Turei Metiria: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7742] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 First I want to say that I am a member of the Privileges Committee and had the advantage of hearing all of the evidence and submissions surrounding this matter and the different legal views of Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the Solicitor-General. The discussion in the committee was certainly rigorous. In the end the Greens were part of the majority that agreed that Mr Duynhoven’s action has led to the vacancy of his seat. There is no doubt that the law as it is written applied in this case and that Mr Duynhoven’s actions triggered it. But equally the Greens were part of the majority that agreed that the law needed to be changed because the public policy behind it is flawed. The law does not cure the mischief it was designed to cure and the consequences are disproportionate to the action. The Green Party supports this bill and will do so through to the final reading. 
The Greens accept that Mr Duynhoven whose actions have brought this issue to the fore has done nothing illegal or wrong. He has not breached or offended any law. His actions of confirming his entitlement to Dutch citizenship have simply triggered an automatic legislative consequence. For Mr Duynhoven this is a serious issue about the affirmation of his heritage and his genealogy and his obligation to protect that heritage for his descendants. We have every sympathy for that personal desire and we would staunchly defend his and anyone else’s right to protect that heritage. 
With this particular circumstance Mr Duynhoven had only a small window of opportunity to reaffirm his citizenship between April of this year and March of 2005. That period sits fully within the parliamentary term. In effect this provision requires Mr Duynhoven to choose between his job and his heritage. In our view that is an unacceptable consequence of this provision. 
I strongly believe that because of the citizenship laws in this country that allow for dual citizenship for individuals and that MPs are able to stand for re-election and election while holding dual citizenship this archaic provision does not in effect prevent the mischief it was originally designed to cure. It is a stupid law and like other stupid laws it should be changed. 
In the New Zealand context this provision dates back to 1852 but in fact is sourced in very old law well before the unjust colonisation of this country. The primary purpose of the provision is to protect against an MP making an allegiance with a country with which New Zealand is at war. The MP’s seat becomes vacant but the MP can stand again immediately so that the electorate can reassess the importance of an MP’s acquired allegiance and choose whether to reaffirm his or her representation. 
This raises two concerns for me. It is only an electorate MP who can stand again to seek another mandate. In an MMP environment list MPs will lose their seats permanently and be replaced by the next person on the list. While the position of list MPs is different from electorate MPs and the list process does have its own peculiarities it must be remembered that we are talking about a very serious consequence—losing one’s job permanently and with no recourse to resume one’s seat. I believe that a party’s list vote is indicative of both support for the party policy and support for the list candidate as representatives of a community of interest rather than a locality. The community of interest that supports that party and those representatives should not in my view be accorded a lesser status. This provision does not take into account the specific needs of an MMP environment. 
The second concern is the implication that a simple affirmation of citizenship or nationality to another country which does not require the abrogation of New Zealand citizenship presumes that a person is inherently untrustworthy or suspicious. One reason given for the provision was that for example in 1940 we would not have wanted an MP who affirmed his or her citizenship to Germany. I am not compelled by that reasoning and I believe that it has some serious negative implications. In particular as I say I am very concerned that circumstances may arise where an MP is presumed a potential threat to the nation simply because of his or her citizenship and not as a result of his or her actions. 
New Zealand law has taken a very liberal approach to dual citizenship particularly since 1977. Section 16 of the Citizenship Act says that a person may be deprived of his or her New Zealand citizenship where the person has first acquired the citizenship of another country and second acted in a manner contrary to the interests of New Zealand. That second part of the test is open to very wide interpretation but it is at least predicated on some overt act by which a person may be judged and not simply the fact that a person has or acts on his or her dual citizenship. The Citizenship Act has moved this country away from the paranoia and prejudice of the past and into an area where a person is entitled to acquire and exercise dual citizenship so long as he or she does not do anything contrary to New Zealand’s interests. Section 55(1)(b) and (c) is inconsistent with that approach and should be reviewed which is one of the opportunities that this bill makes way for. The Greens have no problem supporting the changing of a stupid law that is not effective in preventing the harm it is designed to cure and has unjust and disproportionate consequences that far outweigh the harm caused. 
I want to make a plea to the members of this House who support the legislation because of harsh and unjust consequences and ask that they take the words of the Leader of the House to heart that when the law is an ass the law should be changed. That same principle must apply to the laws that affect the New Zealand public. The public are quite right in questioning why it is that a law that is unjust and disproportionate and affects at most only 120 MPs can be quickly changed but similar laws that are manifestly unjust and cause massive disproportionate harm to thousands of New Zealanders are not accorded the same priority—like for example the cannabis prohibition law whereby 22000 New Zealanders every year are arrested and convicted simply because they smoke a joint or two. The law is applied unfairly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can make a point and she related it to the bill but now she is to come back to the bill. I presume that that was the point of order that was being raised. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: There are as I have just explained examples of laws in this country which affect thousands of people in this nation that are similarly applied unfairly and where the law is similarly proven to fail to cure the mischief it was designed to cure. In my view any MP who does not apply the principle that an unjust and unworkable law should be undone to other laws such as cannabis prohibition is rightly subject to public criticism of duplicity and self-interest. 
The Greens take a consistent and rational analysis of the efficacy of the laws in this country—an analysis based on what is just appropriate and right. That is why we work for the review of cannabis laws and why we support the repeal of section 59 so that adults can no longer beat children legally. We support this bill simply because— 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had just returned to the bill in the sentence she was developing. I am allowing her to carry on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to support the member. She is explaining why the Green Party is voting as it is. Just because the rest of us might not think that that is logical it is not a reason for her not to be able to do that. We have not stopped any other member giving his or her views. I am actually interested to know how the Greens have reached their conclusion. I think the member should be allowed to give her speech. If she can see a connection between the Electoral Act and marijuana I totally accept her word. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The Greens support this bill as simply dealing with one unworkable and unjust law on a spectrum of unworkable and unjust laws that must be changed. It is clear that until we as parliamentarians deal with other irrational inconsistent laws we will be accused only of self-interest at the expense of the rest of the community.