English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20242] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 We have just seen an excellent example of the rot at the heart of the Labour Government. Trevor Mallard has just now tried to make a fact out of an assertion that Helen Clark made in the House today. He is wrong. It is not undeniable that she told the press that there were contesting views about what was said. I will tell Mr Mallard what Helen Clark said—that she was confident she would have advised the journalist there were contesting views. Then Trevor Mallard got up and said that it was an undeniable fact. Well I welcome him to have that discussion with the  
Sunday Star-Times  
people who spoke to Helen Clark five times. 
What was the Prime Minister of New Zealand doing having five conversations with newspaper journalists pumping another bullet into a Police Commissioner who was already dead for all the reasons that Trevor Mallard has outlined? Why was she doing that? Here is the next question. Why did the newspaper get it so wrong after five conversations? Why is it that there were five conversations and that the newspaper published the story based on the Prime Minister’s confirmation of what was said? She got up and she did not actually deny it. She just said she was confident she would have advised—because she cannot remember. 
Well here is a new word for parliamentary use: a “Clarkism”—“something you can’t remember you never said”. Has that been sprayed around this House a lot in the last 5 years by a Prime Minister who has a record of form as long as one’s arm! 
I ask long-serving members in this House what Prime Minister of New Zealand has been involved in two serious police investigations. I ask members to name one Prime Minister who was asked by the police to answer their questions about the Prime Minister’s activities and who would not answer them. In the “paintergate” inquiry Helen Clark would not answer police questions about things such as destroying evidence. She would not answer the questions. Now she is in a police investigation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in the Standing Orders that interjections should be rare and to the point. Through both of the National Party speeches so far Trevor Mallard has interjected almost without stopping even for a breath. I ask that I be heard in silence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not need any assistance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will raise a fresh point of order if you want to rule Mr Speaker but it is not quite related to this. Of course the member has the right to silence and any member who cannot take the heat can ask for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That request has been made and we could adhere to that but I think it is better to have a little bit of noise in the Chamber—I think we would all agree on that. I was about to pull the member up but I thought that he was going to desist at that point. I have to say that when the Hon Phil Goff was speaking there was far more noise from a far greater number of people than there is now. But the member’s interjections are consistent and I ask him to cease doing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is also in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that members should not ask rhetorical questions because if they do they will get a response. The member asked about four in a row and he got a response. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a debating issue yes. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There have been two serious police investigations. There was the defamation suit when the Prime Minister tried to hide from the House the fact that she had made a payout. We then had “corngate” a trail of half-truths and spin that culminated in the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet withholding all the incriminating documents a month before an election. 
Then there have been any number of incidents in this House when the “Clarkism”—“something you can’t remember you never said”—has been used. I will give just one example. When some business leaders made public statements that the Government should try to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD Helen Clark decided that that had never been a target the Government had set despite the fact that Government members had talked about it for 2 years. She decided that they had never said that—that it had never been Government policy. It was not just that the policy had changed but that it had never ever existed as a target. 
The point about all this is that the half-truths and the manipulations are what hold this Labour Government together. That is how it is run from the top. Each one of these investigations half-stories forgetfulnesses and “Clarkisms” are just little snapshots that the public gets of the way this Government and this Prime Minister do their business.