Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7812] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I want to contribute briefly to this debate to say that I have listened to the most appalling sophistry from the opposite side of the House. The fake moral outrage of people who are incapable of contributing to a quality debate on a serious matter does this House no credit at all. I have heard the  
Bible 
 quoted on how one cannot serve two masters. Why then do we allow people with dual citizenship to stand for Parliament? The expression that has been given is that the  
Bible 
 says we cannot serve two masters. The person who is saying that has dual citizenship. He is a British citizen as well as a New Zealand citizen. I ask why he did not put his citizenship to one side. Why did he not revoke it? Why did he not take active steps to get rid of it if he is so pure and above all of that? 
The same member who quoted the  
Bible 
 called people who took out citizenship of another country “traitors”. I reject that as well. Is he a traitor to Britain because he is now a citizen of New Zealand even though he holds dual citizenship? There is a word that for some reason we are not allowed to use in the House but if the cap fits I say to Mr Prebble he should wear it. We are not here because an individual actively applied for citizenship of another country. That member arranged to have his Dutch citizenship restored which under Dutch law meant he had always had it since birth. People have tried to portray that as someone breaking the law and Parliament allowing him to get away with it. That is not correct. He has not broken any law. The question we are debating here is whether we suspend the operation of the particular provisions of the Electoral Act while we sort out what Parliament really intends to do. It certainly did not intend that somebody in this situation would lose his or her seat in Parliament. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 We are about to do something that is without precedent in New Zealand which is to elect without voters a member of Parliament to a seat. There will be no vote except in this House. I have been in Parliament for 13 years which is not nearly as long as some members. But I have learned to respect its conventions and to act even if it does not suit me in a way that maintains its integrity and this is the shabbiest exhibition of the abuse of parliamentary process and privilege that I have seen in that time. That is not because the issue of substance is the biggest one this Parliament has ever dealt with but because Parliament is doing dirty work for one of its own members—that is why. 
Mr Harry Duynhoven and the unnamed members of the Labour Party who are covered by this legislation are being accorded a privilege they do not deserve. That is the privilege of coming to this Parliament to ask for legislation to absolve them retrospectively from the consequences of their actions. No other New Zealander has that right and nor would this Labour Government accord it to any non-Labour member of this Parliament. No way! 
This issue started with Government dishonesty when it said that this was an ancient law. Well the ban on killing people is an ancient law; it happens to stand as completely relevant today as it did in biblical times. This law was passed by this Parliament and was voted for by the Greens last year. So all the mouthing-off about the moral silliness of this legislation should have been discussed by them last year—and it was not. Section 55 of the Electoral Act was amended in detail last year. 
Rodney Hide 
: What way did they vote? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the Greens voted for it. They know very well that if Harry Duynhoven were applying for citizenship of Iraq this matter would have been handled completely differently—for very good reasons. So the issue started with Government dishonesty. There is a reason that this Parliament should be handling it differently and it is to do with the privileges of sitting in this House. 
There is no doubt about the facts. Harry Duynhoven disqualified himself from sitting in this Parliament on 11 June this year under the law that this Parliament passed as the law of the people of New Zealand. There is no doubt about that. The questions are about how that issue has been handled. Here is a good question which I want an answer to: why was a vacancy not declared Mr Speaker? Why did Mr Speaker not declare a vacancy? What were the reasons that a vacancy was not declared when it is now 2 months after the action that disqualified this MP? What will happen if I take an action that disqualifies me as an MP? Will Helen Clark wait 2 months? Will Mr Speaker wait 2 months? 
The advice that has been given on this case from the Clerk and the Solicitor-General is unequivocal. It is unequivocal and incontestable and what has happened? We have sat here for 2 months and let a disqualified member sit in the House. That is a disgrace! It is an absolute disgrace because sitting here is a privilege. It is a privilege accorded not by us but by the law of New Zealand. A member of Parliament disqualified himself and we have let him sit here. 
Rodney Hide 
: Not us! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We did. And we let the Speaker sit there for 2 months and not declare a vacancy when the facts were absolutely clear. I ask who was talking to whom about how to meet the needs of the Government. 
The last thing this Government wants is a by-election in New Plymouth. That is the last thing it wants and that is why it has abused the process in such an obscene manner—to avoid a by-election in New Plymouth. What do people think in New Plymouth? Helen Clark’s hypocrisy on the issue of the ownership of the beaches— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That phrase will be withdrawn. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw. How do Government members think Helen Clark’s attitude towards the ownership of the beaches will go down in New Plymouth? How many votes do they think that will get? How do they think the Prostitution Reform Bill and the civil unions bill will go down in New Plymouth? That is the underlying dirty little political secret behind this issue. Helen Clark fears deeply a by-election in New Plymouth as Labour is becoming more vulnerable by the day. That is why Labour members are having long caucuses and beating each other up. In the public’s opinion Labour is getting done and a New Plymouth by-election would show that to be happening. 
I believe that this Parliament is owed an explanation—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a continual barrage of interjections and I do not believe that is in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have noted that previous speeches have been heard in almost complete silence from the Opposition and from opposing people. The member has made a reasonable point. There will now be very few interjections at all. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I offer this challenge to the Greens. Rod Donald is a man who campaigned extensively and successfully to assert the control of Parliament over the executive. He was among those people responsible for changing the electoral system and he deserves credit for his ability to influence public opinion in that respect. Part of the reason that that happened was that people wanted to see Parliament exert more control over the executive but here the Greens are being party to a disgraceful episode whereby the executive is using its majority to decide who sits in Parliament. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The Greens have gone along with it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: And the Greens have gone along with that. 
John Carter 
: The only party that has. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Green Party is the only party that has. New Zealand First started out on the wrong side and changed as did United Future. It is the Greens alone—who came here to change the way politics are done—who have supported the executive in passing a law to decide retrospectively who is allowed to sit here. 
Will that retrospection be available to my colleague Nick Smith in the event that he gets a serious punishment for contempt of court when there is legislation in front of this House right now that changes the law in a way that means he could not be found guilty of contempt? Will that changed law be available to him? Absolutely not! Would we ask for that? No! 
Simon Power 
: What about the Privileges Committee? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I must raise a point about the Privileges Committee. I do not think that that committee did defend the privileges of this Parliament. It was not its job to try to help Harry Duynhoven with regard to his disqualification. It had one job which was to give an opinion as to whether there was a vacancy. The Privileges Committee has become subordinated to the partisan interests of the Labour Party and that is a shocking indictment on this Parliament. 
There is no process no law and no office of this country that cannot be suborned by the Labour Party in its partisan interests and that is the worst aspect of this matter. Every aspect of our law is subject to Helen Clark’s political needs and that is why we are totally opposed to this legislation.