English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16322] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 All I can say to that member today is that I would much rather have Don Brash’s reputation for integrity than John Tamihere’s reputation. Is it not telling when Labour’s hard man tactical operator has nothing to say on the issue of the day which is John Tamihere. I was expecting at least a stout defence and probably new evidence that would help buttress John Tamihere’s case but he barely rated a mention in Trevor Mallard’s speech and I will tell the members why. It is because the Government does not know what to do about this problem. “Mother Hen” Helen Clark has flown the coop and she has left Dr Cullen running around like a headless chook— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise. The member knows that he must refer to members by their correct names. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are very concerned that the Minister of Education the Hon Trevor Mallard appears to be instructing the Chair. We would like an assurance and I think we are entitled to that that the Chair is not taking instruction from Government Ministers. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is certainly not correct. It is my responsibility when I hear a member being referred to in that way—and this often happens in the House; it happened yesterday and it will continue to happen—to call the member to order. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder why you did not use the same hearing to pull up Mr Mallard for his referring to a member in an inappropriate way throughout his speech. He used a Christian name only. You certainly heard that but you chose to take no action at all. You appeared to be taking no action on this speech when a Christian name was used until Mr Mallard interjected. All that we ask for is fairness. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am advised by my whips that when I was referring to the Leader of the Opposition I called him Don. I apologise. I of course was referring to Dr Brash. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Often members will refer to members by their Christian names—that is not uncommon—but what I was correcting the member for was the use of a derogatory term when referring to the member. I tell Mr Sowry that that will always be corrected. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may help to clarify matters if you simply require members of the Government to stand and take a point of order as set down in the Standing Orders just like Opposition MPs must do rather than just taking instructions that are interjected on you beside you. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member is totally incorrect. As I have ruled previously it is my responsibility to do that if I hear it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will warn the member once that that was not a point of order. As I have said raising trifling points of order is of itself disorderly. 
Rodney Hide 
: It was a point order Madam Deputy Speaker. You are actually dealing with a serious point about taking direction. I am not accusing you of that what I am saying is that it would be helpful if you instructed Mr Mallard on the proper way to raise a point of order. This is a point of order because it is in the Standing Orders. You should simply require Trevor Mallard to stand and call “Point of order” rather than have him interject on you and give the appearance which I do not accept that you are taking instructions. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Here we go. That is the point. If we call out on a point of order we get thrown out. The chief whip can say what she likes and you do nothing Madam Deputy Speaker. That is the point. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has not raised a point of order. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is the chief Government whip going to be dealt with for interjecting on Mr Hide? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide was going on with a point of order that was not a point of order and I had already— 
Rodney Hide 
: So what! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I had already ruled on the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: So what! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide will stand withdraw and apologise for those— 
Rodney Hide 
: Why do I have to? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: —remarks to the Chair. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How come I have to withdraw and apologise when I interject but the junior whip—what is that woman now— 
Simon Power 
: She’s senior whip. 
Rodney Hide 
: —the senior whip can stand there yelling out on a point of order and it is OK because you deem it not to be a point of order. There is no ability for the chief whip to call out on a point of order and for the Speaker to defend her. She has to withdraw and apologise just like you required of me. 
Darren Hughes 
: First the reason that the member was asked to withdraw and apologise was that he was interjecting on you as the presiding officer in the Chamber. The second thing is that the Opposition’s insistence on observing the Standing Orders this afternoon might be better helped if Mr Hide spoke from a chair allocated to his party as opposed to speaking from the National Party front bench which is against the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member should read the Standing Orders. A member can take a point of order from anywhere in the Chamber. He should read the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When a point of order is taken it must be heard in silence. Whether it is valid is to be determined later by the Speaker or yourself as the Deputy Speaker. But whatever is happening it is required that the point of order be heard in silence and anyone who shouts out intervenes or interjects is outside the Standing Orders and should be asked to withdraw and apologise. That is the point that is being made on this side of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the member is relatively correct in what he says. Notwithstanding the fact that all members in this House with some experience had come to the conclusion that Mr Hide was not raising a point of order— 
Rodney Hide 
: This isn’t a point of order either. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will give one further warning about interrupting while a member has the floor correctly on points of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In agreeing substantially with the comments made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters it is my view that we would have a degree of disorder in the House if members continually anticipated your rulings on points raised that it is clear to members are not points of order but on which you have not yet ruled. I think it would be useful for order in the House if the practice were to cease. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters is correct. I ask the senior Government whip whether she interjected during the point of order. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes I did and I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Helen Clark has flown the coop and left Dr Cullen flailing around like a headless chook. He cannot decide what to do about the Tamihere allegations. First he tried throwing mud but that has looked weak and indecisive. Then he has tried to occasionally defend the allegations by demonstrating a pretty intimate knowledge of them for someone who is not the QC doing the inquiry. Then he has toyed with the idea of just saying: “Let’s refer everything to the inquiry and when the evidence comes out that is when we will decide.” Then he said: “It’s a political decision. It’s not a matter for the QC and the inquiry at all. It will be a political decision.” He cannot decide. The great management machine in the Beehive has rattled itself to bits and the reason is that what happens to John Tamihere is critical to the cohesion of this Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wait until 6 o’clock. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member seems to think that this is a matter of popularity; that somehow if John Tamihere is popular he is therefore exempt from scrutiny. The problem is that that is what John Tamihere believed—that because he was popular he did not have to fill out his electoral return properly in the same way that we have to; that because he is popular he does not have to declare gifts that may have been made to him as a Minister; and that because he is popular it does not matter if he defies the Government’s promise that it will get rid of golden handshakes and takes one. 
Let me sum up this issue very clearly for the Government. This is a man who made himself popular by going around New Zealand telling everybody that too many Maori had their fingers in the till. It turned out that he had his fingers in the till. That is the nub of it. There is really nothing more complicated than that. How many tills and how many fingers is yet to be decided but absolutely no one has denied that he took a very large payment. All they have argued about is whether the tax was paid. That is a matter for the Inland Revenue Department. The fact is that he kept saying that too many traditional Maori have their fingers in the till when at the same time he had his fingers in the till. 
The fact that Trevor Mallard could not even mention it tells us how deeply in trouble not just John Tamihere is but the Government is. The Government has the Maori Party knocking at the door very hard. It has seabed and foreshore legislation that it has said it will resolve by Christmas but it does not have a dog’s show. Now it has just lost the one person whom it believed could have sold that legislation to Maori and Pakeha regardless of what it actually said. That is why today the Government is trying to decide whether to hang on to him or hang him. It is trying to decide as we speak: “Do we hang on to John Tamihere or do we hang him?”. That is where the inquiry will turn out to be a mistake because Helen Clark—the wonderful decisive Prime Minister with standards that I would be absolutely ashamed of whatever the nation thinks of them—will now twist in the wind for 6 weeks. Why can she not decide now? Why can John Tamihere not just give her the information—the electoral return the bank statement—and she can just decide? But she will not.