Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:17133] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The National Party did not include GST in its election spending calculations in the last election. Its members later claimed it was a misunderstanding with media agents Rainmakers—the firm thought the GST was inclusive; it was not. National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce told police that he had informed Rainmakers the amount was $900000 GST inclusive. Rainmakers says he did not. The police file has emails that raise questions as to why Joyce did not pick up on the problem prior to the 17 September election. One email a month before the election from Rainmakers to Joyce warned they would overspend their $900000 allocation if they continued with their booked advertising. However the National Party went ahead with it and as a result received $112493 in free advertising: Television New Zealand (TVNZ) $57000 the Radio Bureau $24000 TV3 $20000 Prime $6000 and Sky TV $3000. To pay the money back would have been a violation of the Broadcasting Act in that the amount would have been over the cap. 
The National Party drafted a member’s bill unique to this Parliament to allow it to pay the outstanding GST. It was the only client that ever came along in seven elections and said: “We’d like you to change the Act not for our group not for our sector but just for us.” This means the National Party wanted Parliament—the highest court in the land—to validate an illegal action by a political party and that is serious stuff. The bill was blocked by MPs from New Zealand First the Maori Party and the Greens. The Electoral Commission referred the case to the police in January 2006. The police said they could not prosecute the National Party because they could not decide whether National or the media agency was at fault. Rainmakers and the National Party were at loggerheads over this but it appears the agency has the edge and is being used as a scapegoat. 
Instead of paying National’s GST debts to media organisations Judy Kirk the president announced on 22 November 2006 that the party would make donations of media advertising to charities. I ask members to hear that—to make donations of media advertising to charities! This is the party that wants to be the Government. This is the party that makes huge mistakes. This is the party whose deputy leader was a Minister of Revenue. This is the party whose deputy leader was the Minister of Revenue back in 1999 but in 2005 he and his mate Steven Joyce a prominent media baron could not work out the GST on its broadcasting allocation. 
But hang on a minute! Is not Mr Joyce somebody with serious radio interests and a long background in broadcasting? This is a party whose leader says he does condone push polling and then he does not all in the same 8-second sound bite—and people think Russel Norman is supposed to be the one with the clean green image! 
These are the facts: TVNZ is not a charity under the law; the National Party broke the law at the last election on three occasions: one it did not pay its GST; two it broke the broadcasting cap allocated to political parties; and three it thought it would get away with it by paying the money to a charity. But TVNZ and the other people it paid the money to are not lawful charities in the context of avoiding gift duty. They broke the law three times and I want to ask the media up in the press gallery how on earth they can get away with it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it’s rubbish! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Because it is corruption? It is corruption; it is the most corrupt act to seek to avoid the law on three counts. [ 
Interruption 
] He said it was not me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said it was rubbish and the members would know that the word he used repeatedly is not parliamentary. I suggest you bring the member to order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Which word is that? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I do not wish to repeat the word that the member used repeated times. 
Hon member 
: Three times. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Three times. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I heard him say “It’s corruption.” It is corruption; I agreed with him. Now he says it is something else. If he kept his mouth shut and allowed the debate to go on he would not have heard the thing in the first place. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are you continuing the debate? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am trying to. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just hold on please. I will just satisfy the member here. Yes you did use the word “corruption”. In my view you did not say “Bill Smith is corrupt.” or the National Party was corrupt. There was an inference and it is getting a bit close but you did not say directly those words. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for a fine lawyer’s decision on what is a very narrow point. 
The National Party did a cover-up job with the media it owes the GST to but it still is not out of the loop. It is caught with gift duty. Why does it not pay the $15850 of gift duty it owes? It is not exempt and Mr Mapp who is a former law lecturer knows what I am talking about. It is not saved by the fact that it is a charity when we pay to TVNZ or TV3. We might think TVNZ is a charity. We might think that some of the behaviour of TVNZ represents a very much in-need charity but it does not qualify under the law—so pay up the money! If we are going to talk about New Zealand First we did pay the money in the only way the leading international published tax lawyer in this country said we could and that is the distinction. He said: “If you pay it back to the revenue it’s going to catch gift duty so pay it to a charity—a registered one.”