te Heuheu Georgina: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7760] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am so pleased to hear the previous speaker the Hon Peter Dunne make it very clear to this Committee that unless the Government agrees to his amendment to limit the scope of this bill to the circumstances that gave rise to it—that is the Harry Duynhoven case—then United Future will not support it. I am very pleased to hear that because I was deeply disappointed to hear last night Peter Dunne still vacillating. I have always regarded Peter Dunne as one who would uphold the constitutional integrity of this House. So I am very pleased to hear he will not support the bill if his amendment is not accepted. 
However that does not make any difference to National’s position. We do not agree with the bill in any event. That is no reflection on Harry Duynhoven who acted innocently. But unfortunately whether or not he acted innocently the fact is he broke the law. The circumstances giving rise to this bill are very simple. In applying for Dutch citizenship he breached the law. The moment he did that his seat became vacant. It was a breach of section 55 of the Electoral Act. The moment that happened certain actions should have flowed. The Speaker should have declared that seat to be vacant and this House should have gone into recess. There should have been a by-election. It is just not credible for the Government to say to National: “Well your party wouldn’t do very well anyway if there was a by-election.” Who cares that that would be the case quite frankly? There is a principle here that is far more important than who would win or lose a by-election and it is the principle that parliamentarians should uphold the law. The fact we are here debating this bill shows the absolute cynicism of a Government that would use the law to benefit itself. I am absolutely outraged by the actions of this Government. 
I also disagree with Metiria Turia suggesting that because the demographics of our country are changing—and they are—and numbers of our population have citizenship of more than one country somehow that makes a difference to what we ought to uphold in this House. It is not an unreasonable constraint on members of Parliament to expect that when they swear allegiance in this House to this country when they seek to manage the affairs of this country they must bear allegiance to one country only and that is this country—New Zealand. For those outside this House fine! They can hold as many passports as they like and bear allegiance to whomever. But from the way this bill is drafted and Peter Dunne I think traversed this very clearly a few minutes ago it seems to send an invitation to all of us in this House to make the calls to start resuscitating or applying for other citizenships that we may be entitled to. I might consider now applying for aTino Rangatiratanga passport. I probably will not because I do not think that is acceptable. If I am going to stand in this House as a Member of Parliament then I should bear the allegiance I have sworn to bear and that excludes my applying for any other passport even if I am entitled to do that. 
But that is the impact of this bill and it is wrong. It is outrageous that a Government would use its power—its numbers—to inflict this kind of legislation on this House and to send a message to the public at large that if the law does not suit the Government it will change it anyway. Even worse the Government will put the House into urgency to do it. The Government talked about the cost involved in a by-election; well what about the cost of putting the House into urgency? It is outrageous.