Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:652;Page:1417] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I make it clear to the people of New Zealand that the member who has just resumed his seat is Colin King who is I think the member for Marlborough. I think he used the word “stunning” seven times. 
Colin King 
: I would like to correct that member. I seek leave to correct the member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to correct a statement made by the honourable member. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Colin King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has dealt with that point of order Mr King. Is it a new point of order? 
Colin King 
: Yes. I want to inform the member that I am the MP for Kaikoura. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not actually a point of order and it is not good to interrupt a member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member has just made the point I wanted to be made. I wanted him to be identified to people who are watching television and more important listening to the radio. He used the word “stunning” seven times. I think he should take some advice from John Carter as to whether it is an appropriate word to use so often in the Chamber. Mr Carter’s experience with that word has not always been positive. 
I ask the Prime Minister why he is so afraid to front up to what he has been saying about Fisher and Paykel Appliances. During question time today— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is not afraid of fronting up to anyone in this country. If the gentleman who is giving the speech cares to know just how much New Zealanders appreciate Mr Key’s outward nature then he will learn of that later this evening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point and it is well made. The honourable member on his feet cannot in any way impugn the courage of members of the House. He cannot imply that anyone is afraid to do anything. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Prime Minister appears to be considerably reluctant to repeat in the Chamber the comments he made to Radio New Zealand. He dismisses Radio New Zealand transcripts as being blogs because they have come from a blog site. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We call them “Radio Labour”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Did he say it or did he not? Did he or did he not say that he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse? All we want from the Prime Minister is the truth. 
In the Chamber earlier today he said that because the transcript was on a blog it was not true. I say that when a transcript from Radio New Zealand is on a blog— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Breathe through your nose. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Let us just get the facts. Why will the Prime Minister not back his courage on Radio New Zealand with similar courage in this Chamber? Why will he not be consistently courageous? Why does the Prime Minister hide when he is in the Chamber but when he is outside it he is prepared to make statements? 
He said he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse. Did he say it once? Yes. Did he say it twice? Yes he did; he said it twice. We want to know who got to the Prime Minister. Was it Bill English who got to the Prime Minister and said “Look you can’t just go around making comments.”? Maurice Williamson is putting up his hand. Was it Maurice Williamson who got to the Prime Minister and said “I remember something about Telecom or something which means that you can’t make comments that could well affect a share price.”? 
Did the Prime Minister’s comments affect the share price? It only went up by over 30c following the Prime Minister’s comments. Were those events directly related? Did the people of New Zealand who were investing in the sharemarket listen to the Prime Minister and then bid the price back up by 30c or did that happen as an absolute coincidence? I think the problem is unfortunately that in this particular case some people did believe the Prime Minister when he said he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse. 
Whether or not Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapses is not the issue here; it is the fact that we must have a system that has clear criteria if firms are going to be supported. It is something that has to apply— 
Paul Quinn 
: Speak up Trevor; I can’t hear. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
:—to smaller firms as well as to bigger firms. The member obviously has a problem that causes that. We have to make sure that the criteria apply to firms that have people who work in New Zealand—certainly the balance of their workforce. We need to consider questions of research. What is the effect on research and development in New Zealand of having particular firms here? Presumably we want to have questions of ownership considered as one of the factors. If all the jobs are offshore all the research is offshore and all the ownership is offshore—or the majority of all of them—is that the sort of company that we want to put taxpayers’ money into? 
There are clearly a lot of areas where criteria have to be developed and for the Prime Minister to say he will not let a particular firm collapse is something he should not do until those criteria have been developed.