Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1183] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 It is great that Maurice Williamson has spoken in the House today. He proved that he should be on the front bench. If he could only hold his tongue a little bit more and not leak information. Actually he does not leak information from National’s caucus—he just tells everyone in a wonderful open way quite unlike Nick Smith and Bill English who quietly sneak around the back and dump Gerry Brownlee in it. 
It has been a really interesting little exercise to watch National’s leadership work over the last week or so. John Key is complaining because someone is putting the knife into him which is very silly. Gerry Brownlee is being blamed for that by Bill English in order to get Gerry Brownlee’s pot on. But no one went back to Nick Smith and Bill English who were actually the causes of the problem to tell them to stay in line. 
That is probably a sign of the approach of Dr Brash who was pretending to be angry in the House today. That was a fairly sad example of a speech. I think Winston Peters was relatively soft on Dr Brash yesterday. He was amusing but soft because it was almost certainly the worst speech that has ever been given by a Leader of the Opposition in response to a Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of a year. It is actually the easiest speech to give. The Leader of the Opposition receives the speech 4 hours beforehand having had all summer to do the basic preparation. He or she can fine-tune it a bit over those 4 hours and then say it like he or she means it. 
Well Don Brash was stumbling over the words. He looked like he had read it only once. Then he was trying to read it word for word. People do that when they are saying things they do not believe in. One of the things about this House is that members have the ability to come to the House and speak from the heart. But we know that Don Brash cannot do that because when he speaks from the heart and when he says what he really believes then any possible votes for the National Party just go right out the window. We know that when he is unscripted he is either full and frank like he was when he was wrecking the economy in the 1990s or he forgets things like when he could not remember National’s industrial relations policy or its health policy or when he could not remember having had three meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. What leader can a once-grand political party that prided itself on integrity possibly have when that leader goes on National Radio and forgets things? I will be generous. Most people would call him a liar. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not calling him a liar; I am saying most people would do so. I am saying that he is exceptionally forgetful that his memory is weak that it is not deliberate and that it is completely accidental because I could not possibly say anything else in the House. But that is not what is being said outside the House. How can it be that when Murray McCully attacks one group of fundamentalists the National Party is being supported by another fundamentalist sect all around the country? How can it be that a once-grand political party can hostage itself to a tiny minority group of religious fundamentalists and let that group spend half a million dollars supporting it? The group even uses the National Party “N” within its material; delivers stuff for the National Party as well as for the Exclusive Brethren; runs phone canvassing teams including in my own electorate and in most of the country; and has children as young as 14 working on the phones in their scarves for the National Party. All that happened after discussions with Don Brash who pretended that he did not know about it. 
Then by way of contrast Dr Brash had the sudden period of honesty on student radio of all things. He thought no one was listening so he could tell the truth. And it all came out. I just ask members opposite to please keep Don Brash. We think he should be their leader. We want him in the next election because someone who has either that type of integrity or that type of memory is the sort of opponent the Labour Party wants. When he talks to people here about how much it is appropriate to spend and how much it is not appropriate to spend why does he not look in the mirror? Why does he not look at what the National Party put out—funded by Parliamentary Service—during the election campaign and gave out at meetings he attended? I will accept that there were not many copies at those meetings because not many people attended them but some people from the Labour Party went along and collected up the material. We did that because we wanted to make sure that we saw what National was doing and now we know that they have been caught. 
While we are talking about hypocrites we should have a look at this bunch of papers. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.