Peters Winston: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
Peters Winston: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
[Volume:624;Page:18996] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 What we heard there was the best defence on behalf of the two old parties—the old boys’ club that is dominating the management of New Zealand’s electoral system. I want to point out exactly what that means. I am told that we should have Mr Caygill because of his immense experience—whatever that is I do not know. How many jobs does David Caygill have and when will the Government wean its mates off? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh come on! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no the member cannot say “Oh come on.” Job after job is given out by Labour to its crony mates. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: From the president of the Labour Party downwards. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: From the president downwards. That is how it supplements its lack of income in running a party—it puts all its party hacks on to some governmental or quasi-governmental board and has the taxpayers fund its lifestyle while they go about exclusively 24/7 working for the Government. It stinks and it is not right. So how many jobs does Mr Caygill have—Accident Compensation Corporation? Yes? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: No! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes he was. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: No no longer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no longer! It is just a merry-go-round of jobs. How many jobs has Labour given its mates? Well they would fill a telephone book. My how they are going to be disappointed come September; they will be dug in like ticks on a hound until September but not after that date I assure members. 
The second man John Isles is the one who was appointed by the National Party because apparently according to Mr Ryall he has an “illustrious name”. Is that the same John Isles who stood for the National Party in 1975 in Napier? Is that the sum of his experience? What is the practical dimension— 
Darren Hughes 
: Made Don Brash the leader. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He knows more about politics than Don Brash that is fair enough. But what does that mean? He has more experience than Don Brash and he will learn how to lose earlier than Don Brash but that is all it means. But what practical dimension on earth is Tony Ryall talking about? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: He’s probably the next leader of the National Party on that theory. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member does have a point. We are told they will bring practical experience to the table of the Electoral Commission. But here is the rub. How many votes did National get at the last election in proportion to the other Opposition parties? Did it get half the votes of the other Opposition parties or less than half? It got less than half. National got 20.8 percent of the vote and notwithstanding that—their old chubby mates; when it comes to the system that is—the Labour Party is happy to have National decide who the Opposition nominee will be. There is no consultation at all. 
Have members ever seen anything so imperious and arrogant as a National Party with less than half of the Opposition votes saying nevertheless that it will make the appointment? Can there be any reasonable New Zealander out there who thinks that is fair? 
I will tell members of something worse that the National Party was involved in. When there was a call for a Maori person to be associated with the commission guess what National did? Without so much as a by-your-leave it appointed somebody even though National does not have a Maori vote in the whole country. Well if it has it is a lone one. National never had a Maori seat—New Zealand First had them all—and National still had the audacity to think it was appropriate that it should appoint someone who I notice is no longer as enthusiastic about the National Party as he used to be and his name is John McInteer. 
This is just one more repetition of that. Over and over it goes on and on it goes—the old club Labour and National appointing their favourites to jobs like this. But it is particularly repugnant to New Zealand First because we know full well that when it came to that appointment we were better qualified. We have proven it. We have actually won a few Maori seats. But National has never won one. It was not a problem with Jenny Shipley. She went straight ahead in 1999 and did just that. But then again where is she now? Who remembers her? Likewise this man Don Brash making the appointment—with but 6 months to go and with not so much as a by-your-leave he has appointed a former National Party man from way back. And then as Tony Ryall says who can say they have not been impartial! 
Darren Hughes 
: Don Brash didn’t even tell Gerry Brownlee who the nominee was going to be. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is possibly true but then again that is the B team. The B team does not talk to the C team and the C team does not talk to the A team and we know why. Let me tell members this. No longer is Murray McCully doing the job he used to do. Is that not a fact? Murray McCully would not have been a bad appointment because he does know something about elections and has been involved in a few from a long way back—all the way back to when Richard Prebble beat him in 1975 in Auckland Central. I know that Murray McCully won that seat excepting that the votes had been fixed by the Labour organisation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes make no bones about it. I remember it. That experience took us to Hunua to win a devastating petition on what we had seen in Auckland Central. Although Richard Prebble should not have got here in 1975 he did because the National Party as usual was not ready was not prepared and was not forearmed to do the job. However here is my point. What qualifies the National Party to make these nominations? 
Peter Brown 
: Nothing. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Nothing at all. Precisely! National has said that it is bigger than New Zealand First. Do members reckon? Let me tell members what they will see month after month in 2005. They will see the rise of a third party again and they will see another party that is above us despairing and clawing around for having no other party even to connect with. Members know what that means. It means goodbye nurse for the National Party and particularly when its members carry on in this way. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Oh come on! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Let me ask Mr Ryall: when did John Isles ever consult us? When did he ever walk across and say to New Zealand First: “What do you want as a view of representation in this area?”. Do members think we will get a fair go in 2005? I do not think we will get a fair go at all. We never got a fair go in 2002. We never got a fair go in 1999. We had all sorts of other considerations entering into it all designed around protecting other people. But of course we in New Zealand First have learnt how to make $1 go where other parties make $10 go. It is the secret of our success actually. We have been very frugal and very Scots about it which is probably due to the background inheritance legacy and pedigree of the party itself. 
But I want to make this point in closing. What is fair about the National Party getting an appointment when its members do not comprise half of the Opposition? Can it be said by ACT that they can trust Mr Isles? We will find out shortly. Can it be said by any other party in Opposition that it can trust Mr Isles? He probably is a great man for the National Party. He has a long lineage in the National Party. He has had numerous appointments for the National Party. But that is not what this is about. In a democracy the procedures should be open accountable and transparent. It is no use telling Iraq and Afghanistan to run an election properly when we have such patent absurdities going on back in one’s own country. That is a lesson the National Party should remember; so should its bedmates on this issue the Government and the Labour Party.