Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6719] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I recall my old days at St Bede’s College the wonderful Catholic school that both Gerry Brownlee and I attended. Not being the best Catholic in the world I can remember the words of a certain scriptural proverb that goes like this: “As a dog returneth to his vomit so a fool returneth to his folly.” I am told Dr Brash is a scriptural scholar so he should read that from the Book of Proverbs. I will not concentrate on Dr Brash in my speech because of course he is a dead man walking—RIP gone the body bags are out. 
I find it interesting to see which National members have spoken in the debate today. Gerry Brownlee Bill English and Simon Power have spoken—all three are leadership contenders. Has Dr Brash spoken? No. Has Mr Key been up there defending his reputation which he will be forced to do in the coming days? No but we have had Huey Dewey and Louie—the three leadership contenders. 
The debate over Mr Hager and his so-called credibility which Mr Brownlee raised is immaterial. As Mr Hager has said himself the people will judge when the book comes out. Two questions remain. Firstly what has National got to hide and why will it not lift the injunction; and secondly the difference with this book of Mr Hager is that if he is accurate in what he says and if he has the goods—he got the goods from the famous six National Party sources to match the famous seven Exclusive Brethren that that mob lined up with and he has the email evidence leaked by them—then that is evidence. That is the difference between this book and Mr Hager’s differing literary contributions. 
The debate now moves to the pretender Mr Key. If Mr Hager is accurate in what he says then the tentacles of this conspiracy extend to the Exclusive Brethren. To quote Marilyn Waring on the evidence contained in this book: “I would expect to see much of the evidence set out in the book reported to the Electoral Commission Parliamentary Services the police and the Auditor-General.” I go on to quote Mr Hager from an interview this morning. The interviewer asks: “How damning is it on those three people?”—that is Key Joyce and Brash. Mr Hager replies: “Well the public can judge. I think the book will be here soon.” He quotes John Key as saying he knew nothing about the pamphlets until they arrived and the Brethren said it. Mr Hager continues: “Don Brash continues to say it. I am amazed he is digging his own grave saying that he only heard about it at the end of August.” Mr Hager adds: “That is simply not true.” 
Well the question for the National caucus is of course—when it finishes digging the hole and dropping Don Brash into it—whom you replace him with. The problem you have now is that you have a tainted John Key— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—and I ask whether John Key is as good at his rhetoric as he will be at his defence. He will have to get up and defend his integrity and his credibility over this issue. It will not be the slipshod foreign exchange dealer kind of stress that he had when he was trading junk bonds and trading down the New Zealand dollar—oh no. His feet are firmly against the fire. 
I have some questions for Mr Key that I would love him to answer. He could end this debate today of course if he did what I challenged him to do and made a personal explanation. If he did that he could shut it down today. He could come into the House and say that whatever Nicky Hager has is wrong is out of it and is not true. These are the questions I have for Mr Key. Is it true as has been reported to me that Mr Key has hired one of New Zealand’s top public relations companies that one of the principals in that company is now working full-time on a rescue package for Mr Key’s reputation and that they are being paid directly—Mr Key has a few bob; good on him—from his pocket? What is the firm; is it working full-time—will Mr Key front up and tell us that? 
Secondly is it true as has been reported to me that Dr Brash and Mr Key have hired a top QC and one of New Zealand’s top four law firms not the one over there that Mr Finlayson belonged to—Mr Finlayson missed out on his QC of course—but a real one to defend him against a potential privileges case? Who is the lawyer what is the firm and who is paying? I also ask Mr Key again whether he will stand up in the House today and make a personal explanation—unchallengeable by the House—and deny the lot.