Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. As this debate resumes today the body language and the pain on the Government's faces passing legislation they don't agree with have got no better. As we debate this my colleagues have mentioned how sad a day it is for New Zealand democracy: potentially this legislation is about to put us in the esteemed company of a country like Zimbabwe.I rise today to debate new clause 7 because as an Opposition member absolutely opposed to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill this Opposition has a duty to attempt to make this legislation better. We're going to have to at the end of the day—as indeed the Minister in the Chair the Hon Andrew Little has had to do—swallow a dirty big rat to satisfy the inadequacies of Mr Peters' interpersonal skills with his own caucus—that is what this is about.We attempted last night in clause 5 to put a sunset clause on it. To allow this legislation—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look I apologise for interrupting the member. I would require us to come back to the specificity.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: And I'm about to do that if I get a chance.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you that would be great. We've gone a minute and a half.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Thank you Madam Chair. I was attempting to point to Madam Chair that we have a responsibility to attempt to make this legislation better. I was attempting to point out we had tried to do that last night with an amendment to clause 5 but had been voted down. And now what we have is new clause 7 which attempts to put in place the requirement that rules be developed by a political party and that those rules be transparent. We heard the Hon Andrew Little in his contribution a minute ago saying political parties must be free to make their own rules. I agree with Mr Little but where I think I disagree with Mr Little is having developed those party rules they should be known to us all they should be clear and they should be transparent. This is why this legislation this amendment is so important.The reason this is important is because New Zealand First had some rules that were published and available on a website requiring a member like Darroch Ball to pledge $300000 if he was at any time tempted not to remain a loyal member of the New Zealand First caucus. What that means is that Mr Peters put in place a rule whereby he ensured the complete cooperation of Mr Darroch Ball on any issue at all so that Mr Darroch Ball's conscience was in effect transferred without question to his master—an absolute puppet clause. Then when it got Mr Peters into trouble suddenly that rule has disappeared from the website and despite Mr Peters saying—despite Mr Peters saying—that Mr Ball had signed that particular enforcement notice Mr Peters then changed his mind and said no no member had.That's why I think new clause 7 is a genuine attempt—a very genuine attempt—to improve this legislation. If we're going to see this dreadful legislation pass that puts us in the company of Robert Mugabe of all people—puts us in the company of Robert Mugabe—let's see if we can make it better. This clause advanced by my colleague Chris Penk in Supplementary Order Paper 69 is a very well-worded clause. It is simple. It simply says parties must develop the rules by which membership is covered and also the expulsion of a member from a party membership is clearly exposed.I think that would make bad legislation better and therefore I implore members on the other side of the Chamber—the Greens Labour and New Zealand First members who I think mostly actually deeply oppose this legislation but they've been whipped into line. We know the trade-off between the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the mining bills: the Greens got the mining ban; New Zealand First got this waka-jumping bill agreement through. That's the trade-off but I do say to members of the Government at least as we go through the final stages of this debate consider new clause 7 carefully.