Duynhoven Harry: General Debates 
Duynhoven Harry: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8550] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 My speech today is about honesty in politics particularly with regard to National’s maladies. By that I do not mean melodies of the musical kind; I mean maladies of the disease and sickness kind. Talented people have been dismissed from the National Party. Why for example was an MP as talented and decent as Belinda Vernon relegated so far down the list that she is no longer here in the House? She should have been on National’s front bench. Let us look at the talent or lack of it on National’s current front bench. What did Belinda Vernon do wrong? Did she back the wrong leader perhaps? If we look at National’s front bench we see two out of the seven members have been here one parliamentary term and yet they have leapfrogged well over the heads of many of the other National members. 
Let us look at some honest comments. There are some honest comments from National people. Let us look at John Upton Pakuranga’s deputy chair of the National Party. He says that there is an 80 percent dissatisfaction with National by the party’s financial members the quality of the National Party’s message could be compromised and the front-bench members of the party would be crazy to ignore the fact that in the eyes of the public they still have not got their act together. I think that is a pretty honest comment from a National Party person. He has certainly been very honest and forthright about the way that the party has treated Maurice Williamson. 
Let us look at the honesty in the way that National has treated people. We can look at things like Mr English’s treatment of the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Clerk when he made in his own words—“a very bad error of judgment that lasted about 2 minutes—absolutely no defence of that. I could not offer any.” That is Mr English’s comment about his own conduct when he made threatening comments towards the Deputy Speaker and the Clerk a few years ago in this House. What about Mr Brownlee who strong armed a National Party member who was being thrown out of a conference and later had to settle I think at $8500 in a civil case against him? What about Nick Smith over the years and his court cases—November 1992 October 1996 November 2000 December 2000 2002 and 2003? One or two of them he has won but many of them have been right off the rails. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has alleged that I have been in court in 1992 in 1996—I have never never appeared in a court hearing. I would ask the member to desist from spreading untruths. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. If the member has taken offence which I understand he has would the member please withdraw? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I withdraw if the member has taken offence. But I did not say that he had been in court. I said those were cases that were often dealt with in the courts. But let us look at the allegations used. [ 
Interruption 
] I will move on from that. Perhaps I should just table the list. 
We have seen a number of occasions when National really is in some trouble. We have some issues where National will never let the truth or the facts get in the way of a good story. Let us look at the way that Mr English and the National Party have reacted to different situations around the country. For instance we can look at the so-called “flatulence tax” and the honesty in that debate. Who signed the Kyoto Protocol? Was it the previous National Government? Why has that not been in the media and where is National’s level of honesty on that issue? I ask Dr Smith this: who stated that emissions should be part of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations? Was it a Labour Government? Oh no it was the previous National Government. Where is the honesty in that? Why was that not said by National members out on the front steps of Parliament when they had all the farmers out there? Why have National members not been honest with their own constituency? Why have they not fronted up to their own constituency and said that was the position that they had advocated for? They wanted the emissions from animals to be included and now even though farmers have an exemption until 2012 when other industries have to pay carbon taxes years sooner than that why do we still have the nonsense cant and absolutely misleading comments from National Party members? Why are their own people the farmers who support them so confused about this whole issue that they write National Party research note letters and put them in the media? 
I am rather tired of the dishonesty in this House. There is a real difference between an experienced member of Parliament deliberately breaking the law and the position that I found myself in. I find the National Party’s continual raising of that as though I had deliberately broken the law to be something that is less than honest or desirable. I have been absolutely honest—in stark contrast with the farming members of the National Party who have not been out there on the hustings telling their own constituents what the real position is and why the National Government of the day insisted on emissions from animals being included in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I invite that member to go back to his chair and to look at the previous National Government’s own Cabinet minutes. The National Party cannot have it both ways. It claims to represent the farming community and yet it is absolutely dishonest with farmers. I know that the levy per animal—not a tax on emissions but a levy per animal—is deeply unpopular with farmers. But at least it is a straightforward and an honest solution.