupted—