Maharey Steve: General Debate 
Maharey Steve: General Debate 
[Volume:637;Page:7975] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I want to spend my time of course talking about the problems of the National Party. But first I want to acknowledge that Bill English has raised a very serious argument this afternoon. Yesterday I understand there was an urgent debate in which Dr Michael Cullen outlined very clearly what the Labour-led Government is doing. I want to mention to people who are listening at home—because that was a passionate angry heartfelt speech by Mr English—that yesterday Bill English sat and laughed through the debate on that very issue. He sat and laughed. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That accusation is untrue. Yesterday I did express some amusement at the pathetic attempts of Dr Cullen to argue that he had no responsibility. I take deep offence which I am allowed to do— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated for a minute please. The member is claiming misrepresentation and there is a time and place to do that: at the end of a speech. The member should look at the Speakers’ rulings on that matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at the allegation by that Minister that I regarded the death of Karl Kuchenbecker as a laughing matter and I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I was watching the speech. What has been referred to—when Mr English was laughing yesterday—was not during my speech; it was during Mr Key’s speech. Mr English was not the only member of the National Party front bench to laugh at times during Mr Key’s speech on an extraordinarily serious matter related to the death of Karl Kuchenbecker. I think that was rather typified today when Mr Key raised the point that for Mr O’Connor to apologise personally up front face to face with the family was somehow less important than grandstanding in Parliament and apologising. 
Hon Bill English 
: Dr Cullen’s point is irrelevant. I have taken offence and I have asked that the member withdraw and apologise—and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is a matter of fact that Mr English was laughing during Mr Key’s speech. He cannot take offence at somebody pointing out a matter of fact. 
Hon Bill English 
: This is a highly unusual process to follow over a matter where a member has taken offence. Mr Maharey’s allegation was not that I laughed during John Key’s speech; it was that I regarded the death of Karl Kuchenbecker as a laughing matter. I have taken offence and you will either follow the Standing Orders Mr Assistant Speaker or you will not. Please let us know what you are going to do. I have taken offence; I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am happy to take the member’s word on this matter but I just want to say before I get to this thing— we are having an unusual debate here—that I would expect the same from the member in respect of members on this side of the House. Does he think for a single second that there is anybody in the country never mind on this side of the House who does not take this matter seriously? I think that if he is to demand that people regard his behaviour with the kind of respect he is asking for now then he should give people respect himself. On that note I say that I accept the member’s word and I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I just say that all members are honourable members; their word is their bond. If there is any course of action to be taken on that then it is a matter for the Speaker to deal with through a matter of privilege. 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr English—the member has apologised. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a well-known procedure here to which we stick—and we stick to it because it is important that we do so—which is that when members withdraw and apologise they get up and that is all they say. It is not acceptable to do it at the end of a speech at the beginning of a speech or in the middle of a speech. That member is required to get up withdraw and apologise and sit down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr English; that is right. Would the member please do that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have taken extraordinary offence on behalf of all other members in this House at the member’s implication throughout his passionate angry and heartfelt speech that there are people in this House who unlike himself do not feel sincerely that what happened in both those cases was wrong and disgusting that they would not want to see that happen again and that they would not move heaven and earth to make sure it does not. I take offence at that and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: That member is a senior member who knows that he cannot take offence on behalf of other members and that if he wants to take offence he has to take offence at something I have said about him. In my whole speech I did not mention him. I mentioned Dr Cullen Helen Clark and the Labour Party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members can take offence only on their own behalf not on behalf of anybody else. I would now like to get the debate back on an even keel— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do take offence at what Bill English said. I did not laugh at all yesterday at what anybody said in that debate. I did not smile or laugh—and Mr English knows that he did—during that debate. He smiled and laughed as did a number of his colleagues. And I take deep offence at what he said in his speech today implying that I did not care about what had happened. I would have thought the speech yesterday made it very clear firstly that I cared and secondly that there is responsibility and accountability that needs to be acknowledged and remedies that have to be engaged in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that good order— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Assistant Speaker you have just forced a member to withdraw and apologise for stating a fact. As long as a member takes offence then the other member should withdraw and apologise. I take deep offence at what Mr English said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will quote here Speaker’s ruling 42/2: “If a member against whom the reference is made objects it will be ruled out. But if that member takes no objection it will only be ruled out if it is offensive on the face of it.” Therefore as offence has been taken I request the member to withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You might also read a bit further in your Standing Orders Mr Assistant Speaker to where it says that if offence is taken the member should call it to the attention of the House immediately. Twenty minutes perhaps have passed now since Mr English spoke and it was not until Mr Maharey raised the matter on behalf of the party and it then became clear it should be an individual situation that Dr Cullen raised the issue. I suspect for good grace should you rule it so that the appropriate apology would then be offered. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for the offer Mr Brownlee. I request the member to do so. 
Hon Bill English 
: I am happy to do so if Dr Cullen can in compliance with the Standing Orders tell me what I actually said—the remark made about him that he has taken offence to. A member cannot take offence at the tone of a speech or its general argument; offence has to be taken at something said in respect of the member. In my recollection that did not occur. But I would be happy to hear Dr Cullen’s version of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We seem just to be going round in circles. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr English in his own point of order just a few minutes ago stated that he did make such comments and that it was up to myself or Helen Clark—who is not here of course—to take offence. I do take offence at the implications of what he said in that respect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say again that all members in this House are honourable members and their word is unreservedly accepted. That being the case I think it is time that both sides moved on. I now call the Hon Steve Maharey. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that Mr English himself pointed out before that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise he or she rises and does so without comment. Mr English rose and said that he was happy to withdraw and apologise and then went on to comment at length—and we still have not heard the withdrawal and apology. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Steve Maharey does have a point there. I ask Mr English— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be considered trifling with the House if members one after the other were to stand up and say that they took offence at something whatever it might be—to the general tone of a speech that was given some time ago. That would be trifling with the House; it would breach the Standing Orders. All that has been asked for here is for Dr Cullen to say what was so offensive to him personally in the speech given by Bill English—what was specific to Dr Cullen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that Mr English had offered to withdraw and apologise— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What for? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: —and then he continued. So I ask Mr English to withdraw and apologise on that issue please—to stand and withdraw. 
Hon Bill English 
: Look I referred— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No—I am on my feet Mr English. Would you please be seated. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: Mr Assistant Speaker in order to maintain the Standing Orders—look I am happy to leave the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No Mr English be seated. I am on my feet. I am not asking the member to leave the House. I am trying to show some tolerance here for a situation that has got a little out of hand. The member himself actually rose to withdraw and apologise and then added something to it. I am asking him to think seriously and then we can go back and he can raise a point of order. I ask him to withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What are you asking Mr English to withdraw for? What was the offence? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. Mr English— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was it just for a general dislike of the tone of that speech because— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee please be seated. I am asking Mr English to withdraw and apologise because he offered to do so. He actually did rise to do that and then he carried on—which was the point that the Hon Steve Maharey raised. I am asking Mr English to withdraw and apologise without adding any of the extra bits that he did. That is where we are back to I tell the member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What Mr English said when you asked him to withdraw was that he would be happy to do so if he knew what it was for. Then he went on to ask what he had said that was so offensive. It staggers me that Labour Party members can some 2 months after the event start beating their breast and saying how sorry they are about Karl Kuchenbecker’s death when they have for so long been defending the indefensible running around hoping that this issue would go away and hoping that their backsides would be covered— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will be seated please. You know Mr Brownlee that Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order must be terse and to the point. I was not aware of or misunderstood what Mr English was doing. If Mr English is now saying he wishes to know what the apology is for then I will permit that. But that was not my understanding of the situation and I am sure  
Hansard 
 will show that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: As it is now abundantly clear that any withdrawal and apology would be insincere and without honour I withdraw my request. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As one commentator has put it the honeymoon for Mr Key the leader of the National Party is over and what we are doing now is trying to find out—as the commentator put it—whether there is wood beneath the veneer that Mr Key represents. As that assessment says Mr Key is now known as a man of sizzle but is not really understood to be a man of substance. 
In Mr Key’s maiden speech as leader we know he talked a lot about a State house upbringing about how he was a passionate rugby player—although he does not remember the Springbok Tour—and about how he went away to London to become a currency trader before returning to seek the leadership of this nation. To bolster up his leadership he has gone out on a series of forays into poor housing districts. He went around a series of people at McGehan Close. Those people now say they felt used by those visits. He went to a local school and offered the children muesli bars which local people said they did not need or want. 
During all of that sizzle there was no policy. But now Mr Key is under a bit of pressure and as a result he has had to start talking about policy. But having no policy of his own he is doing something extremely clever: he is adopting Labour policy. In fact that has led to so many flip-flops by the National Party that its members are now nailing up above their offices all over the country signs to go alongside the National Party signs. Those signs state “Jandals ’R Us”. The National Party has so many flip-flops that “Jandals ’R Us” is the new title for that party. “No nukes” is now its policy superannuation is OK the foreshore and seabed legislation will stay as it is and the real doozy I think is a policy of having no market rents for State houses. 
That policy is interesting because it goes right to the heart of National Party philosophy. National Party people say they stand for people buying their own houses as opposed to paying all those awful State house rents. I see Mr Williamson—the far-right extremist—grinning away over there. He knows that the idea that the National Party now agrees with the policy of building State houses and having income-related rents will stick in his craw as someone on the extreme right of the National Party. 
Flip-flops can also be seen with regard to the 20 free hours early childhood education policy. What an extraordinary policy National has on that issue. I say to Opposition members that I will put $100 down in a wager that by the next election it will be the National Party’s policy to back 20 hours’ free early childhood education. I ask Maurice Williamson whether he will take me on for that. Will Gerry Brownlee take me on for that? Will Bill take me on for that? I wager $100 that the National Party will adopt the policy it now says it is fighting against. 
Meanwhile this is what we have to put up with. The National Party says that the families of this country will love the 20 free hours policy—that was said by Bill English. The National Party also says it will scrap that policy because National’s policy is to have a tax credit. People will have to save up their chits all year in their kitchen drawers taken them down to the Inland Revenue Department file them with the big bureaucracy there and get the money back at the end of the year having paid it out over the year. That is the policy of the National Party which hates bureaucracy! That party hates public servants. It hates them yet it wants to build up more and more of them to run that tax credit policy on early childhood education. 
Last night we learnt from Paula Bennett—what a rocket scientist that woman is proving to be—that it is not good enough that the 20 free hours policy which she hates and is campaigning against is only for 3 to 4-year-olds. She wants it to apply to all under-5-year-olds. I could not believe it! National is the tax-cut party. Paula Bennett is fresh off the street and has been promoted to National’s front line. As Mr Winston Peters said today if she is the answer the question being asked of the National Party is wrong—that is all we can say. Paula Bennett made a billion-dollar promise in the House last night while National’s leader is trying to run a policy of massive tax cuts. 
The National Party also says the 20 free hours policy should not be promoted. National says people will not take it up but we should not promote it. National says we should not promote that $340 million - policy—for God’s sake—because people will find out about it and then they might come to use early childhood education services. That is an extraordinary flip-flop—a “Jandals ’R Us Party”.