Shirley Ken: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7759] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is a very small bill. It is printed on one sheet of A3 paper folded in half. On the front we have the explanatory note. 
The title clause actually has two subclauses which is unusual in itself; we have two subclauses in the title clause. The first states: “(1) This Act is the Electoral (Vacancies) ...“. The point has been made that the title has the plural “Vacancies”. We know that the bill is all about “Saving Private Harry” that that is what drove it but why put the plural there? Who else does this bill apply to? Is it Clayton Cosgrove with his Irish heritage or is it Phillip Field the Minister in the chair? Do members remember that when Phillip Field joined this Parliament he changed his name? He became Taito Phillip Field. Why? 
Simon Power 
: Ask him! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I will ask him and I want him to take a call. His family in his homeland of Samoa made him a chief—a taito. Whether it was on Upolu or Savaii I am not sure but perhaps he will tell us. Did he have to sign or take allegiance to the village that he has responsibility for? Actually a taito’s role relates to more than a village; it is not that of a matai. I think he has an extensive regional governance role in Samoa. Does he have a Samoan passport? Is he prepared to tell the Committee whether he has a Samoan passport? Is he prepared to support and vote for Richard Prebble’s amendment so that the whole Committee can know what his status is? When we see “Vacancies” in the title we realise it is not a technical drafting matter; it is deliberate use of the plural. 
There is nothing more important than the Electoral Act in a representative democracy. It is the basis of our democracy. What the House is doing here today makes this possibly one of the most shameful days in this Parliament’s proud history. It is what we would expect of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Moi’s Kenya—when people fiddle with the Electoral Act to accommodate themselves. That is what this Government is doing; it is using the tyranny of its majority supported by its lapdogs United Future and the Greens to drive through a disgraceful measure that defies the Electoral Act. 
It is very clear. When the Solicitor-General and the esteemed Clerk of the House who is recognised as the best in the Commonwealth give the clear and uncomplicated advice that section 55 is clear and that a vacancy does exist then the Speaker should act forthwith. We had a statement from the Speaker today explaining that if in doubt he must consult the House but there was no doubt; the advice he had from his own Clerk the best in the Commonwealth and the Solicitor-General of this country was that there was no doubt so he did not need to worry about that. He had protected his proverbial which he is prone to do; he had taken advice and the clear advice was that he should act. He failed to act. It has been obfuscated and now the Labour Government is furthering that obfuscation and trying to cloud the issue. It is a disgrace. 
We may not like the measure in the Act that has triggered this matter and it may not be fair; sometimes the law is not fair. But if we as representatives who are charged as legislators with making the law are prepared to fiddle the law when it is inconvenient or does not suit us what signal does that send to the country? That is what the principle is all about. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It’s terrible. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is a terrible signal. I see we have another Minister in the chair—Mr Rick Barker. When he was in the chair a few moments ago he had the temerity to accuse the National Party of lacking principle. When he led off he accused the National Party of lacking principle. I ask Mr Barker where the principle is behind this. The Clerk of the House and the Solicitor-General say that the law is clear yet the Government uses the tyranny of its majority to change the Electoral Act in order to cover an inconvenience and an embarrassment. It may not be fair but that is not the point. People up and down this country are hit with the law every day.