Mackey Moana: General Debate 
Mackey Moana: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4791] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I have to say that John Key is not looking a well man. John Key was quite a healthy smiley-looking man in his first term of Parliament. He looks like a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders now. Body language speaks a thousand words and members on this side of the House noticed the body language. We know that the National Party had a very long and difficult caucus yesterday. Some of its members told some of our members that. But I would say that the body language yesterday was amazing. John Key sat there like a man isolated with the weight of the world on his shoulders and I suspect that very soon he will have the weight of the National Party on his shoulders. 
We are still to hear from National members as to why they did not tell the people of New Zealand about $1.2 million worth of funding from the radical Exclusive Brethren religious sect in the last campaign. 
Dr Don Brash 
: No no—tell the truth. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Dr Brash says I should tell the truth. Maybe he could tell the people of New Zealand why he told the press that he had not met with members of the Exclusive Brethren that he did not know about the pamphlet and that he had no idea what was coming—only to have to backtrack days later when he was outed as having lied to the media about his meeting with the Exclusive Brethren and knowing about the pamphlet. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although no member of the National Party will defend the Leader of the Opposition I will. One cannot accuse a member of lying in this House. I think it is important for the standards of the House. Even if the National Party is not prepared to defend Don Brash from that accusation I ask that the member withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The National Party weekly tried to draw comparisons with the union movement and its support for the Labour Party at the last election campaign but there were some very key differences. Firstly we included their spending in our electoral return; the National Party did not include the spending of the Exclusive Brethren in its electoral return. Secondly the union movement did not put fake addresses where no one lived as the address of the reference person on its material and it was quite clear to all New Zealanders who was producing the union movement’s material. The material from the Exclusive Brethren attacking the Greens and the Labour Party was very very similar to the material that attacked the Greens in Australia. 
Dr Brash is trying to paint himself as a man of principle and a man of guts. So why does he not have the guts to tell us about the overspending on GST? Here is the man who said that he simply forgot to pay GST. Given that he was the man who designed GST that is a little difficult to accept. Why does he not have the guts to tell us about his close relationship with the Business Roundtable? Why does he not have the guts to tell us the truth about the Exclusive Brethren? Dr Brash claims to represent mainstream New Zealanders and he wants to keep out immigrants who do not share mainstream New Zealanders’ values. Well I say to Dr Brash that he should have the guts to tell us which cultures he is talking about that do not share the mainstream values of New Zealanders and should be excluded from coming into New Zealand. 
This is the man who did not have the guts to say to Maori inside the wananga what he said about them outside the wananga in the car-park. He is a man who did not have the guts to leave the appointments with the Exclusive Brethren in his diary—and he is yet to explain that—and a man who did not have the guts to tell New Zealanders about his agenda of radical right-wing privatisation. He is on record as saying that he will not water down his principles to sate New Zealanders. Then why does he not tell New Zealanders that he does not care who owns our schools and he does not care who owns our businesses? He will not tell them because he cannot sell it. 
On  
Agenda 
 2 weeks ago Don Brash was asked whether John Key was one of those who overspent at the last election and he refused to confirm or deny that. I wonder whether Dr Brash is willing to clarify that in the House today. 
This is a man who promised United States politicians that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime but he did not have the guts to tell New Zealanders that that is what he would be doing. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This member has been referring to Dr Brash throughout her speech and saying that Dr Brash does not have the “guts” to do A B C or D. That is unparliamentary language and I ask that she withdraw and apologise for using that word. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Although generally today I have been working hard to have decorum in the House unfortunately for the member Don Brash and the National Party have put an advertisement in the newspaper suggesting that he does have “guts”. Therefore I think it is very hard for them to say that that point cannot be argued in the House. Those members are the ones who have put his courage his conviction and his ability to say things consistently into the public arena. To say that they are now too scared to have that point debated in the House just defies belief. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a debating matter but the point is that it is a robust debate. I think many words have been used this afternoon that are in that realm so I would ask the member to continue. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We were told before that we could not use the word “corrupt”. Now we have a member who is constantly using the word “guts” referring to Dr Brash as not having “guts” and using that sort of language. If the word “corrupt” has been ruled out then the word the member is using should also be ruled out. Madam Assistant Speaker I ask for some consistency in your rulings on this matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not realise that the member was going to speak to that point again. I thought he had another point of order. I have ruled on the point of order. I will not go over my previous ruling but it is in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. As I said before many words have been used this afternoon that come into the realm of robust debate and that is certainly one of them that I am ruling does come into robust debate. There will be no further points of order on that matter. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table the advertisement with the picture of Don Brash and the word in dispute written very large underneath it which says “Guts”. 
Don Brash is a man who did not have the guts to tell the people of New Zealand whether he would send troops to Iraq. When asked he said: “I would have done what President Bush did.” I have to say I wish he was a man who had the “guts” to put some policy out at some point—during the general election campaign might have been a good time—so that we could have debated it. It still astounds me that a major party in an election campaign could get away with not having a health policy. I say: Dr Brash a man of “guts and principle”—yeah right! 
I seek leave to table the National Party advertisement with the word “Guts” written very largely and a picture of Dr Don Brash. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.