Sowry Roger: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Sowry Roger: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7782] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I thought the Minister might well wish to start off the debate on this part but that is probably asking too much. Part 2 is as reprehensible as Part 1. It is the retrospective part of the bill. In clause 5 this bill is deemed to have come into force on 14 August 2002—just on a year ago. That is when this Parliament commenced. So any member of Parliament who has broken the law with regard to foreign citizenship or sought to have a foreign passport or dual citizenship whilst being a member of Parliament is now deemed to be covered by this retrospective clause. We know that Mr Duynhoven has done that. We have no understanding why the Government has decided to go back to 14 August because we know that Mr Duynhoven told the Privileges Committee that he sought to have his Dutch citizenship come into force this year. So there is no reason to go back. He sought to do it this year. 
One would have thought we could have gone back as far as the dates Mr Duynhoven gave the Privileges Committee and that would have covered him. So why did the Minister decide to go all the way back to 14 August? Could it be that the Minister decided to go back to 14 August because of another MP? Could that be the case? Can the Minister assure us that no other MP broke this law prior to the date Mr Duynhoven gave—I think July this year? Can he assure us that that is not the case? The Minister sits silent. It is interesting because members of the Committee might want to know that members of the press gallery have talked to all political parties about this issue today. Every party has given an assurance bar the Labour Party. The Labour Party is saying— 
David Benson-Pope 
: What about the ACT party? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Benson-Pope should just keep his hair on. The Labour Party is saying to the media: “No comment”. Dr Cullen’s official comment to the media at the moment is: We won’t comment on it—end of story.” So we ask the Minister why he insists that this bill go back nearly a year earlier than the date Mr Duynhoven sought to have his Dutch citizenship ratified. Why did he do that? Does the Minister have any reasons for that? Will he take a call and explain to the Committee? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I will. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is good. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he personally has no knowledge of any member of Parliament who has also been caught up in this issue? Can he assure the Committee of that? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I will take a call. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Can the Minister assure the Committee that he has no knowledge of any other member being caught up in this? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I will take a call. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister said he will take a call and I hope he does. I want to flag with you Mr Chairperson my intention to take another call following the Minister or later on in the debate to make sure he does answer those questions. All I want from the Minister is answers to two questions. First why did the Minister choose to go back to when Parliament was sworn in? Secondly does he have any knowledge of any other MP who has been caught up in this issue and is that why he has gone back so far? If the Minister does not have any knowledge of any other MP being caught up in this issue and we are to believe all other parties in the Committee—except for Labour—that says it is not them then we want to know why he has gone back as far as that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable Minister Jim Sutton. [ 
Interruption 
]