Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7816] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 That last speech was extraordinary. There stood the chairman of the Privileges Committee who admitted that the seat was vacant as at 11 July this year. That was a clear statement by the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House. It was advice that the Speaker would have had yet today we are participating in what has to be a breach of our constitution—that is this Parliament is overriding the proper rule of law which is that if there is a vacancy there must be a by-election. It is pretty plain and pretty straightforward and it is what would happen in Australia and other democracies. 
I have to ask why it is not happening here. Surely members would have to agree that it is a privilege to be in this House and the only way one can get here is to be voted in by the people. If a person breaches the Act and that leads to a vacancy then the consequences of that are clear and they are laid down in our Electoral Act—there is a by-election. That is what should be happening in this case. 
The Government has a curious argument: he has a large majority therefore why bother? Well one might say that if that were true the Government would be welcoming a by-election but it is not. There are a number of possible explanations. First the Government is scared of a by-election because it would have to account publicly for various policies. There is another explanation on top of that and it is that there is another member of Parliament in the Labour Party who is also in breach and we could have more than one by-election. 
One might say that that is the consequence—the Act has been breached and there will be more than one by-election. But what if it is a list member? What if it is a senior member of the Labour Party who is a list member? In that case of course there would not be a by-election. What would happen if that person were simply kicked out of Parliament their seat became vacant and the next person on the list came into Parliament? 
 Today the Government has completely failed to answer the very reasonable question that has been put to it by speakers from various parties—namely why is this legislation so broad and extensive that it covers not just Mr Duynhoven but some other person? 
John Carter 
: They’ll get found out. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: My suspicion is that it is not just a person who needs a by-election but one who is a list member. For that person that is the end of the line. He or she is out of Parliament and the next person comes in. If that is the case then the Government has a clear obligation—in justice and in adherence to the constitution—to confess to that reality. It should say who that person is and be truly honest and upfront as to why this retrospective legislation is being designed to protect someone who is quite probably a list member of Parliament. At least then we would know why this legislation has been drafted in that way. The Government has been given every opportunity to name that person. Each party member of the Privileges Committee was asked to go back to their whips who would put the informal question to each of their members— 
John Carter 
: Which is normal tradition. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am informed by a member far more senior than myself in the ways of this House that that is normal tradition. Each party went back to the Privileges Committee and said that it did not include a member of its party. One party did not do that could not do that and that was the Labour Party. Dr Cullen the Leader of the House was asked that question specifically. I was sitting in the Privileges Committee and heard Mr Prebble challenge Dr Cullen on that very point. There was no answer at all. Today in this House we have asked and asked members and whips which member was infringing and there has been silence throughout. 
I am deeply offended that we in this Parliament have been asked to partake in a charade a travesty of our constitution where we will do two things that are normally seen as fundamentally reprehensible. One is to pass retrospective legislation which is normally seen as reprehensible particularly so when it deals with a constitutional issue. Surely the Government can see that. 
The second issue seems to be that we are being asked to participate in an act of dishonesty to assist a member of the Labour Party—quite possibly a senior list member and quite possibly a member of the executive. I do not hear any denial of that statement from that side or from Cabinet. Various members of my party have just raised the question of who it could possibly be. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Me. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member is not a list member. 
It behoves the Government to come clean. The integrity of this place behoves it to be accountable to and honest with the citizens of New Zealand. 
I close on the issue I raised right from the beginning. It is a privilege to be in this Parliament. None of us have to be here; we all chose to stand for election to represent the interests of New Zealanders. I heard a completely specious and false argument from the previous speaker Mr Robson that somehow it is a good thing to be a dual citizen. Being a member of Parliament is a voluntary action and it seems to me that whilst he or she is a member of Parliament his or her responsibility is to represent the interests of the citizens of New Zealand their electors only and no other. Surely taking out a foreign passport whilst one is a member of Parliament is an infringement of that principle. Today we are participating in a travesty of our constitution. I for one say that is wrong and that is why this party and other parties in this Parliament will vote against this legislation.