Parker David: General Debate 
Parker David: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:5028] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me no pleasure to criticise a former member of this House. Indeed on this side of the House I think we have been very careful not to criticise many of the former members of this House who have been appointed to important positions by the new Government. I am talking about people like Roger Sowry a very able man who was appointed to the Electricity Commission. 
But I have to say that the appointment of Dr Brash to the productivity task force is in a different category. We really have to ferret under the veneer of that appointment to consider what lies underneath it. Dr Brash is an economic fundamentalist he is a zealot and he is a proven liar. It does not reflect well on the National Government if it thinks about the fact that just a small number of years ago Dr Brash had to resign having secured what was a very good election result for National. He had brought National back from the abyss of terrible polling and just about won an election for it yet he had to resign because he was caught lying. He was caught lying in the most important contest that we ever have in this country and that is when we have an election. He told lies in order to try to win Government. When that was exposed in the book  
The Hollow Men 
 he was forced to resign because it was such an embarrassment to National and he was an albatross around its neck. He did what he did then because he has always thought that the ends justify the means. 
His political career started when he became to all ostensible purposes the independent Governor of the Reserve Bank. He did a despicable thing when he was there: he politicised that office. Whilst he was Governor of the Reserve Bank he was in negotiations with the National Party to get himself an electable place on the National Party list and he corrupted that office through that action. He then did despicable things when he was leader of the National Party. This Parliament 5 years later is trying to clean up some of the problems with the foreshore and seabed. Who was the person in this House who fuelled the fires of racism in this country in respect of the foreshore and seabed? It was under the leadership— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a well-known convention about the sort of language one uses when referring to a former member of this House. 
Moana Mackey 
: No there isn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjections while I am listening to this point of order. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I have been told that on many occasions when I have erred by getting stuck into former members of this House. I have been told that not only by the previous Speaker but by the Speaker before that as well. I suggest to that member—and that you should tell him—that those who have served in this place have no recourse other than to write a letter to you and ask for their position to be put before the House. I think it behoves us to be careful what we say about former members. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No such convention offering protection to former members is recognised in the Standing Orders or the Speakers’ rulings other than what the member himself said. If former members or members of the public listening feel that something that has been said casts aspersions on them they have direct recourse to you in terms of privilege. But the member himself during the debate has been interjecting about a former member and saying that that person is a liar. The member himself has been engaging in a breach of the convention he is bringing to your attention. I think this is a robust Wednesday debate and the flow of the debate must continue. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not hear anything further on this matter. I accept the point made by the Hon Darren Hughes in that I do not believe there is a Standing Order that prevents members from attacking former members of this House. But I say that the privileges in this House should be treated with respect. I do not wish to hear ugly attacks on people who cannot defend themselves. I ask members to think carefully before they make vicious attacks on people who are not in this Chamber and are not able to defend themselves. It is perfectly within the member’s rights to do so; I just ask him to reflect on how much dignity he brings to this place by doing so. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. We have freedom of speech in this House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague; I thought he was taking a point of order. With all due respect Mr Speaker I think you have actually entered the debate of the House with your last ruling. I do not say that to challenge you in any way. You have expressed an opinion about the quality of the debate not about the nature of the Standing Orders and the procedures that govern the debate; your job is to referee on that. In your initial ruling you said that there are no Speakers’ rulings or Standing Orders that govern that and I think you did—well I think I have made my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes but I am just trying to make the point that I do not believe it does this House good to make a vicious attack on a person who is not inside the House. It is perfectly within the rights of members to do so and there is nothing wrong with robust debate at all but we should think of the way in which we do it. New Zealanders outside this House cannot defend themselves and it reflects on all of us. I accept the point that the Hon Darren Hughes has made. It is a perfectly good point and I do not wish to go any further than that other than to ask members to reflect on the fact that it reflects on all of us when we launch an attack. There is nothing wrong with an attack it is just the viciousness of it. I ask members to think about that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No more serious lie can be told in this country than a lie told during an election to win Government. That is a very proper thing to say. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a convention in this House about using the word “lie” and I ask you to reflect on that convention. To be calling people a name of that nature is uncalled for and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I note that I have freedom of speech in this House. You have ruled that what I am saying is in order. My speech which is on an important issue has been broken up and I hope that I am protected by the Speaker in my right to free speech and that this time is not being deducted from the time of my speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I absolutely assure the member that the time is not being deducted. The issue around the accusation of lying applies to members in this House and therefore I will not be asking the member to withdraw and apologise. But I repeat what I have said. The privileges we have in this House are very precious to us and we should not abuse them. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. The privileges of free speech are dearly held. I do not abuse them. I am recounting facts that are on the public record. Dr Brash lied in order to try to win the election. He politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The person the member is referring to was the leader of a political party the National Party during an election. It is my belief that David Parker has not only besmirched the name of Dr Brash but also by implication— 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s the point of order? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Well if the member would just shut up and listen— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should come to his point of order quickly. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: To explain the point of order takes a bit of time. My point of order is that by implication that member has called members of the National Party a pack of liars as well. I take offence at being by implication referred to as a liar. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I do not believe a valid point of order has been expressed to you at all Mr Speaker. One cannot take offence on behalf of somebody who is not even a member of the House. The member himself once famously referred to the United States Secretary of Labor Mr Robert Reich by using another pronunciation of that word that referred to Nazi Germany. There were several points of order about it because it was so offensive to a man of Jewish descent. Mr Henare was absolutely unrepentant about that outside the House. At question time the Prime Minister has refused to answer questions about a former member of Parliament on the basis that the former member is now a private citizen. The only point of order here concerns that fact that there is a deliberate strategy by the Government to break up a member’s speech despite you having laid claim to our freedom of speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe there is a deliberate strategy; I believe that members are concerned to hear a respected New Zealand citizen attacked in a vicious way. It is the absolute right of members to have freedom of speech in this House and I will uphold that right. But the member must be careful not to impugn the integrity of other members of the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order but it is similar to the one I raised before. In your last comment you entered the debate. You called someone a respected New Zealander and you referred to something that had been said about him as a vicious attack. You made a debating point in your ruling. I think you are entering the Wednesday debate when you speak in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. I am quite aware of what I am doing. For some months since I have been elected Speaker of this House I have been concerned about the tone of this House. The tone has improved enormously this term and I do not want to see that lost. But I will uphold the member’s right to freedom of speech in this House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I lost respect for Dr Brash when he lied to the New Zealand electorate in his attempt to win the Treasury benches. That further reinforced my view that he had politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. Further we know he is an economic fundamentalist. He does not favour the minimum wage. He wants flattened tax rates. He does not think we should have compulsory savings. He stands for many things openly and it is his right to do so but the Government should not present him as a person who will come up with new ideas to improve productivity in New Zealand as compared with Australia. He is revisiting his old agenda because he has no other. That is the point and in the context of his background—he lied to New Zealand and politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank—it is an inappropriate appointment to visit upon this country. That is why I am criticising it. It is quite within my rights to point out his actions when he was in this House when he lied to the country when he fuelled the flames around the foreshore and seabed issue and when prior to that he politicised the office of Governor of the Reserve Bank. All those acts were disgraceful. This man does not have my respect and he should not be in charge of the productivity task force.