Hartley Ann: General Debate 
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4779] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Order! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am on my feet. I have called for order and members will come to order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. The good news for Don Brash is that there will be a job for him once he retires. He can get the job as the option in the Energiser battery ad because he has shown yet again that he simply is not up to it at all. That from the man—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Martin Gallagher 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will remind members that points of order will be heard in silence. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just remind that member who spoke that that is his final warning. 
Martin Gallagher 
: As the elected member for Hamilton West I do not believe it to be unreasonable that I should be in a position to hear the Deputy Prime Minister of this country in this Chamber—or to hear any other speaker for that matter. I understand that interjections should be rare and reasonable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just—[ 
Interruption 
] There will be order while I am ruling on a point of order. The member makes a perfectly valid point of order which is that all members are entitled to hear. The barraging was way beyond interjections. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That speech was from the man who was forced to admit election overspending. That man was forced to admit that that party overspent because it did not pay its GST when he was the one who headed the committee that set up GST. That man has yet to explain his close personal links with the Business Roundtable. Come on I say to Don Brash—he should tell us about his close personal links with the Business Roundtable. [ 
Interruption 
] That man who is yet to explain— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. This is just way beyond interjections. No members can hear the member who is speaking now. I have stopped the clock and the member will continue his speech until members can hear it. Nobody can hear what is going on. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The noise was so loud that I request that I get to start my speech again from the beginning and that that will continue until there is a reasonable level of quietness in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Right I will rule on that point of order. That is exactly what will happen until members can hear other members speak. The member will start his speech again and he will start with 5 minutes’ speaking time. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I also give my speech again on the same grounds? [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated; I am on my feet. The barraging has come from the member’s party as the member knows and it is—[ 
Interruption 
] Look a member is going to go out in a minute. You have had your final warning. I gave a warning to members over there. When I am on my feet and when a point of order is being heard there will be silence. I say to the member again that the barraging from the member’s party means that nobody can hear what is going on and certainly during the member’s speech most of the noise came from the member’s own party. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I simply ask for some consistency in your rulings. During the entire speech—the very good speech—that was given by the Leader of the Opposition the front bench of the Labour Party continuously barracked. The only way I could listen to that good speech was to push my ear right up to the speaker in exactly the same way—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be silence during points of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If she was on our side you would kick her out—but never mind. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s true. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that remark. Before he does that the ruling I would give is clearly about the amount of interjection—and it was interjection; I was listening very carefully and it was not continuous barraging. There is a concerted effort this afternoon to have continuous barraging and it will not be tolerated. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on that point of order. It had better be a new point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is quite simply that you need to be consistent and if you are going to allow Dr Cullen to start his speech again you must simply apply exactly the same rule to Dr Brash’s speech because there was exactly the same continuous barracking during the course of his speech and you chose not to intervene. I can only draw the conclusion that there are different rules in this House depending on whether members are on your side or the other. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s point of order and the argument he makes are completely out of order. The member knows that he cannot make those allegations. The point I am making is that there were interjections when the member Don Brash was speaking. There was not continuous barraging—and that is what all members in the House are complaining about. That is why the member will start his speech again at 5 minutes. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. May I suggest as a way forward that not only does Dr Michael Cullen get to start his speech again but you rule that the next two speakers be heard in silence. Otherwise it is hopeless because you have had repeated rulings. If we hear the speeches in silence then maybe members can learn the difference between interjecting in a way that is witty and barraging. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well this is a robust debate. We try to have the Wednesday debate as a robust debate but the member does make a good point. It has got to the point this afternoon where there has been that continuous decision I think to have barraging by one party—which is completely disrupting the whole House this afternoon. I will continue and we will see what happens if members stop the barraging and make fair interjections. I thank the member for his point of order. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Earlier you directed Dr Smith to withdraw and apologise. I do not believe that he has in fact done so yet. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not actually ask him to withdraw and apologise. I did reprimand him for what he said. I have warned him that what he said was out of order. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order Dr Smith? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Of course it is Madam Assistant Speaker. It may just assist members on this side of the House if you could explain what “barraging” means. I have heard of the word “barracking” but I am not sure what “barraging” means. It may just assist matters. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member may be trying to be rather smart. I said “barracking”. [ 
Interruption 
] A member will go out in a minute if there cannot be some semblance of order. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. No member of this House is entitled to mislead the House not even the Speaker. I am sure that if you check the  
Hansard 
 you will find that you have referred to “barraging” many times in recent minutes and members on this side of the House are at a loss to know what on earth you mean. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think members are very clear about what I have said. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker the member is correct; you did say “barraging”. It is an interesting neologism because a barrage of course is a massive onslaught of noise and one can therefore coin the verb “to barrage” from that. The translation of nouns into verbs is quite a common modern linguistic habit. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member who raised the point of order is perfectly clear about what is happening this afternoon and I do not think it needs to be explained any further. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One could say a number of things about Dr Brash’s speech. The most interesting point is that when some newspaper latched upon a strange rumour that the Prime Minister was going to become the Secretary-General of the United Nations Dr Brash said he would support the nomination. Yet this afternoon he said that the Prime Minister leads the most corrupt Government in New Zealand’s history. Well that is a great way to set himself up for the future if he ever visits the United Nations. But of course that was a demonstration of the “new” Leader of the Opposition—the man with guts. It was a phrase invented for Gerry Brownlee but kindly donated by him to Don Brash who is a man of principle. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about the money! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed the National Party overspent its election spending because it did not count GST despite the fact that its leader headed the committee that set up GST. 
We were told by members of the National caucus yesterday that they had a disastrous caucus because they cannot agree over their leadership and their style. This is the man of guts and principles. Now what does guts mean from Dr Brash? Guts means saying very naughty words quite often. He has now said “bloody” three times in the last 2 weeks. He even said like a demented Shakespearian pretender to the throne “bastards”. Like “bastard of Normandy” or “bastard of Kent” he said “bastards”; then twice he said a very big gutsy word—“crap”. Oh! And those words seared themselves to the heart of this Government. We had never been so savagely attacked before. 
But where are the principles? He said: “I would work with the devil to get rid of this Government.” Did he tell the Exclusive Brethren that? Did he tell them that he would work with the devil to get rid of this Government? Where is he on the nuclear issue when he wants it gone by lunchtime then for the election he says that no he supports a nuclear-free stance? Where is he on State-owned enterprise sales when he supports the sale of State-owned enterprises but his policy was that he would not sell State-owned enterprises? Where is he on New Zealand superannuation when he said he wanted to raise the age of entitlement but his policy was not to raise the age of entitlement? Where is he on the labour market when he said that he wanted to end 4 weeks’ holiday but the promise was not to end 4 weeks’ holiday? 
But the doozy of them all of course is the Exclusive Brethren. What is the story on that member? On the one day he said: “I don’t know who is responsible for the pamphlets.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is right—from the man who said that the Exclusive Brethren destroyed families in the name of Christianity. That is what Nick Smith said about them. 
Then the next day Dr Brash said: “I know it’s not the National Party that did the pamphlets.” The next day he said: “They haven’t offered me financial support.” The next day he said: “We met. We discussed the pamphlets. We knew about them. We knew about the money. We knew about the content. We lined it all up.” But 3 days earlier that man of principle and guts had denied any knowledge at all and there is a four-letter verb that describes that particular action on the part of that member. Mr Key is staying very quiet because he knows who the person is who introduced Dr Brash to the Exclusive Brethren—but more of that later when Mr Peters returns to Parliament some time within the next few weeks. 
What about National’s other spending? What about Bill English’s billboards? What about the foreshore and seabed billboards? What about the postcards that went out this year paid for by Parliamentary Service on tax cuts? What about the full-page advertisement in the newspaper on PlunketLine paid for by Parliamentary Service not by the National Party? What about the advertisement just yesterday from “Bob the Builder” Clarkson “come on jokers let’s attack the nanny State” with the parliamentary crest on the bottom right-hand side paid for by Parliamentary Service? What about the flight down to Nelson to say hello to Ian Ewen-Street as a new member of Parliament paid for by Parliamentary Service? What did that have to do with anything other than trying to persuade people to vote for the National Party? 
These people do not have their hands in just the public till they have their hands in every other till as well. What they will not tell us is what they have promised in return for all the money that has flowed in.