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:7776] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I was most impressed with the speaker from New Zealand First who has just resumed his seat Pita Paraone. He raised some interesting new matters in this debate. He gave the Committee the information that we have a Minister of the Crown Mr Harry Duynhoven with a Dutch flag flying in his office. He put that in a different context by asking what the symbol is that we swear allegiance to. It is the flag yet here we have a Minister of the Crown carrying a ministerial warrant granted by the Prime Minister who has a Dutch flag flying in his office. Now what message does that give to people when they come to see him? It is like a ship sailing under two flags. 
Ron Mark 
: A flag of convenience. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: A flag of convenience perhaps? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Two-flags Harry. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: “Two-flags Harry”—that could be his new nickname. The point has been made that the suggested amendment to bring the expiry date of this legislation forward would not work. I agree with that analysis given the reason that we have got into this mess. A member of our Parliament Harry Duynhoven clearly breached section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. The rules are quite clear; that does create a vacancy. The advice to us from the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House was that that was clear. The Speaker chose to ignore that advice. There is provision that if the Speaker is uncertain as to whether there is a vacancy he can consult with the House. But he should not have been uncertain on this occasion because the advice he received as I have said was very clear. But setting that aside it was convenient for the Speaker to take the course of action he did which gave the Government time to scramble together this disgraceful legislation. But the point has been made that bringing the expiry date forward will not work because the breach has been made. If we do not have the expiry date that is stated in the bill—after the next election—and bring it forward to next month next week the end of this year or whatever date may be decided Mr Duynhoven will still be out because he has made that breach. 
There is only one way that Labour members can save Harry Duynhoven if that is what they want to do—and the ACT party says it is wrong in principle for this Parliament to play around with the Act for the convenience of Parliament or in other words to change the law on a self-serving principle. The only way to save Harry Duynhoven is to redraft the provision on the basis of a clean-slate principle. In other words the law must state that anyone who has transgressed section 55(1)(c) of the Act to date has immunity. There would be a clean slate and from X day henceforth—whether that is next week next month or at the end of the year—anyone who transgresses section 55(1)(c) then knowingly and consciously would breach that section but all misdemeanours up to this point would be exempt. Now that would be equally wrong in principle but at least it would address the issue. So I offer that to the Committee should members want to persist with some of the amendments that had been suggested. Members really need to change them to a clean slate - type principle rather than just bringing the date forward because that would still trip members up. 
 The other interesting point raised by Pita Paraone was in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. He made some very interesting points about that. Moreover there are elements in our society that challenge sovereignty and this issue is all about the sovereignty of New Zealand. We know some radicals within Maoridom say they want to have dual sovereignty. Georgina te Heuheu gave a very good speech about upholding the law and I totally concur with her. But other flags have been suggested and there have been suggestions of indigenous groups of people issuing passports. Where do we go to from there? Many people passionately believe they have the right to issue an indigenous person’s passport in this country. If Parliament is to play around with a clear provision in the Act like section 55(1)(c)— 
Stephen Franks 
: And the flag doesn’t matter. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: As my colleague Stephen Franks says the flag does not matter. Ministers of the Crown used to be issued with New Zealand flags as a symbol and most responsible Ministers were very proud to have the flag on a stand in a corner of their office as a symbol of the warrant that they hold. The flag is a symbol of our nationhood. That is the point that was made; that is what it is all about. We have learnt in the debate on this part that the member who transgressed the Act flies a Dutch flag.