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:7764] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak to the title of this bill. I start by saying that title debates clearly provide an opportunity to consider two issues. The first is the factual accuracy of the title and the second is its legal accuracy. The point has already been made that in the context of this title it is significant that the bill is called the Electoral (Vacancies)—with a plural on that nominal—Amendment Bill. Clearly it is contemplated that others in the House have crossed the line that Harry Duynhoven has unfortunately crossed. 
The reality is probably that about 30 people in this Parliament are entitled to the citizenship of more than one country. Whether they actually carry passports—and some of them do—issued by other countries is perhaps not the point. But we face a setting where there are possibly multiple breaches of the provision set out in section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. I believe as others have urged that we are entitled to know whom those people are. This bill is being promoted to deal with one alleged irregularity that of Mr Duynhoven but it masks the activities of other members. 
I have listened with a degree of bemusement to the personal attacks on me in the last few days which have ranged from the childish to the stupid over my role as an honorary consul. As members of this House will know there have been a number of honorary consuls in this Parliament over a considerable period of time. There was a Cabinet Minister who was apparently in such a post. I simply say—and it is a statement of the obvious in the context of this title debate—that honorary consuls are not subjects or citizens of foreign States or powers. They do not take oaths of allegiance to the sending State and they are not entitled to any of the rights of the subjects or citizens of that sending jurisdiction. 
I was disappointed in the comments that the Attorney-General made before. We contemplate that the chief legal officer of the Government is the Solicitor-General. That is not strictly correct. The chief legal officer of the Government is the Attorney-General the so-called  
parens patriae 
. So it has been interesting to hear Margaret Wilson’s comments that she has considered there is doubt as to whether a breach of the relevant legislation has occurred. She has taken that view in the face of contrary advice from a competent legal adviser—in this case the Solicitor-General—contrary to the clear views of the Clerk of the House and contrary to the views of a clear majority of the members of the Privileges Committee. If I had doubts about the competence of the Attorney-General to evaluate issues of legal concern I would have to say that those doubts are mounting at an increasingly alarming rate. 
In looking at the title of the bill I have made the point that we should know whom the other persons are who are affected by the impact of the legislation. The title of the bill should spring from the issue that was the subject of the report to Parliament which is headed  
Question of privilege relating to the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 1993 to Hon Harry Duynhoven. Report of the Privileges Committee Forty-seventh Parliament (Hon Matt Robson Chairperson) August 2003 
. When one looks at the title of this bill one sees that the second point that Mr Dunne made is also particularly compelling because what has occurred is a clear mandate a clear invitation to seek dual citizenship.