Prebble Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Prebble Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10800] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement. Having received more votes than the Green Party I have not had to follow it before. Following the Green Party is a strange and unusual inhumane punishment and I sincerely hope that the High Court will correct this situation on Thursday and that the ACT party can again have nine MPs as the electorate voted. 
I listened to the Green leader move an amendment to Dr Brash’s motion and I am not sure—and perhaps the next Green speaker can explain to us—whether the Green members are really voting no-confidence or whether this is yet again just a little device so that they can vote for their motion knowing that no one else shares their view. 
I would actually like to debate the Prime Minister’s statement. I know that is unusual but I think we ought to. If one read that document one would not know that 24 hours ago the foreign policy and trade nightmare of our ANZUS allies Australia and the United States signing a free-trade agreement that excluded New Zealand had just occurred. What does the Prime Minister say? “In the near term we will be analysing the details of the proposed free-trade agreement between Australia and the US and its likely impact on New Zealand.” It is a bit late for the Prime Minister to decide in the near term to have a look to see how much damage has been done by the Government’s foreign policy. This country has never been more isolated—and it is a fact. We are a small trading nation in a global economy and in the 5 years that Labour has been in office it has had no trade successes at all—not one. It has failed on the free-trade agreement with Australia; it could not persuade the Chileans the Thais or the Chinese to have a free-trade agreement; and of course the Doha round also failed. This Government has left us more isolated than we have ever been. 
This document is a visionless document. It is arrogant it is smug and the programme put in front of us reads like a local body. When we actually look at the list of legislation that the Government is going to give us what are we going to have? We will have a local government bill—again. We will have another transport bill. We will have yet again another bill on the Resource Management Act. That must make it the fifth bill on the Resource Management Act that this Government has given us. The Government is also going to bring in yet another bill on electricity. One would think that after 5 years the Prime Minister would start to get it right. 
When one looks through the list it is interesting to see that some bills have been missed off. I ask the Prime Minister where the Civil Union Bill is. This morning at our caucus we were told that the Associate Minister of Justice Lianne Dalziel would be willing to come and give our caucus a briefing. So clearly the bill is a priority but it is not on the list. Why could that be? Could it be because the Government is going to need the help of its doormat and its doormat—as easygoing as the United Future party is—would find it difficult to vote for a statement that included the Civil Union Bill? Maybe that is the explanation. 
Then of course there is what the Prime Minister said about United Future. Members should listen to this: “The new Families Commission will be up and running making sure that the needs of our families—our most important social institution—are met.” Is there anyone in the country apart from United Future members who thinks that a commission that defines the Mongrel Mob as a family—the only thing that cannot be defined as a family is mum dad and the kids—will meet the needs of the family? What a smug arrogant statement— 
Stephen Franks 
: Unbelievable! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is an unbelievable statement—humbug—just to get the United Future party to vote for it. How the United Future party can vote for this godless anti-family Labour Government is one of the mysteries that the electorate and United Future supporters have great difficulty dealing with. 
But of course the Government has some legislation that is serious. It will have a new Employment Relations Law Reform Bill that is a giant step backwards back to the days of union power. I serve notice that the ACT party will fight that bill. I am going to put myself on the select committee. That bill is bad news not just for small business but also for all New Zealanders. It is bad news for ordinary New Zealanders who do not want to be forced into a trade union. Of course also on the list of legislation that the Government is putting in front of us is another nasty bill. I cannot find it right now on the list—oh it is the foreshore and seabed legislation. How could I forget the beach? I ask the Government where the bill is. 
Hon Annette King 
: You’re losing it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says that we’re losing it. We were told that the Government had it drafted and we would get it before Christmas. We do not have it and I hear that we will now not get it until June. 
Hon Bill English 
: No next Christmas. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Next Christmas? Where is that bill? I indicate to the Government that the ACT party will be opposing that bill as well. When I look at the statement I ask this question: where is the Prime Minister’s response to the challenge that the Leader of the Opposition has laid down to her in the Orewa speech? It is interesting that Mr Peters and the Green MP have both discussed it. The one person who is not willing to discuss the issues put down by Mr Brash is the Prime Minister. In fact she is arrogant enough to say to the media that she was not prepared to debate that issue. I ask the Prime Minister: “Why not?”. Why is this House not allowed to be told where Labour is taking us on treaty issues? Where is the Government’s goal on race relations? When we read this statement we see that it is quite extraordinary in the brevity of the statements put forward by the Prime Minister. 
First she said: “it—and presumably “it” is the Government—“takes its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi seriously”. What is that supposed to mean? The question to me is: “What are the responsibilities?”. Everyone expects the Government to be serious but what are the responsibilities that it thinks it has under the treaty? When we ask that question—and it has been asked repeatedly of this Government—we get no reply at all. Instead we get this sort of nonsense: “Our Government is about taking New Zealanders into the future together not back to the past divided.” That is patronising rubbish. What on earth does the Prime Minister mean by “future together”? On television we saw a Prime Minister at Waitangi having to be shielded by her Ministers a Prime Minister being abused and Ministers actually being struck. We saw the Leader of the Opposition having mud thrown over him. We saw the police being punched as we watched the television images. We saw young thugs walking up and throwing punches. Is that the united future that a Labour Government is presenting us? That is where we are after 5 years but what has our Prime Minister tried to suggest? She has suggested that somehow Don Brash is responsible for that. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Yes! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: “Yes!” somebody calls out. Indeed the Prime Minister has repeatedly said in her press statements that the Leader of the Opposition is dividing the nation—as if the Labour Party were uniting it. What a load of rubbish! 
We then look at her further statements. She said that what happened at Waitangi is not going to “dissuade me and my Government from doing what is right for all of us”. What is it that the Government is doing for all of us? Where is it set out here what this Government is actually trying to do? What is the Government’s agenda on race relations? What is the goal? Where is the Government saying where it is actually taking us and why are we not entitled to have that statement made here? 
I have gone back and looked at our Prime Minister’s statements on race relations. She has not made one in this House for 4 years. Four years ago she made that famous “closing the gaps” speech and then discovered that Dr Simon Chapple one of her own researchers said that the facts she had presented were wrong. She has not given that speech again but the policies have continued. The Government is spending millions of dollars on things like Maori capacity building with no outcome testing. We have race-based policies and the question being asked is “Where is the Government taking us?”. 
The Prime Minister said that “with goodwill and mutual respect” she would resolve the foreshore and seabed issue. This Parliament is entitled to know what those proposals are. As has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition as informed New Zealanders have read what the Solicitor-General is saying in front of the Waitangi Tribunal the Government has one statement in one forum and a completely different statement in other forums. 
The Prime Minister then tells us: “I will rejoice this year when Maori television goes to air”. That seems to be the Government’s Maori policy. The Government promised that Maori television would go to air I think 2 years ago then last year and then this year. Who actually thinks that Maori television will resolve the issues facing this nation? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Parekura does. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do not think he does. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: He put his hand up. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I think Mr Parekura Horomia will be rather pleased when Maori television is going and he would rather like someone else to be responsible. That is his true position on that issue. As I have said to this House before television is to brains what maggots are to meat. Who on earth thinks that telling people to watch television is the way to resolve the problems that face Maoridom? What a load of nonsense! 
There has been some interesting debate and let me just deal with a bit of it. The Green Party member repeated some propaganda that the Labour Party has put out. She tried to suggest that we should have race-based policies because somehow Maori are getting less than their fair share. That is the sum of her comments. I invite her to read the research that the ACT parliamentary unit has done with the help of the Parliamentary Library and using Government statistics that show that Maori pay $2.3 billion in tax and receive back $7.3 billion in benefits. The only reason I raise that argument is because the Green Party and the Government keep trying to put forward that sort of nonsense argument. It is rubbish and complete nonsense. 
Hon Annette King 
: The member’s research is rubbish. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is interesting because it came from documents from the Parliamentary Library. Is the Minister saying that that institution is rubbish as well? 
Hon Annette King 
: I suggest the member read some real reports. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: She is saying that she is not. It also comes from documents that have been certified by the Auditor-General as being correct facts in front of this House. What made the rubbish was the Government putting out a statement last year trying to suggest that it was the other way round. Why are we being dragged down that course? I believe that the statement made by Mr Don Brash is absolutely correct. We should be looking at people on the basis of need not race—but not this Government! In this Government the Prime Minister talks about these new primary health organisations—that is what we used to call our general practitioner. 
We hear people saying: “The American health system is terrible. The first question they ask you is not what is wrong with you but whether you have health insurance.” I say to the Prime Minister that if she actually bothered to enrol at one of those new primary health organisations she would discover that the first question that people are asked is not what is wrong with them but what race they are. People have a piece of paper put in front of them—and members will have seen one of these—that states: “Tick one of the following: are you a New Zealand Maori a Cook Island Maori a New Zealand European a European Samoan?”. There is then a great list. When we get to the end we see: “Other …”. That is what is wrong with this country. 
The other day a woman in Karori told me that she enrolled and was given one of those pieces of paper and she asked “Why is my race relevant to my health?”. The receptionist said: “Because if you decide that you and your family are Maori the health treatment is free.” So she then said to the receptionist: “I’m a European. My husband’s a European. My children who are all our natural children are Maori.” The receptionist wrote down this rubbish. She has been getting free treatment ever since. This process is corrupting this country. I object to living in a nation where that happens. [ 
Interruption 
] The member calls out. One of the reasons I object and Don Brash—and Winston Peters if he were frank about it; he has raised it as well—is that none of my children is white. I say to the Minister of Health that they have to fill out her form. When they fill it out which category are they supposed to come into? 
I will say what they do. They go to “other” and write “New Zealander”. I know what Ken Shirley does. He writes “Pacific Islander”. I say to the House that a Government that can collect race statistics is a Government that can discriminate. I also say that there is no such thing as positive discrimination. For every New Zealander whom the Prime Minister positively discriminates in favour of there is another New Zealander who has been discriminated against. 
I also say to the House that the life chances of the child of a skinhead from Christchurch are just as challenging as the life chances of a Maori from East Cape. I had a worker in my office whose mother was—and I am putting it politely—the partner of a motorbike gang. His father was in jail and his older brother was in jail. When he managed to get to Waikato University—an extraordinary achievement given the way he was dragged up—he then found that Margaret Wilson was dean of the Waikato University law school and he was discriminated against for something he could do nothing about because he was white. 
I want to live in a New Zealand so do most New Zealanders where we are not discriminated against. I can prove that to members. They can have a look at our website. Yesterday I put up a poll asking “Did you agree with Dr Brash’s speech?”. In the last 24 hours 1680 people said “Yes” and 20 said “No”. What sort of nation we have is going to be the issue not just for this year but for the next election. That is why the centre-right is going to win and the left will go.