Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6722] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The Hon Clayton Cosgrove observed just moments ago that the afternoon had been a bit of an audition for the future of the National Party leadership. That audition ended when Maurice Williamson took the call. The first three National members who came out to speak were Gerry Brownlee of course because he has to; Bill English because he has another position in mind that he is quite keen on; and Simon Power who gave a repositioning speech—not seeing the elephant in the room at all. Simon Power wanted to talk about everything apart from a certain book lying in a warehouse somewhere. He wanted to show that he was the visionary statesman and a man of substance on law and order issues. But the only thing we can ever remember about him is the following remark: “Wheresoever our troops are called upon without reservation we will follow other countries.” It will take many years before the memory of that remark will go. 
After those three people had spoken nobody else wanted to speak. Nobody else in the National Party wanted to take a call and defend the leader—apart from Maurice Williamson of course who has gone through four or five epochs of time when it comes to the leadership. He is looking forward to Mr Bolger’s grandchild coming in as the National Party leader. The member for Pakuranga will still be there. The next National member who looks as though he will speak is Tau Henare. Mr Henare does not bother too much about what the topic of the day is; as long as he can stand up and let off a bit of steam that suits Mr Henare’s deep political philosophy. 
So that is the National Party line-up today: the deputy leader who is paid to speak in that regard; Bill English who wants his old job back; Simon Power who is trying to fix up a previous mistake; Maurice Williamson who is kind of eclipsing them all; and Tau Henare who cannot believe his luck that he is back in here. 
Politics is a very interesting place. We have seen the Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark out around the place and around the world. We have seen her being able to advance New Zealand’s trade interests at APEC being able to push the issue of climate change—which the National Party has only just woken up to in Opposition at least—and being able to see her Government’s policies come through by way of the Supergold card in partnership with New Zealand First. Those policies are happening internationally and domestically to make a difference and the Prime Minister is showing what leadership can do to make a difference for ordinary people. 
What has been going on in the Opposition leadership while the Government leadership has been busy on behalf of the people? Well quite a lot. But most of it has been taking place not in Parliament—not on the floor of the House—but in the courtroom. National members have been trying to defend their leader and trying to see whether they can shift political debate. The most interesting thing about what we are seeing at the moment is that this is not an attack by the Labour Party on the National Party; this is an attack on the National Party by the National Party. This is how these people treat each other. They reserve all their venom all their disloyalty and all their sense of strategic purpose not for an attack on Labour New Zealand First United Future or the Greens—oh no; they reserve all their strategic brilliance for undermining and undoing each other. 
Of course Don Brash is a person who will not be in politics for a whole lot longer so let us not focus on Don Brash too much other than to mention a remark he made that appears in Nicky Hager’s preface which he has made available to the media. Nicky Hager states: “Don Brash had a deeply cynical approach to winning the votes of those whom Brash described as [omitted owing to the injunction].” I want to know from Don Brash how he describes the New Zealand people in his email when he is talking about us because the court said that it could not be printed and it is quite clear here that it has been omitted. I want to know what language Don Brash uses when he is casually referring to the New Zealand people when talking to his colleagues. We know that Nicky Hager states that his approach is “deeply cynical” so why does Don Brash not take a call and tell us how he talks about New Zealanders? I suspect that that will be one of the most embarrassing things for the National Party when the information comes out. 
I ask National members this question: how many of them are proud of the injunction taken by Don Brash? How many of them back their leader over the injunction he took last Friday? Not one single hand went up on the Opposition benches. Not one of those members believe that what Don Brash did last week was in the best interests of New Zealand democracy. All of them are sitting on their hands because they will not back their leader. 
But this is not about Don Brash any more. It is much broader than that. It now goes to John Key. John Key who is the putative leader of the National Party—we know that only because that is what he tells everybody—is lining up for the job but he will find his credibility under attack in this book. Here I have a photo of Mr Key the member for Helensville meeting in his electorate office with two of the strategists for the National Party who are members of the Exclusive Brethren church. There is nothing wrong with that; one can meet with those kinds of people if one wants to. But when we find out that those people are writing National Party policy and strategy having an influence on the campaign and donating $1.2 million in kind to the National Party it is of concern. And that is not a Labour Party claim. The Exclusive Brethren wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer saying they wanted to spend $1.2 million. The Chief Electoral Officer wrote back to the National Party and asked as one of four questions posed to it what it would do about that. National answered the first three questions but could not answer any others.