Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:2915] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It is really interesting to see that the pretenders are all here but the leader is not. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member knows that is out of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is a very strong convention in this House that members do not refer to the absence of members but Speakers’ rulings do not make that an absolute. There may be contexts in which it is appropriate. In this particular context where the member was about to discuss certain activities of the Leader of the Opposition it was noticeable that he drifted out of the House just before the end of question time to avoid the start of the general debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member should withdraw. It is a convention that we do not make reference in the House to absences from the Chamber. That is the point the member is wishing to make and I uphold it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. I will start by noting that someone else did as well. Like many New Zealand politicians I have on a number of occasions spent time in the United States studying their political system—right back to 1988 when I was a guest of the US Government to watch the Bush and Dukakis campaigns and watch Dukakis lose the “unloseable” election. I have spent time in the United Kingdom staying at Michael Hirschfeld’s sister’s place and have spent time with the British Labour Party. The difference between the Leader of the Opposition and myself is that I can remember and when asked about the facts I can recall them and I can state them clearly. 
I think that what National Party members are focusing on now in the back rooms all around the place is whether they would prefer to have the leader who gave them the worst loss in their 70-year history the Hon Bill English or John Key the member who during the election campaign when he was enrolling could not work out where he lived. He is the man with $50 million who rearranged his affairs in order to get a Wellington allowance as a member of Parliament. National members are faced with a dilemma and they are trying to work their way through a problem. 
But one thing is very very clear. Don Brash misled the New Zealand public when he said: “There is no one I have met who is an American involved in our campaign.” He knows now that is untrue. He knew previously that was not true. I agree with Bill English that it is not necessarily a lie. It is not necessarily a lie because to lie means one deliberately misleads and knows what one is doing. That is the choice we are faced with on this occasion. Does Don Brash know what he is doing and deliberately misleads or is he just confused and does not understand—as with the Exclusive Brethren? 
Who could do better than Dr Brash at the press conference yesterday? He went into a press conference to refute some comments around an email. Did he have the email? Had he read the email? Maybe. I think he probably had; I think he has short-term confusion—and it may be long term. What did he say? “Can someone pass me the email? I do not have it with me.” He got it from a journalist. He said: “You’re quite right. I had frankly overlooked the fact that they were there.” This is the email about which he called a press conference! This is the email that says an American Julian Robertson had highly recommended strategists for the National Party. This is the email that says Julian Robertson had been recruiting strategists for the National Party. There is nothing wrong with that but if that were the case why did Don Brash say: “There is no one I have met who is an American involved in our campaign.”? Clearly there is. If he knew he lied; if he did not know he is incompetent.