Peters Winston: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peters Winston: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13454] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With regard to Mr Hide I gave the National Party guy 10 minutes. Surely he could have the courtesy to give me the same? That is what fairness looks like in my book. Otherwise if he does it there that is fine; it will never happen again for those guys. They will never extend that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please be seated. I have not called anybody yet. Mr Peters are you seeking another call? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I then call the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Do members see what happened there? Even though we gave the National Party guy a fair go his cohort was not prepared to give us one. How do members like that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but a number of members are out of their regular seats. Members cannot move in order to facilitate interjection. I have noted that several members who are interjecting are out of their regular seats and I have nodded to them. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They are delicate little flowers. They are delicate little flowers when the truth comes out. 
But how many people are actually being affected by this legislation? Let me tell members that 56 individuals or trusts according to the 2005 election figures will be affected by this legislation—not millions or thousands. Going on the 2005 figures 56 individuals or trusts will be affected by this legislation. And the National members want us to read the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Pay it back mate! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member should not worry; it is organised. What about the GST? Is that paid back? Is the GST firmly paid back? Is the GST offence acknowledged? 
The  
New Zealand Herald  
wants us to follow its view of a fair go in democracy. Do members recall the election campaign in 1993 when one political party was shut out from advertising on radio or television on pain of paying $100000 on each and every occasion that it did so? Who organised that? The National Government did that. Did the  
New Zealand Herald  
run a campaign about that? Did it write one word about it? No! That is the kind of hypocrite it is because it is foreign-owned. And it had better get one thing straight: its foreign ownership will not run the 2008 campaign. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a robust debate but I do not think it is acceptable that a member accuse another party first of all of being a hypocrite but then more particularly of being foreign-owned. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not take it as being that. I understood that Mr Peters was referring to the  
New Zealand Herald  
when he made that remark. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Nothing could be more apt. It is true. Back in 1993 the  
New Zealand Herald  
would not waste a muscle or raise a finger; it said nothing about it. But that is all OK because you see the  
New Zealand Herald 
—a foreign-owned media company—thinks it is going to organise the 2008 election from abroad. It thought so in 2005. The reason it was so mad post-election night was that it had just blown it again. The people who sit in the boardroom of the  
New Zealand Herald  
office think that because they are from a newspaper they will run the 2008 election. Well I have news for them. It is all bad and it is also based on the past. Members should look at clause 3(d) of the bill which is about transparency. They do not need to show me the bill; I know what I am talking about. The point here is about the number of New Zealanders who are affected by this legislation. Only 56 trusts or private individuals are affected by it. 
I have the National Party gifting list here. It is total deceit of course; it is not true. The National Party’s problem is that it finds it very hard—as every kid in primary school will tell us—to fit $10 million into $2.4 million. It finds it very hard to fit $10 million into $2.4 million which is the campaign cap. 
The  
New Zealand Herald  
did not tell the public this but in the 2005 election campaign the National Party had spent all its money before the 3-month period. National Party members are screaming now because apparently they cannot run an 11-month campaign. I do not know about Mr Key’s predecessors but if he wants to lead a political party he has to have stamina. He cannot go out like a show pony for 1 2 or 3 months; he has to go out for the whole 2008 period. On 1 January the campaign starts. Mr Key is either up to it or he is not. Either he has the energy the drive and the stamina or he does not but he should not ask the rest of us to stay home for 9 months and then turn up. The campaign period we are asked to have is no different from that in the UK. 
Those members’ arguments are humbug arguments and I ask them please not to tell me again that people died for what they are talking about. Men and women died in the wars. Men and women from New Zealand died in the world wars so that their country would not be run from outside so that it would not be governed from outside and so that elections would not be organised from outside. That is why they died so let us not hear the hypocrisy from the National Party members one more time that somehow calling on the sacrifice of the dead gives some colour of right to their spurious arguments. 
Every New Zealander who wants to vote in 2008 can vote. Every New Zealander who wants to campaign in 2008 can campaign. Every New Zealander who wants to take out advertising in 2008 can do so except that there will be some rules against those people who think—and this has been demonstrated abroad—that money can buy elections. There used to be a party once that believed in that. Sadly it no longer does. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Surely the kind of barrage that came from Mr Henare who yelled out things like “Sit down!”—which although it has no point to the argument is probably the most intellectual thing he has said all day—is not really the standard of intervention that we should have in this Chamber. If members want to interject their interjections should be rare and reasonable. But a barrage about paying the money back when frankly I actually spent more money on the National Party than all of its members put together— 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes I did. Those members are just takers. Doug and I were givers. I am saying that if that is the best they can do then they should be asked to leave the Chamber because the debate should be conducted in such a way that people can actually hear it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say that sometimes directing a series of questions across the Chamber actually invites interjection as well.