Connell Brian: General Debate 
Connell Brian: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4635] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 When Minister Burton took a call—he said it would be short and thank God it was—he said the Government was embarrassed by riches. In part he is right: it is embarrassed by Taito Phillip Field’s riches! I will come back to that in a moment. 
I have been in this House for 4 years and the worst thing I have witnessed since I have been in this House was the obscene gesture that Ron Mark perpetrated yesterday. When I remonstrated with the Speaker to drag the House back out of the gutter into which it had descended she kicked “Phil” and me out—in doing so she could not even get my name right. She might wonder why the National Party— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that it is not in order to bring the Speaker into debate and that members may not use the general debate to discuss a ruling of the Speaker or the Speaker’s view or opinions. In that respect I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 17/6(3). I ask the member to desist and to be careful how he couches his language. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may recall that over the last couple of days Michael Cullen has been going around various political commentators and telling them that there was no merit in the motion expressing no confidence in the Speaker and that there was therefore no need to have a particular debate on it because there was an opportunity in the imprest supply debate which he described as broad and wide-ranging and also in the general debate which he similarly described. I do not know what has happened here. The Leader of the House has tried to tell the media that the Opposition has every opportunity to raise these matters in debate but somehow Mr Assistant Speaker you are now trying to curtail that discussion. I think the Labour members need to get into a room start talking about all the deficiencies in the cover-up process so far and come back with a consistent line. Although you are doubtless going to resort to the Standing Orders and perhaps even  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 I suspect that somewhere in your in-box there is an instruction—one you have not read yet—from Michael Cullen to bring down a new ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Brownlee for his comments and I appreciate the fact that he has considered them. I can but rule with precedent and that of course is  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. The issue is covered under Speakers’ ruling 17/6: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government … (3) or to bring the Speaker’s name and opinions into a debate.” It is in relation to the last part that I have asked Mr Connell to be careful how he couches his debate. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise two points with you. First of all I suggest to you that you misheard my colleague. I was listening to the debate very carefully. I think there is a fine distinction here. He was recounting to the House the level of offence that he had taken at some actions by another member Mr Mark in the House yesterday. He is entitled to do that. He was recounting to the House his anger I presume it was that having raised that matter he was required by the Speaker to leave the Chamber. That I suggest to you was an integral part of the story that my colleague was trying to relate to the House. I was looking forward to hearing the balance of that story and I think it is unfortunate that you cut him off before you were able to hear the full context of what he was trying to say. 
The second thing I suggest is this. There are Speakers’ rulings that require members not to say certain things about the Speaker and that state that if members have a strong view about the actions of the Speaker there is a formal way in which they can record their dissatisfaction dissent or whatever and then have it considered by the House. The problem is that our having undertaken that step the ability to have the discussion that the Speakers’ rulings presume will be held has been denied us. I suggest to you that in that context you are required to provide a little more latitude to the House in the absence of our being able to complete the procedure that has been properly initiated. The only step available to members is in the context of a general debate where we can in a passing way make reference to those events. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Briefly I have two points and both are relevant. The problem was not with Mr Heatley’s reference as to why he felt angry and concerned— 
Ron Mark 
: Connell not Heatley. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is already a point of order Mr Connell. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I apologise to the member Ron Mark. I made the same mistake that he made in referring to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that points of order should be short succinct and to the point. I suggest that members do not bring in any practices that can lead to members on the other side taking offence because that in itself leads to disorder. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I think the problem was that the member strayed into a breach of Speakers’ rulings. There was not a problem with his recounting why he was unhappy. I do not think that was the problem. It was as you rightly pointed out when he strayed into a direct breach of Speakers’ rulings. 
The second point gets us back to this problem. The member’s own colleagues started this day by making long points of order that called on the Speaker to apply the Standing Orders. The National members said they were concerned about the House being brought into disrepute because of a lack of respect for the Standing Orders but then they continually want to challenge the very Standing Orders. They cannot have it both ways. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would like to rule on this because I would like the member to get back to his speech. It is not for any member to relitigate a ruling and it is not appropriate to debate in effect the motion relating to the Speaker. I just ask the member to be careful. He has been here 4 years and he has some experience. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the large number of points of order and your rulings for each of those can I please have more time in my speech? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will tell you what I am going to do. I am going to allow you to start again. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. That is very generous of you. I start then by saying that this Parliament has allowed itself to be manipulated by the Prime Minister into sheltering Taito Phillip Field from the proper oversight of this Parliament. Members might recall the Prime Minister saying to the country that when in Government she would bring new levels of accountability and integrity to this House. Well she has done that! She has brought new levels all right. They are so low that one has to get into the gutter to find them. That is the problem. I cannot imagine that the last Parliament would have allowed this type of debacle to develop by covering for Mr Field and by not allowing this Parliament to get to the truth. Every member of this Parliament is being tainted by the stench of corruption. Any Speaker has an obligation to make sure that the honour of the members of this Parliament is protected. I believe that we are being let down badly. There is hardly a man or woman across New Zealand who irrespective of voting patterns does not think that Taito Phillip Field should be brought to account—no men or women except of course those in the present Government. 
Mr Field may be innocent—I am big enough to allow that—but the point is that we will never know. The trouble with never knowing is that the general public see what is alleged to have happened through Mr Taito Phillip Field’s actions and the rest of us are marked in the same way. That surely has to be unacceptable. 
Another question that begs answering is why a man who has done nothing wishes to apologise to Parliament. Why would a man who is guiltless want to stand up before his peers and say that he is sorry? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s a device. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well it is—the member is quite right; it is a device. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: A little bit sorry. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Just a little bit sorry! It is simply a device by the Prime Minister—we can see her grubby handprint all over the drafting of that apology—to take the issue off the agenda. But we are not buying into that. 
So what lessons can we learn from what has been perpetrated on this Parliament? If someone perverts the political process for political gain then that person brings the House into disorder. The disorder we have seen in this House in the last 2 or 3 weeks can be sheeted home directly to the Prime Minister's manipulation of this House and members of the National Party simply will not stand for it. We are members who not only argue that we have integrity but by our very actions demonstrate that we have integrity. We would expect nothing less. 
We do have disorder in this House; there is no doubt about that. Despite your asking me not to go there Mr Assistant Speaker I say that when we have disorder we end up having no confidence in our Speaker and that is a sad day for New Zealand. This Parliament has a very proud tradition. A Speaker's responsibility is to protect that tradition and to protect current members in this House from the stench of corruption. I believe that we have been let down. 
What do we want from the Government regarding Mr Taito Phillip Field? We want what Dr Ingram wants. He stated: “If the allegations … are to be resolved it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers of investigation to enquire further.” What is so unreasonable about asking for that? All we want is simply for the truth to be got at.