Goff Phil: General Debate 
Goff Phil: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1375] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 We have just heard a very self-righteous speech from Dr Don Brash impugning the integrity of others. I want to ask him something about his own integrity. I want to ask him why on 5 and 6 September he twice denied any knowledge of the Exclusive Brethren and their distribution of pamphlets yet on 8 September he said: “I knew they were going to issue some pamphlets attacking the government and I said ‘that’s tremendous.’ ” I want to know why that man deceived the public of New Zealand for 2 days by denying that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. He had meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. So keen was he to keep that a secret that he asked his office to take those appointments out of his diary. He was ashamed of the fact that he would be supported by an extreme religious sect to the tune of $1 million. 
I want to know Dr Brash why you have not included that $1 million in your election return because very clearly those pamphlets were about getting you re-elected. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would have thought that the Standing Orders do not allow members to make assertions that are absolutely and totally without foundation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No. That was part of the general debate. This is a robust debate and certainly those points have been raised from all sides of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Dr Brash can run but he cannot hide. He cannot hide from the facts. At his invitation I will table his denial twice that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. He denied it twice. Some people outside this House would suggest that when one denies something that one knows about that is a lie. 
Dr Brash also comes into this House—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh he does not like it. He should stick to the truth. 
Dr Don Brash 
: He should withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I think that does come under a personal reflection. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw Madam Speaker. Then Dr Brash comes in and talks about integrity and “pledge-gate”. Dr Brash this pamphlet shows your face. On the front of it it asks: “What does National stand for?”. This is a piece of party political propaganda. This went out across the electorates before and during the election campaign. Dr Brash if you come in here and say that the Prime Minister should pay for her pamphlet why can you not undertake to pay for this pamphlet which you put out under your name during the campaign when it is about the National Party and obviously designed to win support at the election?  
 But it was not only Dr Brash who did that; it was a number of National’s members. Mr English had hoardings put out right across this country with statements that were designed to help his re-election. The National Party for years has been spending public money on promoting its pamphlets but National members have the nerve to hold a double standard and say that when somebody else does that it is wrong but that when they do it it is OK. I say to Dr Brash that that situation is exactly the same as the New Zealand pledge card and he knows it. 
I want you Dr Brash to sometime be accountable to this House and say why you deceived the public of New Zealand by denying what actually happened. You said you did not know about the pamphlets; 2 days later you admitted you did know. 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will deal with the point of order. The last two speakers have been using the word “you” and bringing the Speaker into the debate. I was going to make that point after this speech. I did not want to interrupt either member but I probably should have made the point after the first speech. It also happened quite a lot the other day. I ask members not to bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is also an added dimension to that ruling which is that in bringing you into the debate Mr Goff has also accused you of deceiving the public. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have made the point. The member can withdraw his remarks. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I would certainly withdraw any remark that was felt to be directed against you. I have said that Dr Brash deceived the public by denying his knowledge of a pamphlet that he admitted 2 days later he knew all about. 
A million dollars was spent by a small religious sect to try to get the National Party re-elected. It has even got the tick: “Use your party vote to change the Government.” That pamphlet put out by the Exclusive Brethren in my electorate and designed to support the National Party was not put on the National Party’s electoral return. That is quite wrong. Dr Brash knew that a million dollars was being deceitfully spent in order to get him re-elected. 
There is another question I should ask Dr Brash and it relates to what Mr Hide has said about there being three or four National Party traitors who are fuelling speculation in the media about a leadership coup and asking Dr Brash why he does not take the vote to the caucus and demonstrate his authority within the caucus. I want Dr Brash to tell the House who the three or four traitors in the National Party were. Let us have a think about it. John Key is there. He of course has said he will not stab Don Brash in the back—but Don Brash said that about Bill English and 6 months later stabbed him in the back. I say to Dr Brash that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. Or is it Gerry Brownlee? I understand it was Gerry Brownlee who was fuelling that speculation because he sees a leadership vacuum and he wants to hold that position. But then there is Bill English. Bill English wants utu. He wants to pay back Dr Brash with the same loyalty that Dr Brash showed him. That member is a lame-duck leader who will not survive long in this House.