Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7342] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I was listening for Gerry Brownlee to clap then and he did not—not one clap. Before John Key goes out I want to ask him who was telling the truth. Was it him when he said he spent the entire summer writing his speech or was it Bill English who said he wrote the speech because John Key knows nothing about social policies? Who was telling the truth? Was Bill English telling the truth when he said he wrote the speech that was given at Burnside because John Key knows nothing about social policy or was John Key telling the truth when he said he spent the entire summer writing it? One of them is not telling the truth; one of them is telling fibs. It would be good to know which one of them it is. I note that neither of them are taking a point of order to defend themselves. Neither of them are getting up and saying: “I wrote the speech.” I will put money on it: I believe Bill English because the speech was too good to be written by John Key. 
John Key has not had a great start. Today at question time we saw his hand shake in a way that we in this Parliament have not seen a hand shake through nerves since Jenny Shipley was Prime Minister. It is a sign of someone who is exceptionally uncomfortable. It got worse as question time went on—and so frankly did the questions. I have never seen Opposition members back for the first day of questions for the year with their heads down at the end of question time in the way National members were today. They were embarrassed. 
I ask Bill English another question: why if he really wants to get into Government did he call the Greens “toxic”? I am sure there will be a neat discussion—[ 
Interruption 
] We will get to it soon. I am sure we will have a neat discussion at the Greens’ caucus meeting next week when Green members say they are in one of those parties that is looking both ways. But they were described as toxic by National’s deputy leader—effectively the co-leader the real leader the puppeteer who runs the National Party. He said it not only about the Greens to be fair; he said it about New Zealand First as well. It is a question of developing a long-term relationship with New Zealand First and United Future. I would have thought that if he had any idea he wanted to be in Government he would be developing relationships with those parties rather than calling them toxic in the way he did. 
I will make a quick comment about the mortgage levy meeting—[ 
Interruption 
] No no let us make it absolutely clear that an agreement came out of that to get further information mainly because John Key thought it was the most viable of the ideas. John Key was the person who asked for the meeting. John Key wrote for the meeting. I was at the meeting. John Key promoted mortgage levies not just as a tax but as something that when the economy needed stimulation he saw could work in a negative way out of the fund and people who had mortgages could be given more cash in their hands. That was what John Key was promoting very very strongly at the meeting. We have noted despite Bill English’s comments that John Key has not denied that. He cannot deny it because it would be very clear at that point if he did that he was lying. 
I will make one other comment about John Key and his relationship with the truth. I will read to members and get on the record what John Key said on the Springbok Tour. He was asked: “Were you for or against the Springbok Tour?”. This was John Key: “I can’t even remember. Ha ha! In 1981 was I 20? Um I don’t really know. I didn’t have a strong feeling of it at the time I think. It was such a long time ago.” He was asked: “Where were you?”. He said: “Well I was in New Zealand. I am just trying to think. I was in New Zealand. Um it would have been my first year at university. I am trying to work it out. I would have been around 20 then.” I ask members whether anyone in this House can believe that. Is there another member in this House who cannot remember which side he or she was on in 1981 during the Springbok Tour? I opposed it. [ 
Interruption 
] That member cannot remember but she has an addled brain so we will forgive her. [ 
Interruption 
] I was at the game at Auckland. I was protesting. I was a protester in Hamilton. 
David Bennett 
: And you watched the game in Auckland? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I was a protester in Auckland. 
David Bennett 
: No you watched it in Auckland. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Actually I was a protester. I was a marshal in Auckland. That just shows the member’s ignorance. I have a very good memory from 1981 unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I was at the ground at Hamilton. I was at the ground in Auckland. I acted as a marshal in both cases helping people to get on to the ground. So I was there—of course I was. [ 
Interruption 
] What is the member saying? Where was David Bennett? [ 
Interruption 
] I was protesting at both. Can the member not understand that when people went on to the field there were a group of people who made sure they got on to the field and who ran interference as people were getting on to the field? Mr Simich remembers that. Mr Simich had a different approach at the time. Mr Simich is not as silly as David—what is his name? 
Hon Member 
: “Gordon Bennett”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He is not as silly as Gordon Bennett. What I do know is that every single member in this House knows what side he or she was on. Anyone who had left primary school had a view on the Springbok Tour and we know what that view was. To say one cannot remember means one is a liar. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He can’t say that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Outside the House I can. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I find it extraordinary that in 2007 this forward-looking Government wants to have a debate about what occurred in 1981. 
Hon Annette King 
: This is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I further draw your attention Mr Speaker to the fact that I heard Annette King interject on my point of order. When I do that I am required to leave. I ask the same of her. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have one point of order on the floor Mr Mallard. I am sorry I did not hear but if the member interjected would she please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Annette King 
: I withdraw and apologise. It was not a point of order he was raising. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Are we still on the point of order Mr Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I just want you to make it clear that you will rule on this point of order. It was very clear from the first sentence that it was not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My point of order is that on three occasions the Minister has referred to the Leader of the Opposition with a phrase that I will not repeat because it is grossly untrue and it is outside the Standing Orders. I raise a further point of order Mr Speaker—which I have already raised with you—that interjecting on points of order requires a member to leave. You warned Annette King and asked her to withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] She has done it again on a very legitimate point of order that three times the Minister used an unparliamentary phrase about the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to deal with both Annette King and Minister Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Annette King 
: I make two points Mr Speaker. First of all I did not interject—I spoke to Trevor Mallard. I was not speaking to the member. Secondly the member changed the point of order. That was not the original point of order. When he stood a second time he decided to make the point of order about the member’s speech. That was not what he raised in the first instance as the Speaker knows. He changed his point of order. That is not honest. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank all members for their contribution. I ask members to breathe through the nose for a minute. I have to accept the honourable member’s word that she was speaking to the honourable Minister Trevor Mallard but I say to the member on my right that members can never allege that another member has lied—that is in Speaker’s ruling 41/3. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. I will say that I do not believe John Key. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding from the Standing Orders that all points of order are to be heard in silence. It is irrelevant whether a member is speaking to another person on his or her side or to someone across the Chamber. Points of order are to be heard in silence and that is the point of order my colleague was raising. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Points of order must always be put tersely and members must speak only to the point of order. And they must be heard in silence—that is right. That has not happened today or on just this occasion. I give a general warning to members that I will not tolerate any more interference during points of order. In saying that I say to those members who are making points of order that they must be terse and to the point so that they do not invite interjection. 
Paula Bennett 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the issue. 
Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to seek clarification from you Mr Assistant Speaker as a member who does not raise many points of order and who is perhaps a little confused with this. Are you saying now that if I feel that the point of order someone is making is not succinct and is not a strict point of order in my opinion it is OK for me then to interject? Is that what you are saying by your ruling? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to refer to Standing Order 84(3) which is where the ruling comes from. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on whether it is a point of order to get up and say “I am confused”. My understanding is that it is appropriate to draw attention to a particular Standing Order when someone has a point of order. To get up and say “I am confused and I seek clarification” has never been allowed in this House and I ask whether you are going to allow it to continue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have heard members stand and indicate that they are not at all sure what the situation is. I take into consideration that the member is a new member and she has not been here long. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am going to make a couple of points again. First today we saw John Key’s hand shaking. Today I referred not to 1981 but to December 2006 when John Key said that he could not remember what his position was on the Springbok Tour. I say that I do not believe him. I say that I do not believe John Key. 
I also do not believe John Key when he said he wrote the Burnside speech. In this case I believe Bill English who also said he wrote the Burnside speech because John Key according to Bill English knows nothing about social policy. It is clear to anyone who listens to John Key that Bill English is right and John Key does not know anything. 
The next question asks when John Key is going to get rid of the sport utility vehicle (SUV) in which he commutes from the mansion in Parnell out to the electorate. How much does that SUV cost in greenhouse gas emissions? 
Judith Collins 
: Where do you live Trevor? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I live in Wainuiomata and quite often ride my bike in. 
Judith Collins 
: Where do your kids go to school? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My kids left school nearly 10 years ago. What a silly silly member. What is her name? She is the member who is very rough on women who work for her. We have heard about it before and we will hear more about it again although the member is not quite as bad as John Key— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I congratulate the National Party. It got rid of the leaders listed on its website between No. 2 and No. 3 positions but it does not have a new No. 1 yet.