Brash Don: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Member for TamakiMakaurau 
Brash Don: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Member for TamakiMakaurau 
[Volume:621;Page:16528] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Finally it has happened. John Tamihere has walked the plank. But the decision should not have been Mr Tamihere’s. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has been far too much interjection in the first minute or two of this debate. This is a serious matter that the House is debating and I want it to be heard in relative silence. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The decision should not have been Mr Tamihere’s. The Prime Minister acted on other occasions. On this occasion she abdicated her responsibilities and has shown she is prepared to adopt a double ministerial standard. It is nothing short of an outrage that the Prime Minister has left it open to Mr Tamihere to return to Cabinet. She is trying to have a dollar each way by trying not to upset urban Maori or the right-wing faction of her own caucus. This is deal-making on an extraordinary scale but we all know why. She is playing for time. She desperately needed and still needs Mr Tamihere’s loyalty. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have now had enough. The rest of the speech will be heard in relative silence. I am not having any more interjections particularly as a lot of them have been in the second person. The member is only lengthening the time that it takes because of course the point of order does not come out of his speech. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The Prime Minister needs Mr Tamihere to convince the public they have nothing to fear from the secret deals being done with Maori to hand over ownership of beaches and lakes. She needs him to woo the hard-working urban New Zealanders whom her PC Government has been offending over the last 5 years. She needed him to keep an increasingly angry Maori caucus onside. But most important she needed him not to call a by-election and upset her tenuous grip on power. So instead of sacking John Tamihere immediately as she did Lianne Dalziel she allowed him to stay on full pay because it suited her. 
The Prime Minister made much of the fact in answering questions earlier today that there were some matters that needed to be sorted out and debated in an inquiry. She referred to the Douglas White inquiry. But on one thing there is no debate. There is no question it is not in contention that Mr Tamihere did accept a golden handshake having said that he would not accept one. That is not in debate; it is clearly understood. She should have sacked Mr Tamihere immediately as she did Lianne Dalziel but she allowed him to stay on full pay until today when he resigned. It was a cynical stalling for time while Labour’s pollsters judged the mood of the public. I could have told her 3 weeks ago that the public do not like it when Ministers tell them one thing and secretly do another. They do not like it when the Prime Minister is prepared to tolerate— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that when Mr Speaker was in the Chair he asked that this debate be heard in silence. He did say “the rest of the service” but I think he meant speech not funeral service. 
Simon Power 
: Are you going to allow that to happen? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. The member will be seated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have not finished my point of order. The substance of my point is whether the silence applies to members of the member’s own party interjecting to give him assistance during this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I do not accept that. I just say to members that frivolous interjections and points of order designed to break up speeches are out of order. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The public do not like it when Ministers say one thing and do another. They do not like it when the Prime Minister is prepared to tolerate double standards. They do not like it when a Minister takes a golden handshake and calls it koha. And they do not like it when the Minister accepting koha is the very person the Government has trotted out to try to con the public into believing that this Government has changed its attitude towards Maori issues. This is the same Minister who is trying to con the public into believing there is no double standard applying to Maori in this country. 
This whole episode has made a total mockery of the Government’s hollow promises to end the so-called “culture of extravagance” and has made the pledge to put a stop to golden handshakes look totally farcical. This is a tired Government. The Prime Minister lies awake at night counting—not sheep but Labour’s votes in the House. It is not hard to see why the Prime Minister took no action. She needed John Tamihere’s vote in the House for this Government to survive. She has been forced to take the pressure because she needs Mr Tamihere’s vote. She had to make a deal because the Government’s majority is at stake; so is the Government’s vote on the seabed and foreshore. 
 There is more to it than this. John Tamihere has already opened his books to the Prime Minister. Why did she not find anything? Was she looking the other way? Was she following the same policy that she adopted during the earlier inquiry into the Waipareira Trust? That found nothing. Was that because of the narrow terms of reference or was the Prime Minister again looking the other way? 
But let us contrast this affair with the treatment Helen Clark meted out to Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle. Both lost their warrants and their ministerial pay while investigations into their electoral enrolments and their out-of-town allowances were carried out. Once Marian Hobbs was cleared she was allowed back. But Mr Tamihere will not be cleared. He is guilty of taking a golden handshake that he said he would not take. There is debate about his tax affairs and debate about electoral expenses and that has been explained today in the House but there is no debate about the fact that he took a substantial golden handshake after he said he would not take it. There is no doubt about that issue at all. Although he called it koha and although he said it would be insensitive to refuse it what sort of PC nonsense is that from a man whom Labour puts up as a good Kiwi bloke? 
How does Lianne Dalziel feel about all this? She is not saying much because she is doing a deal with the Prime Minister also. She has served her time on the outer and the rumours are that she will soon be back. Helen Clark counts on us all having very short memories. She is counting on us particularly forgetting the things that she said when she was in Opposition. Let us just remind ourselves of some of the things she said. First: “We are calling for higher standards of ministerial accountability and behaviour.” Another quote: “‘Responsible’ I interpret as being morally accountable for one’s actions.” “It is better to be told the truth before the election than after it.” said Helen Clark. She said: “I want Labour in Government to usher in a new era of political accountability and responsibility.” “I want honesty”— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not quite hear—was that the bell or was it an alarm clock going off? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has been here a long time and he knows that that is a frivolous interjection. He also knows that that sort of thing leads to disorder. What I want is what everyone in this House wants and that is order. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So what are you going to do about it? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have cautioned the member. He has his first yellow card. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The very good speech from the Leader of the Opposition has been interrupted twice—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a point of order and that is to be heard in silence—Standing Order 84(3). 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He has been twice interrupted by what you yourself have ruled to be frivolous objections. Now if we are going to have that kind of conduct in the House then National can play the game just as well. During the next speech by a Government speaker we will have a line-up of 27 of us who will all take a frivolous point of order and you will do the same thing and the House will be brought into disrepute. We simply ask that you take some action. It was absolutely blatantly obvious that the points of order from Mr Mallard and Mr Peters were totally out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Both members have been warned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. [ 
Interruption 
] Someone will be going out very shortly. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: I was quoting some of the comments that Helen Clark made when she was in Opposition. She said: “I want Labour in Government to usher in a new era of political accountability and responsibility.” “I want honesty in politics. I want politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say.” She said: “There will be a new era of moderation frugality and integrity in the public sector. We don’t ask for a blank cheque from the public we are making commitments on which we will deliver. We are accountable to you.” The public is demanding that the Prime Minister deliver on that accountability. 
The Prime Minister has failed to act and she was prepared to accept a new low standard of ministerial behaviour. For the sake of political expediency the Prime Minister was prepared to leave it up to John Tamihere to resign rather than doing the right thing earlier than today. But even now the Prime Minister is prepared to offer him a secret deal that will allow him to return to Cabinet. So much for accountability. So much for integrity. 
What has changed in the past 3 weeks? She has known about this payment which the Minister denied receiving for 3 weeks. Why did she allow him to sit on a ministerial salary of $4000 a week over the last 3 weeks and why is the door still open to him to come back? Sure Mr Tamihere played his part in the defence by offering up the koha argument. Ms Clark’s role has been no less damaging. Helen Clark has tolerated two standards of ministerial behaviour for cynical electoral expediency. It is indeed a very sad day for this House and for New Zealand democracy.