Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8762] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Opposition has sunk to new depths over the past couple of weeks. Opposition members have gone even lower than I thought would be possible from that lot. They are now wallowing in the murky territory of gutter politics bringing into question the integrity of the public service the police the judiciary and now the office of the Speaker. Why are Opposition members doing that? It is simply because they have failed to get traction on any issues that they have sought to debate. They cannot attack the Government so they turn their sights on people who cannot fight back. That is utterly gutless. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have seldom had laid at me the accusation that I am gutless but the general blanketing of the Opposition in that way is unacceptable and I think a withdrawal and apology is appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Lianne Dalziel may well be making a personal observation and reflecting upon herself. If that is the case I have no objection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. I will ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I withdraw and apologise. I have been in Parliament for 13 years and I have never seen anything like this before. It is unprecedented and it cannot go unchallenged. I refer to a letter that Bill English sent to the State Services Commissioner last week. I read it with increasing incredulity at the gall of a so-called honourable member of this House in allowing his signature to accompany such an outrageous attack on the public service. The more I read it the more I felt as though I was reading an old-style vicious  
Dominion 
 editorial. Then I figured it must be in “Longhand” because it was written by Richard Long not by Bill English. Bill English has put his signature on someone else’s piece of writing. Talk about pathetic! No wonder the Leader of the Opposition is at 7 percent in the polls and falling—he has to get his chief of staff to write an editorial then he passes it off as a letter to one of New Zealand’s top public servants. That explains why it is factually wrong in just about every material respect and drags the public service into the gutter with the Opposition. That letter was written because the State Services Commissioner dared to speak in defence of people who by convention cannot defend themselves. The reason they cannot defend themselves is set out in the article— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want clarification as to whether the member is talking about recent cases or Christine Rankin and Roger Estall—cases that she used to talk about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Clearly that was not a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No—I agree. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I must also if I may ask that your attention be drawn to the constant ceaseless barrage from four members of the Opposition. I do not mind that because I know our member can cope more than adequately with that sort of objection interjection and cant but I observe that it is not consistent with the way the Opposition members themselves cannot take being interjected on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is it on the same issue? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Yes it is. This is a time-limited debate and we have had statements by members that speeches should not be broken up by interjections. The point of order raised was not in fact a point of order. I think that you should rule not only that it was not a point of order but also that the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for doing so. This is a robust debate so let us just get on with it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for that. It is quite right that the point raised by Hon Roger Sowry was not a point of order. I will not have members breaking up a speech with matters that are not points of order. I take note of what Mr Benson-Pope said although I do not give it much weight. I thank Hon Richard Prebble for clarifying some matters. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a practical matter. I think we are having some difficulty with some of the speakers in the Chamber—there is not much volume. It would be good to hear the speakers amid the amount of noise that is going backwards and forwards. The debate is robust and we really cannot hear very well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a matter of control with the microphones because of the volume coming from the speakers. If the speakers drop down those volumes will come up. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The reason the public service cannot defend itself is that it would put it head to head with Opposition politicians jeopardising its ability to work constructively with those politicians—should they become the Government in the future. Well that party has no chance of being a Government in the future. What really got Mr English’s chief of staff upset was that it says that they—that is the chief executives of our public service—should not be used as proxies for ministers in political debate let alone be subjected to unfounded allegations of grossly improper behaviour. That is what has got them upset. Opposition spokespersons cannot take on Government ministers so they attack the leaders of the public service instead. They create conspiracy theories and they attack the public service. It is the refuge of their incompetence; it is the refuge of those who have got no credibility; it is the refuge of a once-proud National Party now run by the brat pack which is an embarrassment to all the good decent people who used to be in the National Party. 
Bill English’s own reputation as a decent bloke cannot survive the willingness to allow this to go on in his name. Even when National gets a small lift in the polls Bill English goes down another two points—down to 7 percent and falling. It is no wonder he reacted badly. He does not care about having to work constructively with public servants because he will never lead a National Party to Government in this country. Now the attack is on the office of the Speaker. What gutter politics from Roger Sowry Bill English and from Winston Peters! They behaved appallingly in this Chamber yesterday. That was the worst thing I have ever seen in this House—an attack on the Speaker in that way. How dare Winston Peters use the tragic circumstances faced by that young man—and our hearts go out to him—to suggest that the Speaker had behaved inappropriately. I fully support the police decision not to prosecute that man. It was their decision. There was no influence from the Speaker and that was right and proper. The police showed humanity in their decision making. They should be congratulated not rubbished by the Opposition. The points of order raised by Bill English and Roger Sowry yesterday show that they are willing to drag the constitutional position of the Speaker of this House into their pathetic little attempts to get traction. It is a constitutional outrage. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This afternoon we had a pious contribution from Roger Sowry about interjecting when he was speaking. I watched him throughout that speech yelling and screaming across the Chamber. I know he could not take it when was speaking and he took a point of order on it but if he wants to say that there should not be two standards in here why does he not practise what he preaches?