Member Vacancy — Northland Electoral District—Hon John Carter

on behalf of the Acting Leader of the House: I move, That pursuant to section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993, a vacancy in the Northland Electoral District having arisen in the period of six months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament, no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of John McGregor Carter.

The Hon John Carter resigned his parliamentary seat on 17 July 2011, creating a vacancy in his Northland electorate seat. Section 131 of the Electoral Act 1993 provides that no writ shall be issued for a by-election if a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of the vacancy, and a resolution is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives to the effect that a writ is not to be issued to supply the vacancy.

The Labour Party is supporting this motion. In fact, if we were not, the motion would not have been moved and certainly would not be effective if it passed, vis-à-vis section 131 of the Electoral Act. I think it is appropriate. It is an unusual situation to be in, to follow a member’s valedictory, but I think “Hone” Carter had one of those valedictories of the type where many members of the House would have preferred him to go on a bit longer. It was entertaining. It was probably like the member—always entertaining, always caring, and someone who was one of the characters of the House. I tend to say, and it might be a sign of my own ageing, that they seem to be fewer and farther between, the people who were elected as a result of their good organisation in an electorate, tying up the seat to get the National Party nomination, and then continuing to keep it tied up in a way that meant that over a period of time—notwithstanding a number of perceived, and actual, sins—Mr Carter was able to be totally unchallenged as to his right to represent an area that he built as a National Party stronghold, and one that was not always the safest of National seats. If we look at the demographics of the seat it should not necessarily be so, but, as a result of his character and his work, it became a safe National seat.

I was lucky enough to travel with Mr Carter, I think at the beginning of 1994, to the United States. At that stage the then two-thirds owners of Telecom—two US companies—hosted us. I think these days one could not think of many less likely members of Parliament to be the ones seen to be leading the Parliament in technology matters, but the objective was for some members of Parliament to gain a working understanding of technology. I think it is fair to say that I understood from that time about convergence, and it is interesting to see that what was predicted to John Carter and me is beginning to happen now, which is probably close to 15 years after the expectation of when it would occur.

We had some interesting conversations. Probably my most interesting conversation with John Carter related to when I had heard him, late one day, talking to John Banks on the radio.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

I make it clear it was not the time when he was found to be offending; it was an earlier occasion. Subsequent to that, we had a discussion, I think at the diplomats and parliamentarians cricket match, when we were both fit and able enough to play. I indicated to him that I had heard him, I had recognised his voice, and I thought that it was unwise for him to have done such a thing. Well, he is a bit like me: slightly stubborn and does not always learn from the first mistake, unless he is told off. There was a repeat performance, the fall-out from which was his fall from grace and resignation as a whip. Probably, more important, I think it led to the interruption, for a period of 15 years, of the career of John Banks, who was not reappointed as a Minister after that, and suffered the even worse fate of not being allowed to travel to South Africa to the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup in 1995. The Rt Hon Jim Bolger—now, of course, Sir James Bolger—forbade him from going, thinking that what were clearly racist comments would not go down well in the new South Africa. I think it is fair to say that it could have caused—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Carter?

No, Banks’ comments; Banks’ comments were actually worse than Carter’s comments, because there was a suggestion that the thing had been jacked up, and Banks at the time was a Minister and therefore the offence was more serious. As I say, Carter had been warned and he obviously was caught out later on.

But having said that, one of the important points about John Carter, and the thing that I valued the most, was that he always kept his word. We had a number of arrangements that were made behind the Chair, over a period of time, and John made it clear, when he had made an agreement, when he had indicated that he would have “best endeavours” to deliver, he certainly tried very hard, and he was always very thorough in that when there was a problem with what he was endeavouring to do, he would come back, he would indicate and there was clarity in the situation. I think that was a good sign of his integrity.

I think John Carter has a good job in going to Rarotonga. I think there is a bit of a practice—though not normally for electorate MPs, and I will refer to that soon—of members of Parliament taking up diplomatic postings. Of course, he follows in the footsteps of the late Brian Donnelly in being the member of Parliament appointed to go to Avarua. I think it is fair to say that a number of us, on occasion, have indicated that such an approach would not be the worst possible thing. I had five words that I think I said to Helen Clark two or three times while she was Prime Minister when I was in her bad books, and they were “Port Vila, Hanoi, New York.” For some reason she did not value my diplomatic skills in quite the way that would lead her to think it might be better for me to be appointed a diplomat, rather than continuing my endeavours in the House.

💬 Louise Upston: I wonder why, Trevor. I wonder why.

Well, I have always respected her judgment. Under MMP, I signal—not now, and probably not even as part of the next review, but at some stage—that it would be worth looking at having a system whereby we do not have to go to a by-election when we have this sort of arrangement, even if it is prior to the 6-month period before an election. A number of mature democracies are able, when they have this sort of system, to have people who are effectively deputy electorate members—people who, when a member of Parliament becomes a Minister, step in and effectively become an electorate member or effectively become a list member. There is a reversal of roles, which means that the Minister is freed up from doing the work in the electorate. It is taken over by someone else, but with the proviso—I think in all cases—that that reversal can be worked backwards again.

I wonder whether at some stage we need to look at the possibility of another member stepping into the electorate seat role. I think, because we do not generally affect the proportionality of Parliament—we are much more party-based—that it is something worth looking at. But I think we are having a little bit of trouble at the moment getting universal acceptance of the role of the list MP and the way that things work, and we might not be quite at the point where we could convince the public that that sort of system should be developed. I think that would raise the possibility of another list MP coming to Parliament, replacing the person who transfers over, keeping the proportionality in Parliament, and thereby saving millions of dollars in some cases in by-elections. I actually quite enjoy by-elections, but all of us know they will not make any difference to the eventual decisions that go through this House.

Labour supports this motion, and we wish John Carter well, but I hope that at some future stage we do not have to pass similar motions.

This is an unusual event. Normally it is impossible to say things about a member of Parliament who has resigned their position. Normally the valedictory is said and that is it, but I have been given the rare opportunity to talk about—I have just learnt his full name—John McGregor Carter.

I have known John for quite some time and would like to make a few comments about him, but before I do so I make the observation that this circumstance we are in here is very unusual. I have been here since 1993, and I can recall this situation happening only once before, and that was with the resignation of Michael Laws in the Hawke’s Bay seat. Michael Laws got himself into a spot of bother about a signature on a so-called referendum or survey done in his area, and he thought the only honourable thing for him to do was to resign. At that point there was no election date set. Within a matter of hours the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, announced the election day. As a consequence of that, the House could consider a motion to say that there was no need to have a by-election because it was within 6 months of an election.

It was a remarkable circumstance to have an election date set so early, and it changed what happened in this House. I was going to undertake some work with the then Minister of Justice, Mr Graham, but when I approached him after the adjournment of the House he said he could not do that work then because we were in an election campaign. The whole thing changed.

We are in a remarkable situation now, because we have an election date set so far out but still the House carries on its work. It has not quite got to the election phase yet.

I have worked with John over a long period of time. I put on the record that I found John to be a very good member of Parliament and an honourable member of Parliament. I dealt with John on many occasions as a whip. Those people who have held the position of a whip in this House will realise that there is quite a distinct and different relationship between the whips. One of the roles of the Opposition whip, which was a position I held, was to make the life of the senior Government whip as difficult as possible, and I did the best I could. I plagued him with all sorts of tricks—moving people around, moving motions, and so on—but all through this John kept his sense of humour. John was always very level-headed and simply accepted that this was the way the role was played.

John was always very good to deal with. In my opinion he was a man of integrity. Whenever I had an agreement with John there was never any doubt about the agreement being held to. His word was his bond, and I think this is a fine quality in him for New Zealand when he takes up his position representing New Zealand overseas. I think the people he represents will find him, as I did, to be very trustworthy and very reliable. I have a great deal of respect for the man.

That brings me to the point that we now find that the far north has no representative. That is effectively what has happened. It is unrepresented. Some people could exercise some concern about this, but I am not sure that all would be of that opinion. This is no disrespect to John personally.

I recount one occasion when that fine institution of this Parliament, the Parliamentary Rugby Team, was invited by John Carter to tour the far north and play some games. We were playing in Kaitāia, and the local team was a team of locals who were very large, strong-looking, farm-type men. Two of them had seen some service in the All Blacks, and they looked a pretty formidable crew, I can tell members that. At one part of the game the ball was kicked up high into the air, and the line of defence for the Parliamentary Rugby Team was John McGregor Carter. A line of forwards was fanned out—a large line of forwards—and they were hunting as a pack. They had one target, and it was the local member of Parliament. The captain of the Parliamentary Rugby Team shouted so all could hear “Don’t kick! Don’t kick! For God’s sake, don’t kick!”, but John was torn between two lines: self-preservation and orders. John chose self-preservation. He put his boot into the ball, it slid off the side of his boot and spiralled away, and this line of four lumpy forwards scooped up the ball, powered over the line, and scored a try. The captain was standing there shaking his head, and then someone from the sideline said “Don’t worry. He doesn’t listen to us either.” There was good humour. I want to say that even though it is politics, people can see the humour in it, and I am sure they said that with affection.

One thing I will miss from John is his jokes. I do not think I can recount any of them here tonight—partly because it is a family show and partly because I cannot remember them all. Whenever there was a down moment in the House, John would give me a nudge and say something. I would meet him out the back and he would recount his latest list of yarns.

He was also a person with incredible knowledge of how this place operates. I am sure that in recent times National will have found that John’s advice on tactics and how to operate things in the House has been invaluable. I can think of no other position than when we were discussing the Auckland bill. Once John moved back into the centre stage we thought we have a tough opponent here, and so it proved to be.

I am sure National will miss John, just as Labour will. We do not always have to agree with people in this House; I do not think that is important. What we have to see, though, is that they make a contribution, and, without a doubt, John made a contribution. It was not always in the debates, but he certainly made a contribution in how the House was structured, how the House was organised, and how it ran. He was very conscious of the principles of this House, its protocol, and its traditions. He was always very supportive of those and made sure that people understood that these were the rules of how the place ran. Yes, there are formal rules and the Standing Orders. Yes, there are Speakers’ rulings. But there are other ways in which people go about their business with integrity and by viewing with due respect each member here as an honourable member, and John was certainly one who upheld that. From that point of view I will miss him, because that collective knowledge is important to how this place runs.

I thought John made a great contribution. Yes, he might have cluttered up the car-park down below with his collection of ancient and semi-ancient vehicles—

💬 Chris Tremain: There are plenty of parks down there.

There are plenty of parks now; the parking space has increased. The humour will be gone, just as I miss Mike Moore’s humour around the place. When I talk about Mike Moore and John Carter I think how Mike Moore always used to say when someone was saying good things about him: “Oops, I must be dead; they’re praising me.” I want to say to John that we are not saying this because we think that about him. We have always thought this.

Finally, I want to turn to the last point, which is the issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard—that we now have a vacancy in John Carter’s seat and we still have in this House 121 members of Parliament. I do think there is a gap here, and I think we should put our collective minds to how this could be better managed in the future. It could be that the public find it acceptable to have a vacancy for 6 months. I am sure the public in the far north are thankful that we are going to pass this resolution, because the last thing they will want, I am sure, is two elections in 6 months—two occasions when their letterboxes are festooned with newsletters and direct leafleting, there are ads in the paper, hoardings up all around the place, and adverts for votes, driving the public mad. I think their tolerance is for an election once every 3 years; any sooner than that becomes a little less tolerable. So I think the far north public will see this motion as a good thing.

On the downside there is no clearly recognised person to whom they can go as their local representative. Yes, there are list MPs in the area, and, yes, we could look at formalising those things in the future. The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a very good suggestion. I also accept the point he has made that, given that we are looking at our electoral system, this is most probably not the best time to look at such a detail. But it is something we should keep in the back of our minds and think of.

In closing, I would just like to say a final thankyou to John for all the contributions he has made here over the years. I want to say thank you to John for all the goodwill he has shown to me, and I want to say thank you to John for the way in which he has conducted his work in this House. I personally found him to be a man of integrity, someone I could do deals with, and someone whose word was his bond. I think that is a very important thing. I never had to ask John for an email or a letter to confirm something. I knew that if John stood there, looked me in the eye, and said what would happen, I could go to the bank and say it would happen. There are not many people one can say that about. I would like to say it about more people, but I can certainly say it about John Carter. I do not think there are many finer tributes one could say to a person than that he always kept his word. Thank you.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry for the member. The Business Committee allocated only three spots to this debate, so I am sorry the member does not get a call. I say on behalf of all the comments that have been made today that I am sure the former member will be very impressed and encouraged by those comments. It may be fortunate that he does not get a right of reply.

Motion agreed to.