Peters Winston: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7790] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be putting an amendment to clause 4 of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill to read as follows: “That clause 4 be amended by adding after the word ‘Parliament’ on line 5 of page 2 the words ‘except New Zealand First’.” We will be putting that amendment because frankly we do not want to accept the Labour Government’s open invitation to treachery treason and traitorous behaviour. We have no desire to accept its open invitation for us to join one or other of its members in the likelihood of that happening. We want to ensure that we deny Labour the option of respectability by our not being amongst the members of Parliament who will gain this unwanted protection. We are saying to Labour very clearly today: “Besmirch your own but don’t besmirch us. Disgrace your own but don’t seek to disgrace us.” 
David Benson-Pope 
: Who have you been giving taxi chits to? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I say to Mr Benson-Pope that he would have been much happier in a gay bar with lots of paedophiles but I am not. He thinks paedophilia is a wanted emotion. He would defend anything. If he does not like this he should keep quiet. 
I say to the Labour Party: “Besmirch and shame your own but don’t besmirch us. Disgrace your own but don’t disgrace us. Don’t try to pretend that any party other than your own wants this protection.” For New Zealand First’s part our 13 members want out of this disgraceful behaviour this disgusting unparalleled unprecedented measure in the history of this Parliament. It is no use Labour members muttering under their breath. Labour Party members should get up and tell us why we should accept this protection. Did we ask for it? No. Who asked for it? Harry Duynhoven. He told everybody that he needed it and we believed him. We still do. 
Simon Power 
: He’s honest. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: At least he is honest. At least he is upright. At least he is straight and direct. We believe him. So who else will gain this protection? Labour Party members think they can get away with this by saying “No comment”. It is astonishing that this matter should be dealt with so lightly by the media of this country. It is one more indicator of non-neutrality non-independence and bias. If any other party said: “Go away we’re not making a comment on a critical issue like this.” it would be pilloried all over the front pages and it would be first on the 6 o’clock news. 
Dail Jones 
: Especially the  
Dominion Post. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Especially the  
Dominion Post 
. I wonder what that fish ‘n’ chips throwaway will make of this. That paper pays its journalists odium money for working for it. Typically this will be on about page 9. An issue that is critical to our constitutional democracy will be on page 9 because what someone eats for dinner is more important to that paper. If one coughs the  
Dominion Post  
reports that as something else. I say again to Labour that we will be voting for this amendment and I hope our colleagues in the Chamber will. 
Stephen Franks 
: We’ll help you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I thank the member very much. We want to be outside this balloon of disgraceful manipulation disguise secrecy and Philby-like Burgess-like Blunt-like and Maclean-like behaviour.