Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): First of all can I thank you Madam Chair for giving me the opportunity to make a call in the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill debate. I want to also acknowledge the Minister Andrew Little and thank him for his contribution. I'm none the clearer as to why he's shepherding this legislation through and when I look across the other side at the body language and the anguish of the Labour members they look to me like they've got indigestion. They're just in the process of swallowing the biggest rat of all time.As we've watched this debate develop and we get to the real crux clause of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill clause 5 it talks a lot about the power being given to a parliamentary party leader. Let us all be frank: this is about giving power to one parliamentary leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the only reason he wants this done is because he's got a record of being unable to control the members of his own caucus. I could spend a full five minutes—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No—10.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —probably 10—quoting the members who have been a part of a New Zealand First caucus then left simply because—Hon Willie Jackson: Who?Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —they fell out with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Willie Jackson yells out Who?": try Robyn McDonald Ann Batten Brendan Horan Andrew Williams Denis O'Rourke Richard Prosser and I suggest Darroch Ball if he dared take a call in this debate tonight. He will be the next.There is a word that I won't use. It begins with "h" and it ends in "y" and it explains exactly why we are here with this legislation. I've heard Mr Peters and I've seen him on television saying the only reason we are pushing this legislation through is that the voters of New Zealand have a right to have the result of election night preserved for that particular Parliament. That's the only argument Mr Peters continues to advance. Well then Mr Peters should explain to me why he contested the Northland by-election in 2015 to change the proportionality of Parliament as decided by a general election six months before. Mr Peters won that by-election. He managed to lose yet another seat at the next general election but that's Mr Peters' track record. But he argues we have this legislation to protect proportionality of the votes cast by the voters of New Zealand at election night and then Mr Peters himself goes and changes that by contesting a by-election.I say to the Hon Andrew Little who I agree is a man of integrity: did he ever travel to Northcote through the by-election to support the Labour candidate in the Northcote by-election? Hon Member: No he didn't.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes he did. He nods his head. He travelled to support the Labour candidate in the Northcote by-election and if that man had been successful—I've forgotten his name—that would've changed the proportionality of Parliament. It would have been different and Mr Little is nodding his head. How can he sit in the House tonight promoting this legislation the only sound reason for which is to protect the integrity of the vote on election night and then he's prepared to join his party his caucus colleagues travelling to Northcote to try and change that proportionality?The word begins with "h" and it ends in "y". I won't use it Madam Chair—I assure you I won't—but I'm sure every listener listening to this debate knows exactly what I am talking about. That's why when you look at the other side of the House Labour members won't take a call. They know this is about delivering to the Rt Hon Winston Peters who has a track record as long as my arm of falling out with his own members. That should be a question we're all asking in the committee of the whole House: why is Mr Peters such a poor person-manager? Why can his caucus not respect him and have a decent debate in their caucus around issues? Why can't the New Zealand First caucus operate like every other caucus that I'm aware of whereby you put issues before a caucus you have a debate and the debate comes to a conclusion and the members of that caucus accept the result of that debate? That's not the way it happens in New Zealand First—we know that. We know that because we know the party rules change. There was recently the example where they had to pay a $300000 commitment if they left Parliament. Mr Peters said they did and then when it was the subject of a potential investigation by the Privileges Committee—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise for interrupting the esteemed member but the point of order that was raised with the Chair just a few calls ago now applies to the National Party. Could you attend to that please? I call the Rt Hon David Carter. Thank you.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I thank you Madam Chair. Now what I was arguing about is that every caucus here should be about debate. It should not be about total control by a parliamentary leader and that parliamentary leader should not be allowed to justify this legislation on a basis that is false on a basis that this is all about maintaining the proportionality of Parliament as it is delivered by the voters on the night of the election because otherwise there would be no point in having by-elections. If you took the case of Northcote the Hon Jonathan Coleman resigned. Well the only way you can preserve the proportionality of election night 2017 is just for National to reappoint somebody into that. Now I hope Mr Peters isn't going to suggest that's the way we should do it. I hope Mr Little is not going to suggest that that's the way we should do it because by-elections are healthy. They give the electorate a chance to make comment on who they want to represent them going forward and by-elections occur for a number of reasons. It could be the death of a member. It could be the resignation or the retirement of a member. I've seen them both and the electorate then deserves the chance to have a say. But in having that say it changes the proportionality—or potentially changes the proportionality.So why did Mr Peters ever contest the Northland by-election? I want a New Zealand First member to stand and tell me that because in contesting the Northland by-election he went out vigorously to attempt to change the proportionality of Parliament delivered by the voters of New Zealand in general election 2014. From memory that by-election was six months after that and Mr Peters went out to change that proportionality and he successfully did so. He was then the member for Northland for perhaps 2¼ years—almost a record for Mr Peters. Almost a record for Mr Peters; he's not one that maintains good connections with electorates but that's not the point I wanted to make tonight. The point I want to debate is that this piece of legislation is bad legislation.In the next couple of weeks I travel back to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union—46000 parliamentarians from right around the world—will know that New Zealand has passed this law and they'll know the company that we're then in. New Zealand had a very proud record of operating one of the most open transparent and accountable democracies in the world and what Mr Little's legislation does what the Rt Hon Winston Peters' legislation does is put us into the same category as Zimbabwe—into the same category as Zimbabwe. And I tell the Hon Andrew Little: if he thinks that that will go unnoticed by members of the IPU then he's not correct.This legislation is shameful legislation. It is there for one reason only and that is to protect Mr Winston Peters who has a track record of losing control of his caucus and we saw it in 1996 to 1999. We saw it with the Labour Government of I think 2005 from memory. It's a track record that he should not be proud of but he shouldn't be forcing legislation into this House tonight that forces every other parliamentarian to abide by his rule which is simply a lack of ability to gain the respect of his own caucus members."