Dyson Ruth: General Debates 
Dyson Ruth: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8768] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have been in this House for nearly 10 years and during that time and in the past I have seen policy and legislation introduced that has made me and other members of the House pretty angry. But I have never ever seen such disgraceful behaviour as was exhibited in the House yesterday by Stephen Franks Winston Peters and Bill English. I am not alone in feeling such disgust at their behaviour. 
New Zealanders know that when a team is playing badly its members should look to themselves and not blame the ref. New Zealanders know that a fair trial has to have the accused person being able to defend himself or herself. New Zealanders also know that when a member of their family is killed they deserve support because they will understandably be distraught. I think we should debate policy and not attack people. I particularly believe that we should not attack people whose job means they cannot defend themselves or whose job means they are not able to defend themselves. That is a very basic request that I propose to this House. 
My next point is about the family members of someone who has been killed. I will never forget the smirk on the face of Mr English as that young man’s response to his family member’s murder was used in this House. I will never forget the smirk on Mr English’s face as that man’s name was brought into this House. It is not something that has happened in the past and I certainly hope we can learn from it. A young man who was overcome by grief— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are some things that you cannot allow to go past. That Minister’s coming down to the Chamber and making up someone else’s facial expressions in that way is outrageous it is wrong and she knows it. She is making it up. It is like saying that the Prime Minister was sitting there giggling at the same time. That was not the way that either the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister were behaving. The Minister does herself a disservice by that sort of game. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was here yesterday and I certainly share the Minister’s observations of what happened and the disgust at that behaviour. I have to ask myself though as members of the House would ask themselves how Mr Sowry who sits alongside Mr English would notice the expression on his face. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not raised this point of order today because this is the Wednesday afternoon debate but all of the honourable Minister’s speech was out of order. In fact it was grossly out of order. Members cannot debate a point of order. If members want to raise a matter about a point of order it has to be done at the time. The Minister’s whole debate is about a point of order. I object to it because she referred to one of my members who made a purely factual statement. She is now making up things that did not happen with regard to Stephen Franks’ contribution to the debate. In no way could it be said to be an attack on the Speaker. 
I also want to say that if what the Minister is saying is correct then there was a breach of the Standing Orders. Members cannot attack the Speaker. That has not been so ruled. Her whole speech is out of order and it is creating disorder. Why does she not do something revolutionary and debate the Government’s policies? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for raising that issue and for explaining it. Mr Prebble is absolutely right. Members may not refer in their speeches to points of order or discussions during points of order. I was remiss in allowing that to continue. Members may not do that and I ask the speaker not to do that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I remember the lessons the nuns taught us at school—about standards values principles respect for people and telling the truth. I am around the same age as the current Leader of the Opposition and we share the same religious upbringing. I am sure he heard those same lessons. It is obvious that he has let down his party. However in my view he has now gone a lot further than that. He has let down the very basic values that our community believes in—the values that in obviously more politically convenient times he espouses as his own. 
With Winston Peters frankly not a lot surprises me. He is totally lacking in principle. He thrives on insinuation and innuendo and has no regard at all for the damage he does to people outside this House. Stephen Franks is pretty similar. But for the so-called Leader of the Opposition Bill English not just to condone but to agree deliberately to be a key part in attacking public servants and attacking people who are unable to defend themselves and to use the tragedy of a woman’s murder to drag themselves out of the political mire is something that I find very difficult to accept. 
I guess when one has no policy no leadership and no principles one does resort to this sort of behaviour. At 7 percent in the polls and clearly falling it is no wonder that Mr English is in the state he is in. He is a coup waiting to happen.