Worth Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7775] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this debate on the Electoral (Vacancies)—plural—Amendment Bill in particular with reference to Part 1. This is cunningly contrived legislation on any view of it. Whatever my personal views on this legislation—and I hope it fails—I can nevertheless admire the skill of the parliamentary counsel who by obfuscation and deception has produced an outcome that I am sure none of us truly intended. 
I am glad that we have seated in the rear of the Chamber senior parliamentary counsel because I would like the Minister in the chair Mark Burton to take a call on what is a remarkable aspect of Part 1 and I am not talking about clause 3; I am talking about clause 2. It seems at first blush to be innocuous. It states: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” So I went out to the Noes lobby picked up  
New Zealand Statutes 2002 
 Volume 3 and idly glanced through the first six statutes in that volume. Five of the six state in terms of their commencement not: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” but instead: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I ask the Minister why that is. What is the need for that significant change from clear parliamentary practice when there is retrospective legislation in this bill? 
I looked at the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act at the Animal Welfare Amendment Act and at another one that was different—it came into force on a set date. The next three I looked at were the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Amendment Act and the Bail Amendment Act. Then I stopped looking. But why is clause 2 the commencement provision drafted in this most unusual way? We are lucky to have a Minister in the chair whom I do not doubt may well grace the office of Speaker in the term of this present Parliament. This is a great opportunity for him to stand and indicate why it has been seen as necessary with retroactive legislation—retrospective in character—to depart from standard parliamentary practice in connection with the drafting of clause 2. 
Part 1 is a short part. It contains only two clauses. The second clause clause 3 states: “This Act expires with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force.” So what clearly is intended is that the expiry date is to be referable to the expiry of a parliamentary term. That leads me to urge this Committee to think carefully about what it is doing if it decides to lend support to this legislation because it is effectively usurping the role that the public have to determine the entitlement of members to sit in this House and from a voter’s perspective the entitlement of an individual voter to cast his or her vote. 
I was impressed by the comments the Hon Richard Prebble made that if this bill is intended to be limited to Mr Duynhoven his very substantial majority of something just under 15000 votes is to be shredded. He is now going to continue in office as an MP with the minimal margin that is the result of the voting process later in the day—a margin that may be as low as just three or four votes. So here he is a man who has had in the past a substantial mandate to represent the people of New Plymouth now reduced to holding on in office with the narrowest of majorities.