Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20684] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 After that rant I can say that we have seen in the last week some very very interesting leadership manoeuvres and in one case open rebellion. If we look first at the National Party in respect of manoeuvres we see that we now have—[ 
Interruption 
] We hear from the swamp-dweller Mr Hide. We have Mr Key who is the new pin-up boy for the National Party. Anybody who saw the  
Sunday 
 programme would be advising Mr Key not to worry about attacks from the Government but to worry about attacks from his own side. We know that some very very brassed-off people are on that side now. Simon Power was demoted. He cannot write his own defence speeches—Jon Johansson from Victoria University does that. Mr Power is brassed off. Gerry Brownlee the woodwork teacher who is whittling away over there is brassed off. Katherine Rich who was executed because she disagreed with her leader is brassed off. Those three people believe that they have a greater claim than the so-called—as some National members have told me and I do not use this in a derogatory sense—upstart from Helensville. 
I will ask some questions because there are manoeuvrings. Why is Dr Brash polling only 2 percent behind Winston Peters? Where has the fall come from? Has panic broken out on the National benches? I say that panic has broken out. Why for instance did Dr Brash on Tuesday as we know blow his stack in caucus? It was because he found out for the first time that Richard Worth and Murray McCully were actively and intensely negotiating the so-called power-sharing agreement with two New Zealand First members. Poor old Dr Brash had not known so he blew. 
Then we found out who those two New Zealand First members were. One was Ron Mark and the other—ironically; I had not heard of him for a while or ever—was Edwin Perry. The problem was that Winston Peters like Don Brash did not know about the power-sharing agreement either. So he blew his stack to many a journalist around here. I am glad that Ron Mark came out with a flak jacket on today because as God is my witness when he next bumps into Winston Peters he will need it—not on the front but on the back. 
Then we turn to open rebellion. Open rebellion has to do with the ACT party. We heard a rant from the swamp-dweller who of course has a wonderful track record of executing people before they are judged— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am slightly reluctant to do this but I think that it does not add to the decorum of the House for Rodney Hide to be called a swamp-dweller. If no one on his own side will come to his aid I will ask that the member desist from doing that. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. Perhaps the more technical term would be “oceanic version of a bottom-dweller”. This is very interesting. The ACT party is haemorrhaging. We read in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “One source told the Herald that the party was ‘haemorrhaging members money and votes’ ”—Alan Gibbs must have closed his wallet—“and having Mr Banks on board was seen as a way of reversing that.” Deborah Coddington has given up. Donna Awatere Huata—a great member of credibility of course—is history. I do not hear certain people from the bottom of the sewer reminding the House about that. Then we have to ask ourselves whether John Banks would actually make it. 
In the  
New Zealand Herald  
article 
we found out that there has been open rebellion: “The courtship between John Banks and the Act Party has been rekindled as a group of desperate party members work to woo the former Auckland City mayor.” The article 
goes on to state: “Well-placed Act sources supporting the move believe Mr Banks would revitalise the party but his added appeal was that he would attract some National Party voters …”. We have to ask whether there is any evidence for that. Who would want to put up the list a broken-down claiming horse like the former Auckland mayor who got blown away and whose campaign manager one Brian Nicholle told porkies—just happens to be defended by that man of credibility Rodney Hide who is a good mate of his? There is somebody else whom I think Mr Peters brought up in the House who Mr Hide said was a good mate and now that person is in trouble. Who is Brian Nicholle? The ACT campaign manager! 
I looked for evidence—unlike Mr Hide—of the factional warfare in the ACT party. Where is the evidence? Today I was contacted by one of the factions in the ACT party which obtained an item that I will table. It is an unusual item—it promotes John Banks. I received that item today and I was told that one of the factions had produced it. It is a simple pen that has printed on it: “John Banks for Prime Minister”. Who on earth other than an ACT party faction that is trying to get rid of “spongy pud” over there would produce pens like that? Only an ACT party faction. I suspect that John Banks will be the ACT leader before the next election—even outside Parliament. 
I seek the leave of the House to table a pen produced by an ACT party faction—I am not sure which one—promoting John Banks— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has identified it sufficiently. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.