Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20476] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 What a disgraceful use of Parliament’s time that was by the Minister Jim Sutton. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order that was raised before in which the member called me a liar and to which I did not respond directly because I did not wish to dignify it or waste my own speaking time I maintain was deliberately put up to disrupt my speech and to shorten the time available to me and I want an assurance that any time that was taken was not deducted from my speaking time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No time was deducted from the Minister’s speaking time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I would ask the same courtesy since my time appears to have been disrupted as well. That was a disgraceful use of parliamentary time by the bumbling Minister of Agriculture. If this issue were of such importance to Government members why did they not come into the House today with a ministerial statement? Why were they not prepared to make a statement to the nation that all political parties could respond to? Because if it is a true release of foot-and-mouth disease it is a national crisis and no party in this country can afford to walk away from the consequences of that. 
Mr Sutton had a go at Dr Brash for his comments that suggested New Zealand might have been cost a lot of money if the release did prove to be just a hoax so I want him and Marian Hobbs to stand up and tell the House how many hoax foot-and-mouth release allegations there were in New Zealand last year. I know there were several. Dr Cullen knows there were several and the Government did not react like this on those occasions. For Dr Brash simply to say: “Let’s show a bit of caution when we’re dealing with such a huge chunk of our national economy.” is quite reasonable. 
But it comes as no surprise to me that Mr Sutton rose to put his particular twist on things in the way he did today. From the top to the bottom that is the style of the Labour Government. The unanswered question in this Parliament right now is: “Did Helen Clark tell a lie to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
?”. That is the question that remains unanswered. Nearly 35 questions have been asked in the House on this issue in the last couple of days and we still do not know whether Helen Clark told a lie to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. One might think that the Prime Minister would come into this House and say in answer to one of those questions: “No I didn’t.” But the Prime Minister has not done that. Instead we have heard: “I don’t remember. I can’t recollect. I’m sure I would have. I think I did. I think I didn’t. I don’t see why I would have.” etc. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The deputy leader of the National Party has continually repeated the word “lie” this afternoon. He has done it twice in the last 30 seconds. I think he should be asked to stop and be told he cannot apply that word to another member of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: To imply that anyone is lying is an insinuation against the integrity of the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will say again: the great unanswered question in the New Zealand Parliament at the moment is: “Did the Prime Minister tell a lie to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
?”. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent anyone from asking that question. Day after day in question time that is the question being asked and day after day in question time that is the question the Prime Minister has failed to answer. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is absolutely no question that the member on his feet has accused another honourable member of lying. I find that completely offensive and I think he should be disciplined. 
Rodney Hide 
: If the Hon Jim Sutton had listened carefully he would have realised that the deputy leader of the National Party was not accusing the Prime Minister of lying at all. He was saying that that is the question being asked. He was pointing out that the Prime Minister will not come to the Chamber and make a denial. To ask the question is not to make that assertion. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: That is simply playing with words. There was absolutely no doubt at all about the impression the member on his feet was seeking to convey to members of the public. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that under Speaker’s ruling 39/4 the word “lie” is out of order. Many other expressions can be used. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to be clear—the situation is that we can accuse the staff of the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of lying in their statement of evidence but we cannot accuse the Prime Minister of lying to them. Is that the ruling? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that it is out of order to indicate that a member deliberately misled the House. That is not in order. I ask members to come to order and let us continue with the debate. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do apologise but this is an important point. It is quite clear that under the Standing Orders we can accuse the  
Sunday Star-Times  
reporters and journalists of lying. It is also quite clear and you have just said that it is wrong to accuse a member of deliberately misleading the House. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has deliberately misled the House; I do believe that she lied to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 reporters—and we are putting a question about that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The situation we find ourselves in is that an inference has been drawn from what has been said. Giving that implication as a member of course is an offence against both the dignity of the House and the assumption that all its members behave truthfully and honourably. That is not the case in this particular instance. The reality is that the word “liar” has been ruled out of order on many occasions by many former Speakers. It is not acceptable because all members of this House are honourable members and their word is their bond. Any other thoughts on the matter can be raised with the Privileges Committee. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue cannot be raised with the Privileges Committee because the Prime Minister deliberately misled the  
Sunday Star-Times  
reporters outside the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Phillip Field might want to interrupt but I suggest to him that he do the proper thing. When I have sat down and he has something to contribute— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Hide can we please have the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is all very well for the member on my left to be chipping in— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am going to deal with that. 
Rodney Hide 
: The point is that a breach of privilege cannot be taken against the Prime Minister for what she said to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 as you suggested. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If members are implying that other members are misleading the House that is a different matter. Can I just say to the honourable member on my right that there are to be no interjections at all during the taking of points of order. It is disorderly and it is not acceptable in this House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I point out to you that Speaker’s ruling 39/4 upholds the right of a member to imply that someone has been incorrect in something he or she has said. I will quote it: “A particular mode of expression that has been ruled out of order consistently has been the use of the word ‘lie.’ ” I accept that. However I am sure it means in the context of saying “you are telling a lie” which is not what I did. It states further: “Many other expressions can be used to say that a member is stating something that is incorrect—”. I have not said that the Prime Minister said anything incorrect. I have said that there is a question out there relating to something she may or may not have done. Further it states that “that is material for debate which goes on in the Chamber every sitting day.” Given that ruling I think the sensitivity being expressed by the Labour Party is puzzling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very important point. When we read Speaker’s ruling 39/4 we see that it is very clear it refers to Parliament. What happened with respect to the Prime Minister was outside Parliament. She has not taken the opportunity to come to the House to make a personal explanation. It seems to me that we are quite entitled to question what she said outside Parliament because that is not impugning her mode of speech in the Chamber. Rather it concerns what she has been saying to the media. Speaker’s ruling 39/4 explicitly refers to what is going on in Parliament but the issue is not about what she said in Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank members again. I have already said that the use of the word “lie” is out of order. “Lie” is a mode of expression that has been ruled out of order on many occasions. Its use leads to disorder. There are many other ways of making the point that a member believes something to be incorrect and I ask members to adhere to the ruling. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The question remains then: why was the Prime Minister so hopelessly reckless with the truth when she was dealing with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
? I do not understand why the Labour Party members over there are so sensitive. I do not understand why they are nodding their heads shaking their heads wagging their fingers etc. All the Prime Minister has to do is come to the House and make a personal explanation or come to the House and table the transcripts we know she has table the reporters’ notes we know she has and save us the bother of having to publish the tapes so that all New Zealanders can hear exactly what she was up to. If it takes us days weeks or months to drag some degree of responsibility for this issue out of the Prime Minister then so be it. All the head-waving and finger-wagging from Marian Hobbs from the member for Auckland Central or from a few others over there—outgoing members I might say; members whose time in this House is relatively short—then so be it. We will just carry on anyway. 
The question here is: “Should this country be led by someone who is prepared to go out and besmirch the reputations of anybody who gets in their road?”. The list is very long. It started with Kit Richards and moved on to Peter Doone. Numerous other civil servants have gone down the road. Believe it or not seven Ministers have gone down the road for less careless behaviour than the Prime Minister seems to have exhibited on this particular issue. The question is whether that is the sort of leader one wants running the country. When a big issue is on do we want someone who might be prepared to fudge the realities of truth in order to meet his or her own ends? That is what is being asked here.