Peters Winston: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Peters Winston: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13652] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I will tell the good doctor what perfidy is: it is deceit—saying one thing whilst acting the very reverse in terms of one’s behaviour. That is what perfidy is. To get up and talk about this side of the Chamber being responsible for it is really a disgrace. The National Party now gets over $7 million from the New Zealand taxpayer every year. Next year it will get $7 million more plus it wants the $2.2 million cap. That is over $9.2 million dollars all in the one year and National members have the effrontery to argue—and be supported by the  
New Zealand Herald  
and other commentators—that this system is somehow unfair. That is disgraceful. 
How much money does the National Party need? It now gets $7 million from the taxpayer every year. It will get that amount in 2008 and it will have a cap of $2.2 million as well. That is almost $9.5 million for the 2008 election year. The National Party is running around with the mealy-mouthed  
New Zealand Herald  
correspondents saying that somehow it is being unfairly treated. That is disgraceful. 
I will tell members what is unfair about politics. What is going on in the Rakaia electorate right now is apposite to this debate. National had five candidates many of them dominion councillors and long-serving members of the party. One was a nephew of Don McKinnon. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Where did he go? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He was told by National Party headquarters that he should not stand and that he should pull his name out because David Carter is the preferred candidate—David Carter who could not win any seat ever and is now carpetbagging not in Lyttelton but in Rakaia. With all his money he got told by the hierarchy that that was the choice and other worthy souls were told “No.” This is how the National Party organises elections. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Outrageous! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is outrageous. I challenge anyone who wants to persist with this silly scurrilous argument to explain this: do members recall the Campaign for Better Government in 1993 with one Mr Peter Shirtcliffe and his family members? It was a thoroughly stuffed-shirt affair as the English would say. He claimed to have thousands of members but they turned out be his wife and his daughter—that was it. And who was it that paid all their money? A foreign-owned company called Telecom. It had the effrontery to come into the New Zealand system and seek to organise the shape character and form of New Zealand’s democracy. How outrageous! Did members see “Granny Herald” writing editorials about this affront? Did members see any New Zealand newspaper prepared to say that it is outrageous that a foreign-owned company now thinks it can organise New Zealand’s democracy? There was not a syllable not a sound and not a word. Nothing whatsoever came from these horribly concerned lips in 2003. That is the National Party’s record when it comes to democracy. It knew what Fay Richwhite were doing in the New Zealand market place. Did National members ever criticise Fay Richwhite? No. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on criticising an MP who was taking on this activity. That is National’s record. All of a sudden National members are out there saying that this legislation is heinous. 
They should tell me this: which businessman will be disallowed excluded disbarred or ruled out of taking part in the 2008 campaign? They should name one. They should name one business interest who will be denied being included or involved in any way he or she may wish to be—legally of course—in the 2008 campaign. National Party members should tell me now. They have been telling everybody else around the country and boring Rotary Club members silly with this argument but they cannot tell Parliament. They save up all these arguments for the local RSA meetings I suppose as though its members are concerned to hear that sort of deceit. But National members cannot name one business interest who is ruled out cannot participate or is not able to be involved in the 2008 campaign. They cannot name one. 
Then again some of the members of that party know nothing about what fair democratic traditions are about. Unlike people like Holyoake this is a new breed who think that just getting money is all they have to do. It shows in their behaviour—the Ryalls the rat pack the brat pack. They are so powerful that even though they have a new leader called Key they can get Carter—who is a hopeless member of Parliament and was a hopeless Minister—a nomination in a blue-rinse seat not by way of debate challenge and vote but by being the one candidate in Rakaia of all places. Now ain’t that the truth!