Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22062] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 That member and his party are developing a very very strong reputation for two things. The first is for being weak. That is what that member is like and that is what his party is like. The second strong reputation they are developing is for saying things that are not true inside the House outside the House at party political meetings and at joint candidates meetings. At any opportunity they can they say things that are not true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice the member has accused us of saying things that are not true. I seek leave to table a statement from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service that confirms that everything I said was absolutely true. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say that frivolous interjections— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is not frivolous. She has accused me of saying untruths. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member could have waited until the speech is finished. I am going to ask the Hon Ruth Dyson to start again. 
Shane Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled— 
Shane Ardern 
: Members are not allowed under the Standing Orders to accuse somebody of lying in the Parliament and that is what the member was accused of. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please be seated. If the member had listened to the debate he would know that the member was not accused of that inside this House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to get clarification. The document from the Department of Building and Housing confirms everything I have said. Is it able to be tabled in the House? The member has suggested that somehow I was speaking an untruth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will put that question. The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Let me give members an example of when that member demonstrated his weakness and his total inability to be consistent with the policy position. This is a man who wants to be a Minister in the next Government. I say to the member: “No way Mr Smith no way at all!”. On one of the key areas in the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill Nick Smith said: “When an SOE proposes a huge development the Government rewrite the rules to suit.” That was a direct attack on that bill and on this Government. But then in the very next breath when Transpower was the issue rather than the Waitaki he said: “The situation is so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so that lines can be installed.” Mr Smith cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that Transpower should have special legislation and that the Waitaki should not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already warned the member about frivolous interjections raised as points of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The member cannot come to the House and just say things that are totally untrue. I challenge her to provide any evidence that I have ever said that special legislation should be passed for power lines. I have talked about direct referral to the Environment Court but I ask the member to be truthful. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am asking the member on my left to look at Standing Orders 106(1) and (2) and Speaker’s ruling 35/3 regarding misrepresentation. If the member believes he has been misrepresented then there is a proper course and time in which the misrepresentation can be clarified. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member is clearly rattled clearly rattled. At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table the National Party press release of 6 July 2004 from which I have just quoted where Nick Smith in direct contradiction to his previous attack on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill said: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so these lines can be installed.” That was a National Party press release of 6 July 2004. I will table that and then Mr Smith will owe me yet another apology. 
Nick Smith is not the only member of the National Party caucus who is excellent at changing his or her mind whenever it suits. Whenever the pressure gets a little too much they just topple over. Don Brash on Iraq has to be the best. Don Brash on Iraq is just fantastic. On 1 October 2003 Dr Brash said on Iraq: “I think I would have done what President Bush said.” When he was asked directly just 2 weeks ago whether he would send troops to Iraq he said: “That’s not the issue today.” That was a very unusual answer. When the question was: “Will you send troops to Iraq?” he said: “That’s not the issue today.” But then the reporter said: “Well actually it is. Because that’s the question I’m asking you.” Dr Brash said: “Well I’m sorry that’s not correct.” The next day he said: “My personal inclination at that time was in fact to support involvement in Iraq and I said so 2 years back.” Three days later he said: “Under almost no circumstances I’m saying.” Under almost no circumstances! What is his position on Iraq? It is not a hypothetical question. It is not “not the issue of the day”. It is a very important issue in terms of policy in terms of integrity and in terms of credibility and on those three points—policy integrity and credibility—Don Brash has got zilch. 
He is exactly the same on National’s nuclear policy—something that has been at the heart of New Zealand’s pride for over 20 years. That member of Parliament Don Brash wants to take it away from us. In January 2004 he said: “If the National Party was in Government today we would get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today—by lunchtime even.” That is a fantastic quote. In the middle of the year he said: “The likelihood is if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable and that of course would be after we became the Government we’d seek a referendum for any change in the law.” That is a very interesting position—waiting to hear what the Americans say. Then he said: “I don’t know at this point what the solution will be that would be agreeable to New Zealanders and acceptable to Canberra and Washington and what I’m saying in my statement today is that we can’t resolve this question from Opposition.” 
 So that was another little slip-sliding-away flip-flop—and on something as basic as the nuclear-free policy which was legislated for in this Parliament over 20 years ago. Don Brash cannot take a position because he is in Opposition! Well that is a new one. That is a fantastic one. It will go down a treat at the election meetings up and down the country. I cannot wait. He then said just a couple of weeks after that: “I can’t answer the question about what would trigger a decision for a referendum.” So now he cannot even work out what would make him have a referendum. The New Zealand Press Association said that Dr Brash said a referendum was still the most likely way of determining support for changing the nuclear-free status. But he also said that if his party campaigned on scrapping the ban and won the election it would consider that a mandate for change as well. So now he is slipping even further away. He is saying that there might not be a referendum that National might just run that issue in the election campaign and that it will then take that as the mandate. So the referendum has “gone by lunchtime”. That party cannot be trusted. It has no policy no integrity and no credibility.