Goff Phil: General Debate 
Goff Phil: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6712] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 If I were in the same party as Gerry Brownlee and if I were ever in trouble I would hope like hell someone else was sent to rescue me. Gerry Brownlee could scarcely contain himself at the thought of being one step closer to his ambition. Bill English is the same. What did the  
New Zealand Herald  
say about Bill English? It said he would get over his bitterness—but he will get over his bitterness he hopes by exacting utu on the man who betrayed him and stabbed him in the back. 
Any credibility that Dr Brash had left must surely have been destroyed by his taking out an injunction last week. In my entire time in politics I cannot recall any political leader taking out a court injunction in order to stop his or her own actions and views on public issues from being published. That is what Don Brash is doing. I have never seen a leader so scared that the exposure of his actions and his thinking will reveal deceit and double standards. There are only two things keeping Don Brash in his seat today. One is the mutual distrust and hatred between the pretenders who want his job: Gerry Brownlee Bill English John Key and some even say Simon Power such is the depth of the desperation of the National Party. The second thing of course is the indecisiveness of John Key and the uncertainty among his colleagues as to whether he has what it takes. 
What Don Brash is suppressing Mr Chairman is not details about his private life. I do not give a damn about his private life; I just wish he would be consistent in his judgment of others given his private life. What Dr Brash is suppressing— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the speech but I do think we need some decorum. We should refer to the Speaker as the Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not take any inference from that. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What Dr Brash is suppressing are his actual thoughts about public issues and his real motivation and actions which he does not care to have exposed. This is the man who says he believes in transparency and openness as Leader of the Opposition but does not apply those same principles to his own thoughts and actions. Perhaps Dr Brash fears that the exposure of his cables and emails will show that what he thinks is not what he says that the people he represents are not the mainstream that he claims to represent and that far from being the innocent and rather naive politician that he would like to portray himself as he is a deeply cynical man in everything that he has done. He does not want the private actions of Dr Brash contrasted with what he says publicly because that is death for Dr Brash. 
 I have not seen the book. I am told however that it contains a number of emails among other things from National Party secretary Steven Joyce from Don Brash himself from John Key—interestingly the man who claimed he had nothing to do with the Exclusive Brethren—and from the Exclusive Brethren themselves. Will Dr Brash now admit before it is exposed that he knew about the Exclusive Brethren’s plans to spend $1 million - plus on electing a National Government months before he denied any knowledge of these plans? He claimed that he knew nothing about them when in fact he knew all along what they intended to do. That will be shown in the emails. 
Will the National Party admit that for months it had been communicating over the wording of the substance— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is referring to emails. Standing Order 111 “Matters awaiting judicial decision” applies here and the member cannot refer to the emails. I ask that he withdraw those comments and apologise for them under Standing Order 111(b). 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that. The member speaking has freedom of speech and if he considers it right he has the opportunity to raise that issue through debate in the House. He is doing just that. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is exactly freedom of speech that this debate is about. Dr Brash does not want the public to know— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect very carefully on that ruling. During the 20 years that I have been in this House members have been given very stern warnings from Speakers that if any matter is before the court members do not have the right to override the directions of the court and raise it in the House. In fact a Minister today refused to answer a question on a particular issue because the case involved—even though the defendant has been found guilty—has not yet gone to sentencing. 
You have just said that it is up to members of this House to decide themselves if they wish to raise any matter whether or not it is before the court. Mr Assistant Speaker I think that flies in the face of every ruling I have heard over my time and I ask you to reflect on it seriously. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution and refer him to Speakers’ ruling 32/4. The issue is not currently before the court. Speakers’ ruling 32/4 states: “While members are not bound in the House by a suppression of name order they should use their privilege to break such an order only in the most exceptional circumstances. Members should take care never to abuse the privilege of free speech and in that respect they should respect the position of the judiciary in the judiciary’s sphere just as members would expect the judiciary to respect the privileges of Parliament.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I do not want to make it sound as though we are particularly touchy about this. I am sure you will allow the debate to flow. But the point that was raised by Mr Williamson remains open. The reality is that what we are talking about is an interim injunction while the decision about an injunction is being considered by the court. Further to that there are three applications before the court I understand to have the interim injunction quashed. So to say that this matter is not before the court is wrong. 
Having said that I make it very clear that we do accept your decision with regard to the freedom of speech in this matter and that it will be observed by us. But I think that just racing to that particular determination might in other cases do a little damage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his considered reply. We live in a democracy and there is freedom of speech but I ask the member to be careful in what he says to the House. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on the point of order. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: This is a new point of order. The matter is still before the courts. An aspect of it may be dealt with by way of interlocutory application for an interim injunction. The matter is still before the court and the substantive matter is yet to be tried so in actual fact it is quite wrong to say the matter has been dealt with. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: As an ex parte injunction this is not an interlocutory injunction. It remains standing until a party files an application to review. It is a final judgment on an ex parte application. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the honourable member that there are subsequent actions. The member needs to be careful about the issues he raises. Under those circumstances I now call the member. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The National Party is deeply embarrassed by what may be revealed about Dr Brash because the fact has come out that this is not a stolen or hacked email; these are emails or letters or information given by members deep within the National Party who are probably known personally by Dr Brash. 
The title of the book being suppressed by the party that claims to believe in freedom of speech is  
The Hollow Men 
 a title taken from a poem by T S Eliot. It implies a lack of principle substance and decency at the core of the National Party leadership—not simply in Dr Brash but in Mr Key and others as well. Maybe “hollow” is not the right word because the National Party core may be devoid of principle and policy substance but it is amply filled as we will see with ambition cynicism double standards and dishonesty. 
I say to Dr Brash that it is time to go but do us one last favour and lift the injunction so that we can see the evidence ourselves and determine the truth. For the National Party the T S Eliot poem may be prophetic. It ends with the words that the world will end “Not with a bang but a whimper.” So it will be for Dr Brash.