Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1818] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The point that Labour has been trying to make in the House today is that as members of Parliament we all have two roads we can go down in terms of our conduct in this House. It is fair to say that everybody in Parliament on every side of the Chamber could throw around all sorts of things if that was what we decided to do and spend all our time in this House yelling and screaming at one another. But the reality is that we have seen in the last hour in this House a lot of energy a lot of anger and a lot of emotion because of the way in which the debate has gone. I think there is a call on all of us to stop and reflect about the things we are prepared to do and say in order to get a headline and I think the general consensus in the House is that in the last little while things have gone far too far in relation to some of the language that has been used about an issue that has been debated. 
I do not intend to get into the issue but I do say that the language members of Parliament use determines the conduct the standards and the behaviour of this Chamber. One thing that is pretty clear is that a whole lot of stories about Mr Benson-Pope have been distorted in this Chamber by members of the Opposition during question time in a way that has caused a lot of hurt to his family and brought his professional integrity into disrepute. It is pretty clear from what nearly every one of his students has said that this guy was a great teacher. He was a good teacher who did a good job. We have had lots of correspondence from former students and their parents to say that this person was a good teacher who did a good job. In the course of a political argument a whole lot of stories came out and were distorted. They were not genuine and not true. They were phrased in a way that put the worst possible light on somebody’s integrity and personal standards of behaviour. 
Some of the words used went far beyond what we would normally expect in the rational kind of political debate and exchange that we have in this place. Of course we clash with one another. I tell members a secret: Labour members do not like National members. But here is another one: they do not like us either. That is fine; we will come in here week after week and we will throw stuff at one another and have a great exchange of ideas. But what matters is how far we are prepared to go and what language we are prepared to use to get that headline. 
I noted that when Mr Key was speaking before he said that this was a big matter and he was very proud of the way his party had conducted itself on it. But when he came to a town in my electorate to Waikanae he said that the whole affair was a sideshow with no effect on the next election. He said that while the issue was a matter the Opposition needed to exploit voters wanted promises and policies that would make them feel good and positive about where New Zealand was heading. I agree with John Key the member for Helensville on that—that is absolutely right. He was quoted in the  
Kapiti Observer  
as saying what a sideshow it had been. 
That is why it has been a bit rich to have the response from National today. Its members have been sticking up for and defending their behaviour and their colleagues on this point. It was clear to all of us throughout the adjournment that wherever we went and no matter what kind of audience we were in front of or group we were visiting— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You were in trouble. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Smith says we were in trouble. That is not correct at all. I think Nick Smith should say that nobody came up to him and said that they were really happy with the language being used in Parliament or that they thought the way members of Parliament were talking about one another was fantastic. That is just not right. I have heard Dr Nick Smith interjecting but I suspect he does not reflect the mainstream view within National. I think when we all came back here for our caucus meetings we said there had been a certain reaction in New Zealand and people did not like us going as far as that. I think that is the right thing; we should focus on policies and on being positive about where New Zealand is heading—as John Key said when he visited Waikanae. He was clearly distancing himself from some of the language and behaviour that had gone on. Leadership is needed to make sure things do not descend any further. 
So our debate has to be more about policy; it has to be less about the way we phrase our attacks on one another. Debate should be policy based with a bit of jiving here and there of course against one another but we do not need to do anything in a way such that when our families switch on television they feel embarrassed and ashamed about what we do for a job. We should not behave to such an extent that when members return to their families they have to explain some of the things people are saying about each other in here because it has gone too far. 
I think that is the real point that Labour has been trying to make today. We love fierce political attacks and fierce political clashes on issues and we want to see more of that—more debate around policies. We have said that for this year our three goals are economic transformation the support of families young and old and the building of a national identity. We will come here in May with a Budget around those three themes and we expect the Opposition to challenge us on it. We expect to have to stand here and defend it—and we will because we are proud of our policies. 
Finally can I say how pleased I have been—returning to a firm policy position—at the decision last week of the hearings committee on the western corridor and Transmission Gully. Let there be no mistake about it: the Wellington electorate members of Parliament—Labour and United Future—did a huge amount of work to make sure a funding envelope was available to the Wellington region so that the right decision could be made for the future of this region.