Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7760] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The debate on this bill arises out of the particular situation that relates to Harry Duynhoven. When the Privileges Committee considered the Duynhoven case it made certain conclusions in respect of him. The way in which the bill is drafted extends the provisions far beyond Harry Duynhoven. I will put an amendment to Part 1 to limit the application of this bill to the period that commenced on 14 August last year and ended on 6 August this year. In the event that that amendment is not accepted United Future will not support the third reading. 
The way in which the bill is crafted at the moment potentially creates an absurd situation. At one level the bill deals with the particular situation that relates to Harry Duynhoven and validates his eligibility to remain a member of Parliament. But by being prospective for the balance of the term of this Parliament the bill does two things. Firstly it states that anyone else—and we have all heard the rumours and the speculation about whoever else might be involved—in the same situation is protected but it actually goes further than that. It implicitly issues an invitation to all members of this House to proceed to make the telephone calls make the inquiries and check their eligibility and to do so with impunity secure that their actions are protected until the next general election. 
I do not think that was actually what the Privileges Committee intended or considered when it examined this matter. I also do not think it is what the Government intended or considered. We have an apple and a pear here. We do not have a consistent flow of the same situation. One could call the apple “Harry” and call the pear someone else but the point at issue that provoked this debate and led to firstly the matter going to the Privileges Committee and secondly this bill was Harry Duynhoven’s eligibility to remain a member of this House. That is what the issue ought to revolve round. The way in which the bill is crafted—I suspect it is probably reflected in the title it has been given as a consequence—broadens the scope so that it does not just cover other people who might be involved but creates the absurd situation where everyone is invited by implication to engage in the very activity that led to this bill in the first place. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: One would be crazy not to. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That is probably true. People are now given not just a legal protection but a legal encouragement to do so because they have a 2-year window of opportunity. That is why I will be putting forward an amendment to Part 1 to deal with the intent of the legislation. The intent was to refer to the circumstances relating to Harry Duynhoven and a limited application that ceased at 6 August this year would deal with that situation. But to move beyond that creates a situation that is absolutely and utterly absurd and that is not acceptable as far as we are concerned.