Swain Paul: General Debate 
Swain Paul: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6725] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 For the benefit of the people driving home and listening to their wirelesses the farmers milking and the people who were going about their business and listening to that I say that that speech was made by a man called Tau Henare. Do people remember Tau Henare? Do members remember him? Tau Henare said: “I will never serve in a Cabinet led by Jenny Shipley.” 
Darren Hughes 
: No he didn’t say that did he? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes he did. 
Hon Member 
: And Bolger. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: And Bolger. Guess what? Tau Henare served in a Cabinet led by Jenny Shipley. I think there is a word for that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes there is a word for that and members are not allowed to say it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is an imputation and members cannot get around the rules against unparliamentary language by a circumlocution. I suggest the member look at Speaker’s ruling 51/4 from Speaker Barnard in 1937. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As soon as I finish this excellent speech I will go straight to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and look that up. 
There is something extraordinarily smelly within the National Party at the moment. There is a question that has not been answered by any of the National members notwithstanding the fact that they have wandered all over the place and talked about everything else except the issue that everybody else is talking about. That is what is funny about National members—they always seem to be talking about the things that nobody else is really interested in. We are talking about the issue and the question is what the National Party has to hide. It is as simple as that. I ask National members what they have to hide. 
Hon Members 
: Nothing. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: They have nothing to hide! If there is nothing to hide why not lift the gagging order? I think that National members have a lot to hide actually which is why they have asked for the gagging order. 
This is what Nicky Hager says about what is in his book: “The story that emerges is an extraordinary case study of unprincipled and anti-democratic politics repeated cases of deceiving the public hidden agendas dodgy election finance issues and underlying it all a deeply cynical approach to winning the votes of those who Brash described as …”—and that is the bit that is omitted. We want to know why that was omitted. Maybe it referred to the things that Dr Brash talked about in the election campaign. Maybe it was about the good folk of New Zealand. 
Moana Mackey 
: Mainstream. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Maybe it was about mainstream New Zealanders. Maybe Dr Brash is now scared to have mainstream New Zealanders represented in the work by Nicky Hager. I say though that if Dr Brash has nothing to hide then he should lift the injunction. 
The problem that National members have is that they are absolutely and totally snookered by this. If they do not lift the injunction then everybody will think they are up to no good. If they do lift the injunction then everybody will know they are up to no good. So there is absolutely no question of why they do not want to lift the injunction. 
As John Armstrong says: “The overwhelming view of those who have seen the emails is that he”—that is Dr Brash—“is a goner and the only question is the extent to which the book damages Mr Key.” So there we are. We all know that Don Brash is history because we all know that what he says privately is not what he says publicly. The thing about this book and these emails is that they will show once and for all all of the things that Labour members know—that what Dr Brash says publicly is not what he tells people privately. People cannot do that in politics because sooner or later they get caught out—and Don Brash has been caught out. 
What about John Key? Well John Key started saying in an interview that he was not involved with the Brethren. But he suddenly realised halfway through his sentence that he should not have been saying that and that he really should be saying that the Brethren were not involved in his campaign. There is a nice photo of John Key having a discussion in his electorate office with members of the Exclusive Brethren. The real problem for the National Party now is that this book will be bad for John Key. So there goes Don Brash and there goes John Key. All the other pretenders are lining up with glee. There is something smelly in the National Party. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.