Wilson Margaret: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7736] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I think it is important in this debate which members have quite rightly said is an important debate in this House to remind ourselves that it is not just about a parliamentary colleague Harry Duynhoven. Certainly the events that surrounded Mr Duynhoven have been what has triggered us as members of this House and specifically also the Speaker to look at the precise effect of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act which is the subject of the bill that is before us. As one of the preceding speakers noted when the Privileges Committee came to look at this matter it became in effect a matter of statutory interpretation as to the approach that would be taken on the basis of the facts that were presented before us. Those facts were that a member had reactivated what he thought was already his—that is his Dutch nationality by birth. It was the act of filling out a form that was considered by the majority and by the Solicitor-General to bring him within the context of this legislation. 
Some of us who have been looking at and teaching statutory interpretation and who have made reference to the Legislation Advisory Committee’s report on the preferred approach to how one should interpret legislation point out the importance of always looking at a single section and particularly a part of a section within the context of the overall intention and purpose of that particular part as well as of the legislation in its totality. That was the basis upon which I approached this matter. It became apparent from the discussion in the committee that an event that could trigger that section or that could be considered to be an act for the purposes of that section could be merely making an inquiry—in the street maybe—as to whether citizenship was a possibility or having a conversation with someone in authority from the embassy of another country and saying that one may wish to pursue one’s right to a passport or to dual citizenship. That seemed to me to verge upon the ludicrous. That matter was raised by the honourable member Mr Prebble. Others thought—including the Clerk—that that would be a long bow to draw. 
The point to be made however is that all those points had to be considered in the context of the purpose of the legislation. That was the basis upon which I believed and came to the judgment that if members looked at the total context and did not take a strict interpretation—which members are not required to do in this legislation—then to argue that there was ambiguity in this particular factual situation when section 55 was applied to it was a valid if somewhat courageous position to take in the face of political prejudice. 
 What then emerged of course when we heard the testimony was that we were dealing with a situation that had absolutely no malice or ill will in it at all. An individual had committed an act for the purposes of this legislation of the sort that any number of members could have committed and probably did commit in the past and probably could have committed in the future if this event had not triggered debate about the issue. The event that was at risk here was of course the question of dual nationality. There is nothing unlawful or wrong about New Zealand citizens holding joint nationality. In fact many of my profession have argued for it because they were prevented on occasion from being able to practice in law because that sort of rather narrow interpretation was given. 
There is a legitimate debate to be had on whether in order to be able to be a New Zealand citizen one can be only a New Zealand citizen and cannot hold dual nationality. In this age of globalisation many countries have been reconsidering their approach to that. As we have heard Australia which is perhaps among the more chauvinistic of countries has now decided to acknowledge that there can be dual nationality. It seemed to me that the event we were talking about and the facts and the circumstances that arose from it were those where an entirely innocent mistake was made if one wants to put it like that—I do not even call it a mistake but an event—to pursue what is a legitimate right in any other context except for the very narrow one of section 55 of the Act. In that context then we had to go on and consider given that the majority of the committee had held that yes there was a technical breach of the Act—and I think everyone acknowledged that it was technical in that sense—the appropriate response. There was a division of opinion as to that. 
We have heard much in this House about members being above the law and making laws for their own purpose etc. I think it is important to remind the House that in other circumstances when a citizen breaches the law the matter would not normally come to this Parliament but would go to the courts. In much the same way this debate is in effect the equivalent of a court in terms of determining the appropriate remedy in this particular situation. We all know that when citizens have broken the law particularly when they have done so inadvertently if they come forward declare that there has been an error and hide nothing the court does not award the maximum penalty in those circumstances. Yet that in effect is what the Opposition is arguing for in the case of Mr Duynhoven. 
This is essentially a technical breach without ill will. When someone comes forward owns up and subjects himself to the judgment of the appropriate peers here in much the same way as one does in court proceedings then I think it is entirely appropriate to say that no the maximum penalty will not be awarded in those circumstances—the vacating of the seat—but it is appropriate that Parliament takes upon itself the responsibility to try to redress the anomaly that has been exposed in the legislation. 
There has also been some discussion as to why the amendment is drafted to include the whole period of this Parliament. For me the Opposition has presented an influential argument on that. I think there would have been some merit in taking the amendment just up to the present date but we have the publicly declared position of a member of this House holding an honorary consulship. We have heard that nothing in the mere holding of that appointment would offend against section 55 of the Act. That member has not had Mr Duynhoven’s courage and has not subjected himself to the judgment of this House. So we have not heard whether he is in breach of that provision not by the mere holding of that appointment but as one sees if one goes on to read the provision in terms of whether he does anything in that relationship that could be seen to offend against that provision. I for one will be seeking for that member if we do not pass the amendment set out in this bill for the whole of this Parliament to bring himself before the judgment of the Privileges Committee so that we can look to see precisely the full nature of what he does and how he does it. 
 It seems to me it is only fair if there is to be one form of citizenship for everyone to put himself or herself within the possibility and the scope of it. The issue may appear to be simple on the surface but I have no doubt that in the action—in the day-to-day working within that role—one could make a case that allegiance is being given to another country. We should have the opportunity to debate that in this House and we should not see it hidden away. We are told we have to accept the word of the Opposition on that issue. We are told things are all right and we must accept that. Certainly not! We have to have one standard for everyone and everyone should subject himself or herself to it. The Government can see the nonsense of the Opposition’s position in terms of bringing this House into disrepute which is why we have recommended that we address the fundamental issue. 
Section 55 of the Act is a nonsense. It is a stupid provision and we have to ensure it is made right. In order that in the future this House is not brought into disrepute by the speeches that we have been subjected to in defence or in support of this particular bill we must go the heart of the matter and cure what is wrong in the legislation and we must do so in the interests of all members of this House.