SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): In responding to the contributions made I want to comment on two particular speeches: the one from Chlöe Swarbrick for the Green Party and the one from the Hon Tracey Martin. In commenting on Chlöe Swarbrick's contribution I want to acknowledge that she was genuinely upset by the Hon Dr Nick Smith mentioning the late Jeanette Fitzsimons. Can I assure her that Nick Smith did not mention that name in any way to upset Chlöe Swarbrick; he did it for the same reason I would have mentioned it. I knew Rod Donald as well as any member currently in this Parliament perhaps apart from Ruth Dyson because we fought in the electorates of Port Hills Banks Peninsula etc. on a number of occasions. I also knew Jeanette Fitzsimons well. Those two were some of the most principled members of Parliament that we have seen in my time. So in Nick Smith's mentioning Jeanette Fitzsimons can I assure the Green Party it was done because Jeanette Fitzsimons herself phoned Nick Smith as soon as this bill was drawn to make sure that her point of view was well known to Nick Smith.Can I also acknowledge and thank the Green Party for supporting this legislation tonight. As I read the first reading the second reading and the third reading speeches what was very clear to me was that the Greens were in a difficult position when the Winston Peters bill went through. They had signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Government and at that early stage of the formation of the Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government the Green Party was in an unenviable position. It had no choice. But I do acknowledge that finally principles have survived. I say with memories of both Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons they will be pleased that tonight this legislation will at least pass its first reading and proceed further.The other speech I want to comment on very briefly is the vitriolic contribution from the Hon Tracey Martin. She suggested that I had this legislation drawn from the ballot or I put it into the ballot because of a vendetta I have with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I have no vendetta with that man. He may well have a vendetta against me and I think it's worth just rehearsing the history of why he may do so. But I have no animosity no vendetta against the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I'm doing this tonight because I believe in democracy. In 2005 when I was doing my job I was making comments as a chair of a select committee. Winston Peters didn't like what I said and he sued me for defamation. He sued TVNZ and he served Radio New Zealand in the same action. TVNZ and Radio New Zealand did nothing about it. I was aggrieved and I went to court to have my name struck out of that defamation. I won at the High Court. He appealed it to the Court of Appeal. I won again. He re-pleaded it to the High Court and I won on the third occasion. He ended up owing me over $100000 in legal fees and it was Mr Peters who had the vendetta not me.In closing I just want to acknowledge something I alluded to in my earlier speech about my passion for democracy about my loyalty to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and they wrote a quite substantial report on the influence of political parties and the impact of political party control on the exercise of parliamentary mandate. I just want to briefly read a couple of comments from their final observations and conclusion: The parliamentary free mandate remains a cornerstone of democracy. An MP represents the nation as a whole and should act in accordance with his/her sense of what is right or wrong … Ties between MPs and the constituencies are of a political and not legal nature … Voters may hold MPs accountable only in the context of elections." That's what democracy is about. It is not about a particular party leader taking control of its members and using them as puppets."