Carter Chris: General Debate 
Carter Chris: General Debate 
[Volume:634;Page:5643] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 My Labour Party colleague Steve Maharey has already talked in the House today about a whiff of change in the air. Spring is in the National caucus. Why has this early spring just 1 year after the election come about? It is because nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum has been created in the National Party and the message to the people of New Zealand is that it has been created because the current National leader Don Brash has burnt everybody off. 
Mr Maharey has already talked about the fact that immigrants people whom Mr Brash described as non-mainstream were burnt off fairly early after the election. Mr Brash burnt iwi off when he said that they were not really iwi because somehow their genetics were mixed up—as if the rest of us do not have mixed up genetics as well. After all if one thinks of the British Isles alone and how many waves of invaders have been through there are the people there Romans Celts or Saxons? No they are British and they identify as such just as iwi do as well. So Dr Brash has burnt off iwi and many migrants from Croats to Koreans because they were not mainstream. 
In addition to that of course we have the flirtation with the Brethren which has shocked and outraged so many people in New Zealand. It has shown how corrupt the body politic of New Zealand could be perceived to be when people see a cult intervening in politics with large amounts of cash. It is very American. So yes a vacuum has been created and as I said earlier nature abhors a vacuum and a number of individuals have wedged themselves into that space. 
My colleague Mr Mallard has already spoken about some of the pretenders to the throne. One of them Mr Key is somebody we would be desperate to see win it and I will tell the House why. Mr Key represents a west Auckland constituency although he does not live in it as I do. I of course live in my constituency. One hears things in one’s local area about the local members. Mr Key did some very interesting things during the election campaign. He was at a public meeting of ratepayers in Hobsonville and he was asked what his opinion on abortion was. His response was: “I have never been asked that question before.” then there was silence. 
At a meeting just a month or so ago about a Housing New Zealand development in Hobsonville also in the area Mr Key represents but does not live in he allowed people in the audience to say that State house tenants were scum—this from an individual who grew up in a State house but he made no mention of that. He nodded his head in agreement as the anti - State-house-tenant comments were made. Mr Key is also an individual who said he had nothing to do with the Brethren. But oddly enough when the Brethren were shown on television meeting with the National Party it appeared to be in Mr Key’s house in Parnell. It is very interesting. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member for Te Atatu is making some very unfortunate and incorrect statements. He is deliberately misleading the House with those comments. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. I take offence at those comments. They are not correct. I ask that the member withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Take a personal explanation. 
John Key 
: Listen sunshine when someone lies to the House I am going to ask that that person withdraws and apologises. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Cosgrove that it is a point of order but I realise he was trying to be helpful and give advice. What the member raises is not a point of order but if he has been offended by things that have been said then it is in order that they be withdrawn. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Mr Speaker perhaps you could help me. Is it that I said Mr Key does not live in his electorate? Is it because I said he did not answer a question on abortion? Is it because I said that he agreed and did not intervene when State house tenants were called scum? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You did not say that Mr Key said that State house tenants were scum. That is something that could be objected to if it was not true. You were quite entitled to say although I cannot see the relevance of it that he allowed a member in the audience to say that. I cannot see how one can prevent that. But if Mr Key has been offended by things that you said and I do not want you to enumerate them again then you should withdraw them. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member said that I nodded in agreement. That is not correct. That is completely misleading the House. The Minister knows that because when I sat down before he gave me a little wink. I do not mind if members want to make things up but if they could be even slightly factually correct it would be useful. I will not sit back while that very junior and incompetent Minister tries to slag me off. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It was never a point of order except for the point where the member raised objection. What people may feel offended by cannot be judged in advance. But that member has been offended. Please Mr Carter just withdraw the remarks and then continue. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw the comments. It could have been an involuntary neck movement I accept. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you quite rightly pointed out I am attempting to assist in this situation. I would just like your advice and you may wish to pass it on to Mr Key. It is a longstanding Standing Order—Standing Order 350—that if a member of Parliament feels aggrieved and feels he or she has been wronged that member can stand up and make a personal explanation regarding matters of a personal nature that he or she feels offended by. It also points out for the edification of Mr Key that a personal explanation may not be debated. It is a longstanding procedure too that if Mr Key feels that anything Mr Carter said is incorrect or inaccurate he can do so. But you may wish to invite him to take advantage of that of course. The record of the House will record exactly what Mr Key says. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is an explanation of procedure which you have correctly raised. But I have of course chosen to deal with it another way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this is pretty simple. Standing Order 161 makes it abundantly clear that if a member takes offence at a statement made by another member then that statement should be withdrawn and apologised for. In the context of the story that the Minister was trying to tell the remark was extremely offensive and there should be no smart alec behaviour. Lesser offences today and the abuse of your position by an attempted withdrawal and then explanation have seen people leave the House. Perhaps Mr Carter should be either asked to withdraw and apologise or leave. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The member has just compounded the problem. You have already ruled on the matter—the matter has been dealt with—and by raising the matter in the way that he has Mr Brownlee has effectively challenged the Chair and that is quite improper. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is correct to say that you had made a ruling and it was clear. It has always been the practice here that a withdrawal and an apology must be unqualified. The Minister sought to qualify his withdrawal and apology. I think the matter is a simple one. You simply need to require an unqualified withdrawal and apology as you directed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not think the member qualified his withdrawal at the point he made it. 
John Key 
: He did. He said it may have been an involuntary movement of his neck. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If I am mistaken—the Minister was good enough to withdraw his remark—and the Minister qualified his remark would he please withdraw it unqualified and then continue. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw the remark unqualified. Having regard to the sorts of issues that we have dealt with for the last 15 minutes we would be delighted if Mr Key became the next leader of the National Party. In fact our prayers and libations would be answered. That would be fantastic. 
Of course there are a number of other contenders for the job. One of them is Bill English who would seek to be the new John Howard of New Zealand. Alas of course unlike John Howard who does seem to have a remarkable ability to connect with the people of Australia Bill English demonstrated conclusively in 2002 that he has no ability whatsoever to connect with the people of New Zealand and should he beat off John Key to the job we would be almost as pleased as we would if John Key got it. It is interesting. 
We have had lots of denials that there is a whiff of change in the air and a leadership race is on. One has just to look at the Opposition as we do from the Government side because a picture can tell 1000 words. We watch Mr Key and Mr English as they sit next to each other but face opposite directions. I do not think I have ever seen them exchange a word together in the House and I sit exactly opposite them. The body language is delicious; it just oozes hostility and rivalry. 
The other fascinating thing is that we watch their faces when Mr Brash is speaking. Neither of them ever looks at him. They both look in opposite directions to each other at each end of the Chamber and never never at Mr Brash. The body language is very revealing. 
Of course the other thing is that to become leader one has to assemble the votes. I assume one would have to come up with 25 votes in the National caucus to win. It has been very interesting to watch how the two leading contenders deal with the rest of their caucus. It is fascinating.