Fairbrother Russell: General Debate 
Fairbrother Russell: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20487] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 It is with some diffidence that I a mere newcomer to this Chamber will try to tackle a leader of another party but when I consider that his time in this Chamber is the same length as my own I feel a little more enthused and encouraged. 
I think it is a sad day for the leadership of parties when they seek to make leadership an issue on a false premise. The false premise of course was revealed when Dr Don Brash tabled in the House yesterday the full brief of evidence of the Prime Minister in the proceedings of Doone against Independent News Auckland Ltd. Interestingly before doing that Dr Brash quoted half a passage in the document and either he did not write the question or he was distracted from reading the full passage because the truth of what was contained in the statement— 
John Carter 
: Yes Don Brash can talk about the truth. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Yes he should talk about the truth because the effect of the statement was to underscore the integrity of what the Prime Minister had said on 3 May 4 May and 10 May. [ 
Interruption 
] If Mr Carter would just listen rather than follow the method in this House whereby those with nothing to say make a lot of noise he would hear what the brief of evidence said. Clearly the member has not read it or he would not have made the statement he made a few seconds ago. 
At paragraph 28 in the brief the Prime Minister stated: “Mr Alley wanted information about process and also whether the information held by Ministers was consistent with information he had obtained from his inquiries. … I would have confirmed to him that information held by Ministers included allegations that the Constable who stopped the car occupied by the Commissioner had a sniffer in his hand. It also included information that Mr Doone was said to have stated to the constable during the discussion that ‘that won’t be necessary’ seemingly as a reference to the use of the device. “I am informed that Mr Alley said he put those propositions to me and I said words to the effect of ‘you’re not wrong’. I accept that this is correct although I do not have a current recollection of this detail. I am certain that I drew attention to the issue that Mr Doone had disputed these details during the inquiries to which I have referred.” That is the totality of what the Prime Minister said in that interview with Mr Alley and is entirely consistent—if members care to reflect—with the answers given in this House. 
Further the call from Mr Alley on the next day is dealt with at paragraph 31 of the brief—which has been available even for Mr Hide to have someone read it to him—“I recall that the discussion with Mr Alley focused on his view that the key issue was whether the Commissioner had erred in talking to the constable given that the constable recognised who he was and that this may have resulted in normal procedures not being followed. I recall that when discussing the Constable’s evidence I emphasised the need to make it clear that Mr Doone had described the events differently.” 
That is precisely what the Prime Minister said to this House in response to questions from various members and of course it throws into question the leadership of the parties that have tried deliberately to misquote this brief of evidence. I say “deliberately” because they have now had the brief of evidence as a tabled document since yesterday morning and any member making assertions in question time today or in the general debate this afternoon does so in the face of that document. It would be surprising if anyone in this House—knowing what is in the document—spoke differently about this issue. It would suggest only that those making the noise in this general debate and at question time have not taken the rudimentary step of reading the brief of evidence that is there for all to see. 
If they had we would have had apologies today from Mr Hide from Dr Brash and from those who asserted that the Prime Minister had told two different stories. We would not have had that attempt by Gerry Brownlee to humiliate the Prime Minister by suggesting that she should come down and confirm she did not lie to the paper when of course all she had been talking about was not the truth of what happened but about the information she had and its coincidence or otherwise with what the newspaper had. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she seen the transcript? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Obviously Mr Hide has been so busy with his own importance that he has not had time to read this brief; otherwise he would have moved to an entirely different subject. In the very generous way he has I am sure he will come to me to get the brief shortly have someone read it to him—or I will read it to him—and as he takes a speech later in this or the next general debate admit that the Prime Minister has acted with the integrity we would expect from her. A lack of integrity shows up the lack of leadership of others in this House in other parties—which perhaps demonstrates why the polls reflect that the Prime Minister is someone who provides leadership. Others who aspire to that leadership start from shaky ground and the public realise that rhetoric is empty noise without any substance.