Carter John: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7778] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to raise two matters. The first is that clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” The honourable member who has just resumed his seat Winston Peters said it was the day after that. In fact the wording is “… on the day on which it receives …”. I want to explore that just a little bit. It is most unusual to have those words; it is normally the day after that. I can only assume the reason that the Government is doing this is that if this bill becomes the law on the day after it receives the royal assent then it very likely that by the time it does the Parliament may well have debated the Privileges Committee’s report and as a consequence the Speaker will have had to make a decision to declare a vacancy. So the Government has stated the legislation will come into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent. That puts it ahead of the timing for this Parliament to be able to debate the Privileges Committee’s report. 
Here again the Government is manipulating the parliamentary system. I do not recall—other members here may recall this—ever seeing a bill go through the House that stated it came into force on the day on which it received the royal assent. Certainly in this particular case whether or not there has been a precedent the Government should take extra care with regard to that sort of thing. However when I think about it why would the Government bother to take care? Why should the Government not have another go at abusing the system when it is abusing the system anyway by passing this bill? So when we think about it— 
Ron Mark 
: It’s a communist state! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely! Why would the Government bother to worry about whether it will set a precedent? It just wants to get on and do it without worrying about the people or about democracy. It does not matter a toss to this Government that we are doing things that normal Parliaments around the world do not do. 
What happened in Australia when events like this arose? The people vacated the seat and resigned. That is what happened in Australia and it should happen here. They are honourable people over there and not like the Labour Government here in New Zealand. This is a black sad day for Parliament. This bill really is a disgrace. 
The second thing I want to talk about is that it is becoming more and more evident that this bill is just a big cover-up for at least one other Labour member of Parliament possibly the Prime Minister Helen Clark who has made a mistake. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Tim Barnett! 
JOHN CARTER 
: No I do not think it is Tim Barnett. I think it is the Prime Minister Helen Clark. This point fits right in with clause 3. I believe that the Government has put this bill through with a provision that it will expire at the end of this term in order to cover up for somebody. I believe that person is Helen Clark. 
Simon Power 
: Ask someone! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I will ask whether it is Tim Barnett in a minute but I do not think it is. I believe it is Helen Clark because of what happened around “paintergate”. Helen Clark was quite happy to abuse the system and to avoid being had up for fraud and all those sorts of things so this issue will not make any difference to her at all. Here we have Parliament ripping something else up in order to cover up for the Prime Minister. That is just absolutely disgraceful. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Get on the phone! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I challenge the senior Government whip to stand up and deny that. I bet he cannot. Clause 3 will allow that to happen. 
I bet the senior Government whip cannot stand up in this Committee speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and say that the other member who will benefit from this legislation is not the Prime Minister. I challenge him to do that; I bet that he cannot. He has had plenty of opportunities. The senior Government whip could take the next call and say that the member for Northland is wrong and the Prime Minister is all OK. I bet he does not do that. Does any member want to take the bet up? Of course the senior Government whip will not take the challenge up. I ask the member Tim Barnett whether he is prepared to stand up in this Committee and say that the other member who will benefit from this legislation is not him. I wonder whether he will do that. I bet he will not. 
The problem is that this bill now casts suspicion on all the members of the Labour Party and indeed it casts suspicion on a whole number of people.