Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): For Mr Doocey's benefit the profile demographics 2018 have the age group he spoke about being 605630. That figure was not in his question but he went on regardless the uninformed questioner that he is.But as for Paula Bennett can I say this: in 2017 the Hon Paul Goldsmith was approached by a concerned parent. Their 13-year-old child had been contacted on Snapchat by a colleague of Mr Goldsmith. Without their parents' consent or a teacher's consent that member of Parliament organised a meeting with that child in after-school hours. What did Mr Goldsmith do? Nothing. What did Paula Bennett do? Nothing—gets up in this House in a posturing example of Cant and a word that begins with h" as if she gives a tinker's damn.Who was it that said on tape to Jami-Lee Ross "I can find more women with complaints if you want."? Paula Bennett. Paula Bennett can I ask: where is the National Party's review into its bullying behaviour? Is that public? Can I ask Paula Bennett: were any women among the National Party caucus MPs actually consulted during the review? No they were not. And here she has been posing day after day week after week—their very worst example the very worst person they could have chosen to pose in the way she has—and she's not going to get away with it. Can I just say very clearly: where is the victim-centred approach that was applied where the National Party was concerned—or dare I say where Mr Bishop was concerned on Snapchat. Not a mutter not a murmur; not a syllable not a sound. This is the day of facts not vile rumour and unintellectual illegal nonsense.You know Paula Bennett when the review comes out we're going to find out just how incompetent she is to be even a deputy leader of any political party. She can't even understand chronological evidence. She doesn't understand that a witness has got to be a witness; it cannot be third-hand and it cannot be hearsay and it cannot be by rumour. But no no—she's touted that day in and day out in this House and after this great sham—dare I say it with my friends in the media—they've run this nonsense. It's a disgrace to a whole lot of innocent people. Now can I just say you know it was actually staggering. It was actually staggering when I was away to actually see an interview on Chinese television by a man called Simon Bridges. It was so staggering because I belong to a country that for all these decades and down through the years—since 1854 and even earlier—has been a democracy believes in the rule of law believes in protection not persecution by Government believes in fairness and equality and dare I say it is a model of transparency. We believe of course that that is the New Zealand that across the party divide we thought we stood for. You know I look back to people like Hamilton and Holland and Holyoake and dare I say it Marshall and Muldoon—all who subscribe to that. Yet if they had heard that interview on Chinese TV they'd have been turning in their graves. I have never heard such obsequious subservient grovelling kowtowing cap-doffing palm-kissing nonsense. You have to understand it. He says "Well the discussion I had with both the members of the Communist Party of China and the Government is that political parties are incredibly important to the running of the country." Mr Bridges there's only one political party in China. Don't you know that? I mean here's the leader of a party who wants to be the alternative Prime Minister—doesn't even know the most fundamental thing. And then of course he got the example all confused. He was talking about a cherry and a watermelon except that the cherry and watermelon is not President Xi's example; it's John Key's—it's John Key's. I know why it's John Key's and it's not the President Xi's because before he got to President Xi he used the same example of the cherry and the watermelon in India on his way there. What an amateur let loose on an international stage—unbelievable. He said this. You know as Robert Ayson a recent foreign policy expert said he is "partying like it's 2008". Let me tell you it is not 2008; it's 2019 and we live in very dangerous and different times."