Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Thank you very much. We have seen the polls. I want to make it very clear to the National Party that all the bombast in the world and all the effort without essence doesn't cut it any more. Their leader's in trouble. That speech from Todd McClay was probably an audition for a future challenge very soon.Can I just say I picked up a tribunal report from the Human Rights Review Tribunal on 26 March and I'll tell you what it's an absolute disgrace. They found of all people Kim Dotcom to be a sincere and honest witness—traits which were not common when it came to the Government and their senior law officer. It's all in this report. It's a disgrace.Chris Penk: You're a disgrace.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It's no use junior shouting out there—nobody gives a rat's derrière about what you think.We know from court decisions that illegal activities were used to assist attempts at extraditing Mr Kim Dotcom. Astoundingly though activities were coordinated and sanctioned by the former Attorney-General Mr Finlayson the man who poses as the Blackstone of the Antipodes.There was a raid you remember on 20 January 2012 and later that year Justice Winkelmann found that the warrants used were invalid. This proved to be just the first of a series of poorly orchestrated examples of Government malfeasance. Time and again under the National Party they demonstrated malice and an incompetence in those raids and they couldn't even handle the fallout after it. Now in 2015 Attorney-General Finlayson accepted a transfer for Mr Dotcom's request for information—Hon Maggie Barry: Not true.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —ostensibly pursuant to a Privacy Act. Here comes the gardener who's now the lawyer—ostensibly pursuant to the Privacy Act 1993.Hon Maggie Barry: Say it outside the House.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I'm saying it anywhere.Hon Maggie Barry: Say it outside.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I'll say it outside. I've got the report. It's from a QC not some junior weedeater. As expressed by the Human Rights Review Tribunal this is what they say—SPEAKER: No. I am going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw that description of the member.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw that description. The rationale they said of the Attorney-General was non-existent. So what was the real reason? Mr Finlayson as a law officer representing the Crown was the person responsible for litigation with Mr Dotcom. Thus as discerned by the Human Rights Review Tribunal Mr Finlayson's motivations were likely—and listen to these words—for the purpose of coordinating the response to the request with the Crown's litigation strategy." So he had a duplicitous purpose from the word go. This dodgy governance is unbecoming of an Attorney-General the Crown's chief law officer and as stated by the tribunal "Sight must not be lost of the principle that those who seek to uphold the law must themselves obey it." It appears the most basic constitutional duties were not followed. It's unacceptable behaviour. It was blatant and he got found out very badly.You know something? This is the same member of Parliament and Attorney-General who when he got a bill in front of him saying we should move the age from 10 years to 25 years to qualify gave a certificate saying it was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Chris Penk: You can't fill out your own forms correctly.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And then he stood and then junior—then junior—he stood by while that member and others campaigned on 20 years. So if 25 years was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act how come 20 years wasn't?Chris Penk: You can't fill out your own forms.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There you go—he's marvellous. I can see why they got you. Obviously all the rest of the sheep were busy. Everyone might as well have got—see shouting like that that's so typical of these neo-liberal twits they bring in in a certain political party.SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I didn't use his name.SPEAKER: Order! I know but members might be neo-liberal but they're honourable members and not twits.Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to wait until the Rt Hon Winston Peters had resumed his seat so as not to interrupt but you yourself have interrupted. The member we're talking about has shouted out on three occasions around dishonesty suggesting dishonesty of a member of this House. That is unparliamentary language.Chris Penk: I pointed out that the member who was speaking had not correctly filled out his own forms so shouldn't be casting aspersions on others' ability. It was nothing to do with dishonesty. The people of New Zealand may regard him as dishonest but that was not something that I was saying in the House today.Hon Tracey Martin: Speaking to the point of order—SPEAKER: Order! No no. The member has misused the point of order process.Chris Penk: She has?SPEAKER: No the member has misused the point of order process which has a much higher standard than the debating standard to make an allegation against a member one which those of us who know the record and have followed it—and if the member had followed it he would have known that his allegation was incorrect. But in any case whether or not he knew it was incorrect he misused the point of order process and will withdraw and apologise.Chris Penk: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Will you be requiring that member to withdraw and apologise for having used the word "twit"?SPEAKER: I have dealt with that matter—Hon Shane Jones: Hear hear!SPEAKER: —already and if it wasn't for the support and advice of Mr Jones there might have been more serious consequences for bringing up a matter after the Speaker had dealt with it.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Finlayson is a man who famously commanded his staff not to use the Oxford comma and I suggest that he focus on developing an ethical compass before he starts dabbling in intricacies of grammar. In the case that he will return to practice as he leaves this Parliament by the end of this year retaking a university legal ethics course should be a prerequisite rather than posing around here as someone who knew the law when this report is a damning indictment of his misbehaviour in the highest office that this Parliament has where law officers are concerned. It was an abject disgrace and he should be apologising to this House."