Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4637] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 One of the most interesting things about the Opposition in Parliament the National members is that whenever Dr Brash goes out and gives a big speech about a certain area a deafening silence comes from his colleagues in support of it. On Friday Dr Brash gave a think-piece speech a scene-setting speech—which is a little hard to take seriously is it not? Anyway he trotted off to Auckland and talked about the “bedrock values of New Zealand” which I would have thought were pretty important; if one were going to be talking about values one would want to mention those that were bedrock values. So he gave his speech but not a single one of his flunkies on the Opposition benches have mentioned that speech this afternoon in the general debate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Not one? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Not a single one has bothered to back up his or her leader’s call for a debate about bedrock society in New Zealand. Does that leader exist in a parallel universe? Does that man— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order— 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The strategist! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
:— the honourable member Murray McCully. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before I raised my point of order you will have heard that after you had given me the call to raise it the member who was speaking made a further comment that was designed to show disrespect both to me and to you. I wonder whether you are going to let him get away with that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry; I did not hear it Mr McCully. I was otherwise engaged listening to you. Could you please continue. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: It is normally the practice when such an assertion is made by a member and the Speaker has not heard it that the Speaker puts it to the member about whom the accusation has been made and asks that member whether he or she wants to confirm it or not. Are you not going to do that? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I do not know what the member is talking about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to Mr McCully that all members are honourable members; their word is their bond and I can only take what the member has said. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I will leave it there Mr Assistant Speaker. We can get the transcript or the tape and I am sure we can litigate this on another occasion. But my purpose in rising was to draw to your attention the fact that a reference was made to members on this side of the House that was offensive to those members. I will not repeat the word but I was surprised you did not take the matter up with the member and ask him to withdraw it. I now ask you to do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I did consider it but no one actually raised it. The member has now and I know what the word was. Can I just say that— 
Simon Power 
: They shouldn’t have to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
:—I am on my feet—under Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 members must not use nicknames when they refer to members. The member will now— 
Hon Member 
: It wasn’t a nickname. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Have you finished? The member will now withdraw and apologise. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I am happy to withdraw and apologise. I am sorry about that. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Referring to your last ruling I feel you now leave the House in a very difficult position. You have just ruled that unless a member reacts to a breach of the Standing Orders the Speaker or presiding officer will take no action. My understanding is that whether a member reacts to a breach of the Standing Orders is not the measure by which the Standing Orders are enforced. They are enforced if they are breached whether or not members react. You have now placed us in a very difficult position. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I say to the member—and the member knows this—that members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It was the personal reflection that was out of order and now that the member has pointed it out the member on the other side of the House has been asked to withdraw and apologise. I note what the member has said—thank you. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I was talking about the fact that Dr Don Brash the Leader of the Opposition goes all around New Zealand occasionally—when the National Party team tells him what to do in terms of his strategy and his style—to try to relaunch his career several more times and to give it another go. He gives one of those speeches and I suspect that they are not all that well-thought-out. I suspect that those speeches are decided on a couple of days beforehand when Mr McCully goes into Dr Brash’s office and says: “Boss we need a big idea”— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I’ve got a strategy. 
DARREN HUGHES 
:—“we need a circuit-breaker; I’ve got a strategy. It’s a bit similar to the one I gave Jim McLay Jim Bolger Jenny Shipley Bill English and now you Don Brash. I’m giving you a similar kind of strategy in terms of a circuit-breaker. Here’s the one I reckon is going to make all the difference.” 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What happened to those others? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Well the other National Party leaders of course have not done so well following Mr McCully’s advice. It was only when the National Party caucus rebelled about his involvement that National’s party vote finally went up. Of course he would never admit that. Interestingly when National had a photograph taken of its front-bench members somehow the second-rower Murray McCully made it on to the front bench which I am sure had tongues wagging right across the conference. 
So Don Brash gave that speech right? He got up and said that we have to have bedrock values because tens of thousands of people come in through Auckland airport having signed immigration forms saying: “I intend to undermine New Zealand democracy; I intend to break the law at every opportunity; I intend to make sure that New Zealanders who already live in this country are treated badly.” Thousands of people have their immigration forms approved having written that on their forms according to Don Brash. So a circuit-breaker was needed to say: “Bedrock values only; otherwise you can’t come in.” Bedrock of course is an important part of  
The Flintstones  
TV programme—something that Don Brash would like with his kind of prehistoric views on social policy in our country. 
The problem is that after having given that speech not one of those members has had the loyalty to their leader to make it the centrepiece of their Wednesday debate. He gives those speeches but none of those members mention them ever again. It is as if the speeches disappear into the ether. National members all come to Wellington on Tuesday and say: “Oh did you see that Dr Brash gave a speech last week?” and “Oh well don’t worry about that; we’ll just wait for the next big flip-flop. We’ll get on with the next thing; don’t worry about it.” So I am feeling very sorry for Dr Brash at the present time in that regard because when will that man’s policy speeches be taken seriously? It does not look as if they will be at all. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The Minister for Senior Citizens is here and she spoke in question time today about the difficulty we saw when Mr Brownlee manhandled Dr Brash back into his seat in the Chamber. I have never seen the Prime Minister exert so much influence and control over this Chamber. She gave her answer then said that we were not sure who the leader of the National Party was and asked one of them to decide. They both got to their feet and before we knew it Gerry Brownlee—in a very familiar-looking move—pushed the pensioner away. The way he was able to do that looked good did it not? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members on this side of the House are concerned that the member on his feet has only a short period of time remaining and we want him to take the opportunity during his speech to verbally come out in support of Taito Phillip Field. We are wondering when he will get to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I say to the member that frivolous points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech are in themselves disorderly. Such tactics lead to disorder and are unacceptable for the progress of the business of the House. The member has his first yellow card. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you for your protection Mr Speaker. We now know that Simon Power’s leadership aspirations rest on breaking up the speech of the member for Otaki. That is the great strategic comeback from Simon Power. He used to be the “Kennedy” figure of the National Party and now the only thing he can do to try to get himself noticed in Parliament and in  
Hansard 
 is to interrupt the junior Government whip. I do not think he will have much chance of getting the National Party leadership at all. 
The members opposite who are yelling screaming and showing themselves to be a disgrace of an Opposition have not given us a single policy this afternoon. They do not back up their leader. They cannot explain how one can spend more and tax less—a very simple question of economics. They say the same thing every day they come to Parliament: the Government never spends enough money on any issue it is covering and the Government should get less revenue. Can members work that out? Can they work out how one can tax less and spend more? These people are impossible. They do not support their own leader. They spend all their time trying to ignore the fact that he even exists. When he fronts up in Parliament they push him around and he is pushed back into his seat by a man who was once convicted and fined $8500 for throwing a pensioner down some stairs—and now is paid $8500 a month in Parliament to push his leader around. The man is an absolute disgrace in that regard. The Opposition should focus on things all New Zealanders can feel they belong to not wacko Exclusive Brethren things to which women are not allowed to belong. We believe that the Labour Party should be inclusive of all New Zealanders.