Ryall Tony: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Ryall Tony: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17344] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 That sort of speech proves that members can come to Parliament when they are far too young. 
Darren Hughes 
: But you were 25. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Has the member ever heard of irony? With regard to this legislation that the Government has introduced I would like to report on a point that the National Party in Opposition raised continually throughout the debate. It related to Mr Harry Duynhoven the member for New Plymouth. The Speaker will recall that an issue arose about Mr Duynhoven and an application he made which he says was not an application. Mr Duynhoven did something that in essence saw him pledge allegiance to a foreign power and thereby disqualify himself from being a member of Parliament. The matter was referred to Mr Speaker. While he was spending some time in considering the matter the Government announced that it would introduce legislation to regularise the actions that Mr Duynhoven had taken. At the time the Prime Minister dismissed Mr Duynhoven’s actions as a technical breach of a minor nature related to some archaic legislation that had never been considered by Parliament and that was completely out of touch with the modern world. So changes were to be proposed to the Electoral Act in the electoral amendment legislation. 
What is interesting about the legislation that has been returned to Parliament—and the National Party drew this to the attention of the House in the Committee stage—is that contrary to what the Prime Minister said this legislation does not change the circumstance that would have existed with regard to Mr Duynhoven if it had been law. That is to say that if Mr Duynhoven did now what he did then he would be out. Mr Speaker you would be required by this legislation to have his seat declared vacant. I think that is very clear and I do not think it would take the number of days that it took previously for you to draw that conclusion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker cannot be brought into the debate. I warn the member. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I accept that. But the legislation makes it clear that if Mr Duynhoven was to pledge allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands today as he did then he would be out of Parliament. So how can the Prime Minister claim any consistency or moral authority for her earlier statements? Where does she stand given that she said what Mr Duynhoven did was a minor breach of no consequence whatsoever and the law should be changed? The Prime Minister is the woman who is supposed to be on top of everything in this country—except for her speeding motorcades it would seem—yet she has delivered legislation to this House that does nothing about the situation that Harry Duynhoven was in. 
I consider it to be a long-lasting stain on this Parliament that Mr Duynhoven’s seat was not declared vacant because any reading of the Act made it clear that he had breached the law. There was only one consequence of his breach of the law and it should have been immediate—he should have gone. But the Government bailed him out with nasty cynical legislation that was covered in the Prime Minister’s rhetoric that the breach was something that did not matter that was inconsequential that was archaic and that would be fixed. If the breach of the Act was inconsequential archaic and of no relevance to New Zealanders or Parliament why has the Prime Minister left the rules exactly the same? I will tell members why. The Prime Minister was too scared to have a by-election with the seabed and foreshore issue swirling around at that time. She knew that the Government’s plan to give Maori a veto over the operation of and access to the seabed and foreshore is deeply unpopular with the people of New Zealand. She knew that if she had a by-election in New Plymouth Labour would lose the safest Labour Party seat in the country. 
Where is the Prime Minister in this debate? I ask her to take a call. I know the Prime Minister has been overseas 48 times in the last 60 months at an extraordinary multimillion-dollar cost to the New Zealand taxpayer. I know she has been running her campaign for a UN job for after the election but why is she not taking a call in this debate? I will tell members why. Because she knows that she cannot stand up in this House and defend what she said about Mr Duynhoven. If the Prime Minister is so confident about what she said why is she not taking a call in this debate? The point is that the Prime Minister said that what Harry Duynhoven did did not matter and that the law could be changed. Yet she has brought legislation to Parliament that does no such thing. She accepts that if Harry Duynhoven pledges allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands again and if all the other Labour MPs who kept their mouths shut during that debate renew their passports they will be out. I wonder whether a Government whip could take a call and give an assurance to this House that no other Government member has breached that provision of the Act. There is silence which proves just what we have always thought. 
This legislation contains a major stain on this Parliament and I suspect that in years to come people will look at the way that the Harry Duynhoven matter was handled and realise that it was a cynical manipulation wrapped up in deceitful rhetoric. It was just appalling that the Prime Minister told the people of New Zealand that what Harry Duynhoven did was of no consequence but has left it as an offence on the books of this House. We simply cannot have members of Parliament pledge allegiance to another country or to another queen while they are members of Parliament. That is simply appalling. If Mr Duynhoven did it again I would expect him to be out within 24 hours because if that was good enough for Donna Awatere Huata it should be good enough for Harry Duynhoven.