Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7711] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 This bill is probably one of the more significant measures to come before this Parliament in recent years. It is significant because it is unique and it is significant because of the circumstances that surround it. I want to say at the beginning that United Future will be giving conditional support to this bill. We will be voting for its introduction but I will be indicating some amendments to be moved at the Committee stage and there are a number of matters in the bill itself that are of concern and arise out of the discussion at the Privileges Committee over the last week or so. This is a serious matter and I think the House ought to deal with it in a serious tone. The speaker who preceded me at least attempted to do that and I acknowledge that contribution. 
The issue that this matter turns on is essentially related to the particular circumstances surrounding Mr Duynhoven. The argument will be raised by many particularly those outside this place about preferential treatment for members of Parliament over ordinary citizens. I think that is an argument that needs to be taken very carefully at face value because the circumstances that the previous speaker described—of being a few kilometres over the speeding limit or I could imagine others would say of being just over the blood/alcohol limit—are not akin to the circumstances in this matter either in their severity or in their relative impact. In both those examples there is a degree of knowledge involved. People know what the speed limit is and they know what the blood/alcohol limits are. 
The issue here relates to the particular provisions of section 55 of the Electoral Act. It is clear by all accounts to everyone who was present at the Privileges Committee that there was no fault intended by Mr Duynhoven’s actions and that there was no deliberate effort on his part to deceive or to circumvent the law. He is certainly a victim and he is certainly caught by it but he is not someone who set out deliberately to deceive or to break the law. That is the first point I want to make in respect of this charge. 
The second point that needs to be made concerns what this legislation is seeking to do. I think that as it is drafted it is too broad because it goes beyond the circumstances of Mr Duynhoven. If we look at the provisions of Part 2 in particular following on from the expiry clause we see that a potentially absurd situation is created whereby Mr Duynhoven is excused for his actions in the period prior to the passage of the bill but every other member of Parliament who might seek to take out dual nationality or dual citizenship or to renew a passport in the period subsequent to the passage of this bill and prior to the next election is protected. That is clearly absurd because Mr Duynhoven is being held to account for actions that he took yet we are in effect by the breadth of this bill conferring a grace on other people to carry out with impunity precisely the same action. 
Ron Mark 
: Who are they? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am glad the member made that interjection because I think that is a very relevant point. There have been accusations throughout this whole saga of other people being in this situation and I am very concerned that there may well be other people who have sat quietly and tightly throughout this debate and who have been quite happy to let Mr Duynhoven be the fall guy. Mr Duynhoven will be validated by this legislation; those people will continue to remain silent and relieved. Yet in the way that the bill is crafted it potentially gives them an out in terms of prospective action. I think that was a very relevant interjection from the member and I thank him for it. There is an element of unfairness here. [ 
Interruption 
] We do not know who they are. The allegations have been made and the one thing that is certain is that people keep saying there are people in this category yet Mr Duynhoven is the only one who in one sense has had the courage to come forward and cause this action to be initiated. So I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to limit the application of this bill to the period of time that ends on 6 August 2003. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What if the Government doesn’t accept that amendment—will you still vote for it? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I tell the member that we are simply commencing the debate now and he will have to wait and see how the debate transpires. He will get his answer in due course. 
The reality of this measure is that one has to go back and look at the intention of the clauses that were passed—going right back to 1852. It is absolutely clear that the circumstances at the time of the passage of those clauses and their subsequent carry-through related to a far different world. At the time of their passage there was essentially the British Empire hostile Europe and not much else. It is also clear that had these—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Prebble that my history is accurate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: 1852—a hostile Europe? There was no war between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War— 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Oh come! There were the Franco-Prussian War and the war of Schleswig-Holstein in 1866. I tell Mr Prebble that there were a whole lot of wars. He should not display his ignorance. This is an important issue. We can even take it right through to the outbreak of World War II and argue with some validity that these provisions were relevant then—certainly in the way in which we detained people deemed to be hostile aliens. But I do not think that anyone could mount a reasonable argument today to suggest that relations with the Netherlands have so deteriorated that any member who takes an action in respect of that country is breaching the intent of the provisions set out in the original bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is not the point. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is actually highly relevant to this bill in terms of what the intent is. I think that members of the Privileges Committee to a person were surprised to learn of the scope of the coverage. They may well have claimed prior knowledge but I think there was genuine surprise. 
The issues that now have to be addressed are firstly the relevance of the provision in today’s environment and secondly what changes ought to be made either to toughen the law in respect of people holding dual nationality or other arrangements in the future or simply to recognise that it should no longer apply. In this case the bill is a simple device to validate the position in so far as Mr Duynhoven is concerned to clear the decks in that regard and then to allow the Justice and Electoral Committee as has already been foreshadowed to carry out a wider inquiry. My concern remains the breadth of the bill as drafted because as Mr Mark rightly pointed out there will be others who benefit very substantially from it through their silence. 
It is easy to make all sorts of accusations about intent and motivation in this measure. I want to make this point very clear because I know it has been said although not by the previous speaker that there is a parallel situation at the moment whereby another member of Parliament faces criminal action initiated by the Solicitor-General in respect of comments he made. I actually think Parliament should afford him the same protection that is being afforded Mr Duynhoven. I believe that in the case of Dr Smith—and I have said this to him directly—his ability to represent his constituents is severely constrained by the threat of a contempt action being mounted against him. Every single member who comes to this Parliament comes here to advocate for constituents. If members say this measure is being done for Mr Duynhoven but people would not act in a similar way for Dr Smith then I want to say that United Future would support a measure in respect of Dr Smith because his action impinges upon the actions of all members of Parliament. It is not relevant to this bill but I wanted to say that in terms of people talking about special interest I think it does cut both ways. 
So we will be supporting the introduction of the bill and we will wait to see what happens to the amendments we move at the Committee stage before we further determine our position.