Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20239] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was the most encouraging speech I have heard from the Labour Government in a long time. It is encouraging of National’s aspirations and prospects because—let us be very clear—the golden rule in politics is that one never attacks anything that one is not worried about. So that rowdy attack from the angry young man of the Labour Government is an admission that Labour is on the back foot is disconnected from ordinary New Zealand and is likely to take a pounding in the coming election. 
It is inappropriate in this House to refer to another member as a dishonest person a liar or a hypocrite so I will not say any of those things. But I will ask that people consider the record of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has long been the rule that members using methods of pretending they are not using words to describe a member and then using them have been ruled out of order by Speakers. The member has just done that and I ask you so to rule him out. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is true although it was not quite clear to me where the member was heading. It was not that clear but what the other member says is true. It is absolutely right and I would just remind the member of that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to talk about some things that are factual. I want people to make up their own minds about how they interpret those things. The first thing is the issue with regard to a Mr Yelash. Do people remember the situation with Mr Yelash? He was defamed by the Prime Minister and the taxpayer coughed up $56000 to cover her. Then there was the case of the Auckland surgeon who was defamed. The Prime Minister had to apologise publicly for that defamation. 
There was the “corngate” scandal in which the Prime Minister initially denied that she had been part of a cover-up—part of a process to make that release legal—but was finally caught out. We had the issue of the Historic Places Trust payout when the Prime Minister decided that rather than telling the public exactly what the payout was she would confuse the figure with a whole lot of others. She was eventually caught out. Then we had the “paintergate” scandal. Do members remember that? The Prime Minister initially said she had no recollection—she could not remember—but she ultimately had to confess to signing at least six other paintings having a friend buy that particular painting and having her office burn it on her behalf so destroying the evidence. 
More recently there has been the issue of the speeding motorcade charging across the Canterbury Plains at 140 kilometres an hour. But she had no recollection of how that happened. She did not know it was happening. She did not see that the police were stopping people in the small towns and boroughs of Canterbury as she flashed by. She had no recollection and took no responsibility and now five policemen and one civilian are before the court. Later this year she will be in the court to give her view on that. 
The issue is that no responsibility has been taken. The interesting thing is that this pattern of saying: “I don’t remember; I have no recollection; it was not me.”—or as Homer Simpson would say: “I was not there; it was not me; it did not happen.”—is consistent with the way the Prime Minister has behaved from the day she became leader of this country. 
We have seen in recent days the most disgraceful obfuscation of answers around questions relating to her involvement in the constructive dismissal of then Commissioner of Police Peter Doone back in 2000. I do not want to go into matters relating to the commissioner’s behaviour or otherwise; that is not for me to do. What I do want to talk about is the extraordinary decision by the Prime Minister to tell a newspaper that it was on the right track—that what it wanted to publish as having been said by the commissioner on that particular night at that particular event was not wrong even though she had on her desk two reports that made it clear that that was not correct. For her to come into the House today and yesterday and simply to say she has no recollection cannot remember is sure she would have done so etc. is simply part of the pattern that has marked her style since becoming Prime Minister. 
I think that the Prime Minister owes New Zealanders the truth in this circumstance. It would be so easy for her to make it go away by releasing the brief of evidence that she provided to the court in Mr Doone’s case against the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. She could do that quite simply—perhaps by tabling it in Parliament or by releasing it to one of her favourite journalists—in order that her good name might be protected. One has to ask the reason for the hesitance she clearly has about doing so. The idea that it could be because more litigation is coming is nonsense because if there is nothing wrong there is no basis for litigation. So I want the Prime Minister to accept her responsibility to tell the truth to New Zealanders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Trevor Mallard.