Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6715] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The 1925 poem by T S Eliot says it all: 
We are the hollow men 
We are the stuffed men 
Leaning together 
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! 
Our dried voices when 
We whisper together 
Are quiet and meaningless 
As wind in dry grass 
Or rats’ feet over broken glass 
In our dry cellar 
Shape without form shade without colour 
Paralysed force gesture without motion; 
What a great description of the Don Brash - led National Party; a “paralysed force”—paralysed since Don Brash walked into the National Party caucus room without the numbers but came out with the prize because he delivered the simple message to that caucus: “No Brash no cash”. That is what he took into that room that day. He said that if the leadership were to change to him that day the money would flow and boy was he right because money bucketed down. It did not just flow it bucketed down.  
One of the emails we can talk about in this House—because it has been produced in the inquiry into electoral spending—is where the Exclusive Brethren ask how they put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of “getting party votes for National as this is the only way change will come about.” That was absolutely disclosed in an environment where National wanted to keep that information hidden.  
We know where some of the money came from then but only because it has been disclosed through that process. We have a good idea where the rest has come from. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be difficult for some members but during the course of debate the difference between debating material and the truth and facts should be apparent. It is a fact that the piece of paper the member talks about was not sourced from the National Party but from the Chief Electoral Officer. To suggest that a communication of the Chief Electoral Officer somehow indicates some sort of bad dealings or skulduggery is quite wrong. The only skulduggery in the last campaign was Labour’s inappropriate rorting of taxpayer funds. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. I have taken note of what you said and I ask the member to be careful. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I can understand the sensitivity of that member. I was saying that the public would not have known if the email to the Electoral Commission had not been disclosed in the course of an investigation. It showed that the Exclusive Brethren were prepared to spend $1.2 million which the National Party did not want us to know about to get party votes for National. They wanted to make sure that it did not show up on the National Party’s electoral spend. 
No wonder members are sensitive on that side of the House; they could not spend $1.2 million on their entire electoral campaign without going over the limit but they were quite happy to have $1.2 million spent on their behalf behind the scenes in a dirty tricky way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a pamphlet produced at an estimated cost of half a million dollars by— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please be seated. Mr Brownlee you have been here a long time and generally that sort of thing happens at the end of a member’s speech rather than interrupt it. It can be seen as a frivolous interjection which can lead to disorder. I ask the member to seek leave at the normal time. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I understand the sensitivity the members opposite have but we are seeing a concerted campaign today to break up speeches made by members on the Government side of the House and the latest was one of the worst I have seen particularly from a senior member. Accordingly I seek leave to have the member’s time started again in order that she can deliver her speech without that sort of tacky intervention from the other side. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
Hon Member 
: They just can’t take the heat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The matter has been dealt with. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to question your ruling at all but I recall earlier in the debate that you acquiesced to a request from an Opposition member on very very frivolous grounds to have the clock restarted. I invite you if you would to reflect on that as you may be reflecting on that ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I always reflect on those things Mr Cosgrove and I am aware of the situation. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am aware obviously that the members opposite may want to table a particular piece of information around the Council of Trade Unions providing a pamphlet to some of its members in support of the Labour Party. That was disclosed in our electoral expenses. It was put in as part of our electoral expenses. I think it is a bit rich for members on the other side of the House to refer to that when they know perfectly well that $1.2 million was available to be spent on their behalf to gain party votes for National and not one cent of that was disclosed in their electoral return. 
We all know that there was a quid pro quo and for that number of “quids” there must have been an awful lot of “quos”. We now want to know what that was all about. What was hidden in the paper trail that the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate to hide from the public? Why did Dr Brash seek an interim injunction last Friday when he has known about the leaked emails for months yet according to his own words he did not know that a book was going to be published this week? How coincidental is that? I bet Gerry Brownlee is even regretting his own comments last week when he said that anyone who used email would welcome the decision of the court in respect of the interim injunction. This is not the case and I think the  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial says it all: “Blanket injunctions of the kind that Dr Brash has obtained are not healthy for our democracy. Those who ask to be entrusted with power have to accept that their dealings should be an open book.” 
That is the bottom line. That is what we keep coming back to. The National Party does not want its dealings to be an open book and I say that its members are not to be entrusted with power. Don Brash has something to hide John Key has something to hide and others on that side of the House have a lot to hide. They do not want public scrutiny of the types of negotiations that occurred between the secret funders and the hierarchy of the National Party. They are not entitled to be entrusted with power. Anyone who thinks that Don Brash will be the only one who will benefit from the injunction should think again. I hope we find out more about those other individuals who knew a lot more about what was going on than they have cared to disclose. 
John Key is trying to distance himself from this because he knows that it will taint him with guilt by association. Well guilty he is and associated he is and we will find out the truth of this. Although he is their aspirant leader he is very close to the secret funders and far more acceptable to them than Bill English will ever be.