Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10863] 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will the Prime Minister now reconsider her reported claim that Dr Don Brash’s Orewa speech was “divisive” following last night’s record  
Holmes 
 show poll showing that 90 percent of responding viewers agree with Dr Don Brash and will she now concede that one law for all is a policy that unites the country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 “Divisive” is the mildest way of describing a desperate campaign by a beleaguered party. The Government will get on with meeting the needs of the needy in ways that get the best results for New Zealand within the law of the land. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House why she is telling 90 percent of all New Zealanders that they are wrong to oppose race-based law and they are wrong—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the only warning I am giving today. There will be no comments during the asking of questions. Every member has a right to ask a question in silence and that is the only time I am warning. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House why she is telling 90 percent of New Zealanders that they are wrong to oppose race-based law and they are wrong to be concerned about Labour’s never-ending treaty grievance industry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree with the close to 100 percent of New Zealanders who do not want our country divided and want equality. The ones who do not make up the 100 percent are sitting opposite. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Prime Minister admit to the House and to all New Zealanders that her Government is creating a racially divided nation with two sets of laws and two standards of citizenship or is she telling 90 percent of New Zealanders that they are wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would no more agree with that than previous National Prime Ministers would have agreed that that was the effect of the 28 statutes in which they inserted reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Reserve Bank scholarship scheme for Maori and Pacific Islanders introduced by the last Governor was a need-based scheme or a race-based scheme and will she advise the House whether that scheme was an initiative of the Reserve Bank or a demand by the then National Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that the Governor at the time felt there was a need to endeavour to increase the numbers of Maori and Pacific peoples coming into the bank. That is the sort of thing he said when he was in a position of authority not when he is in Opposition. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given that New Zealand has had race-based legislation for most of its history that has denied Maori the same level of entitlements as other New Zealanders across a range of health education and particularly welfare services does she agree that that has contributed to the unequal situation in which most Maori now find themselves and that basic fairness requires policies to overcome that disadvantage? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think we could find examples of specific statutory discrimination against Maori up until the 1950s. I think the inequalities that Maori experience in the land of their birth arise more from unsuccessful attempts to make one size fit all. To the credit of Governments of both shades over the last 20 to 30 years there has been an effort to meet needs in ways that will actually succeed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to her answer to Mr Brown’s question can the Prime Minister confirm that the former Governor of the Reserve Bank not only set up the scholarships but after evaluating them for their success doubled the number? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister does not have any responsibility for that particular question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Prime Minister in addition to the 28 pieces of legislation the National Party passed in this respect— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Supported by New Zealand First. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No and the member knows it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber please. I have warned members. I am not having any further interjections. Questions are to be asked in silence. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Prime Minister in addition to the 28 pieces of legislation— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to register with you the National Opposition’s real disappointment at your decision to ask one of our members to leave the Chamber. The reality is that Mr Peters started his question of the Government by attacking another Opposition party and the Government is going to then have an opportunity to stand up and for some minutes sway in on that particular answer. It is not for me to suggest that there is current collusion between Mr Peters and the Labour Party but it sure looks like that and it certainly looks worse when one of our members giving a pretty simple sort of interjection and comment that might in the normal course be perfectly acceptable ends up being slung out of the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You will recall that I began by asking the Prime Minister about her reference to the 28 pieces of legislation that the National Party passed in this respect. That is as far as I got. It is drawing a very long bow to try to pretend—which no one believes—that I am in conclusion with of all people the Labour Party. It is inexcusable for Mr Brownlee to be a soothsayer and try to predict what I was going to say next. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say in relation to that is that I have made my decision and I announced it very clearly to members. I suppose the first person is unlucky but there was a very specific interjection and it interrupted the member in the flow of his question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you are establishing order in this new session of the Parliament around question time I wonder whether you could explain to the House how the question by the Hon Trevor Mallard to the Prime Minister was out of order because the Prime Minister had no responsibility for the question yet you allowed the question from Mr Peter Brown on exactly the same issue for which the Prime Minister had no responsibility either. Obviously we do need consistency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course we do and I listened to Mr Mallard’s question which was not in order and I did not allow it. When I heard Mr Peter Brown’s question I thought it was in order. I will have a look at the  
Hansard.  
If I am wrong I will come back to members. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to particularly get into a tit for tat with the right honourable gentleman but I have actually told the House that I did object when those matters arose. It is true that I had to go through the lobby which is the requirement of the Labour Party but if we are going to do that then that honourable member ought to record to the House that he has voted four times in the last 3 years for bills that contain principles of the treaty. It is the ACT party that has a 100 percent record on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point but it is not a real point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question: why is this Government persisting with policies based on race not need and persisting with a never-ending treaty grievance industry when 90 percent of New Zealanders do not support her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government happens to agree with the sentiment that “the treaty that was unique in the history of the world—a treaty between two peoples agreeing to share a nation—was signed in 1840.” Those were the words of the honourable member in his maiden speech some time ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will now ask the Prime Minister to come to the actual question that was asked. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: To the extent that I recall the question there is one law of the land. The question is— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can repeat the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Thank you I cannot have the Prime Minister refusing to answer because she does not remember the question. Will the Prime Minister now answer the question: why does this Government persist with race-based law rather than policies based on need and a never-ending treaty grievance industry when 90 percent of the nation does not agree with her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is one law of the land and the question is how within that law we respond to the needs of different communities and regions in a way that will work. I agree with the honourable member when he said back in his maiden speech implicit in that treaty is an acknowledgment of the equality of the two peoples. We want equality we want unity we accept that there are needs that have to be met in a way that will succeed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: If my maiden speech is now being used as the basis for Government policy I seek leave to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I had thought of seeking that leave myself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not.