Dalziel Lianne: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Dalziel Lianne: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
[Volume:610;Page:7839] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Privileges Committee report relating to the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act to the Hon Harry Duynhoven. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Speaker of this House cannot be called into a debate to answer questions from him or anyone else. 
I refer the member to the Privileges Committee report. His party was represented by very good members who made very good contributions to the debate. The report states: “Traditionally the House has as an aspect of its privileges determined whether a person has incurred a disqualification from remaining as a member. Where a serious question of disqualification or of a member otherwise losing his or her seat has arisen the matter has been referred to the Privileges Committee for consideration.” We have heard the most incredible amount of sophistry from somebody who has not bothered to read the report and who has not bothered to be briefed by anyone who knows anything about the subject. 
A significant point that I want to make is that Harry Duynhoven did not break any law. The act of his seeking to have his Dutch nationality restored is not a crime and it is not a breach of any law in this country. It does not offend a single law in this country. It is no wonder that some people wanted to put in an apologetic response to the Dutch community in case they were outed for showing that all they really cared about was making political points out of something that is a serious matter. The majority of the Privileges Committee of which I am a member determined that Harry Duynhoven’s action led to his seat becoming vacant by operation of the law. That is not breaking the law or committing a crime; it is simply the operation of the law on a certain action taking place. There are other actions that MPs can take whereby their seats become vacant. Being absent from this place for a significant period of time is not breaking the law but it certainly does vacate the seat. 
That advice was supported by the Solicitor-General. I did not agree with that advice and I do not agree with the majority position in the report. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Under whose direction? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That member is calling across the House asking me whose direction I was operating under. I take incredible offence that that member should suggest that I have taken any direction from anyone on this matter. The Privileges Committee is unlike other select committees; it operates on the basis of individuals sitting round the table to try to reach the best possible result. My track record on the Privileges Committee which is a heck of a lot longer than that member’s will show that I have not always supported my colleagues on my side of that table when matters have gone to consideration of a position. 
I preferred an interpretation of section 55(1)(c) that did not produce an absurd result. That is the key point here. The operation of section 55(1)(c) chosen by some people in respect of their interpretation produced an absurd result. The absurdity is that someone who can stand for Parliament three times with Dutch nationality and twice without without even knowing that he had had it and had lost it has somehow offended the democratic traditions of this Parliament. This Parliament states that people can stand for Parliament if they have dual nationality. If people carry two passports they can stand for Parliament. People need only have New Zealand citizenship. 
Bill English said that Parliament elected Harry Duynhoven to the seat by passing the law that suspended the operation of two paragraphs of section 55(1) of the Electoral Act. That is absolute nonsense. We have given ourselves some time to do some real work on the legislation so that we can make it mean what it should mean and what we intend it to mean. I do not believe that any Parliament intended someone like Harry Duynhoven to lose his seat in this House because he sought to have his Dutch citizenship restored. Harry Duynhoven was born with dual nationality. He was born a New Zealander and he was born Dutch. That is his status today. Nothing has changed. The only thing that happened in the interim is that he lost his Dutch nationality in 1995 when a law change in Holland took effect and he then regained it after seeking to have it restored. It was restored to the position he has always held. 
Harry Duynhoven gave evidence in the committee and I believed him. He has never applied for a Dutch passport. I have read media reports stating that he has applied for a Dutch passport. He never has! He is a proud Kiwi with a Dutch tradition that he is equally proud of. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to that member who is interjecting from across there that the point is that I have heard Opposition members make statements that are simply incorrect. 
It is ironic that the law apparently does not treat Richard Worth the same way. This is a man who has agreed to represent Monaco’s interests in New Zealand as an honorary consul. National Party members say it is OK for him to do that. How on earth can Harry Duynhoven’s action in restoring something he held from birth attract a more serious consequence than the action of someone who represents another country’s interests inside New Zealand? Even when he is here in Parliament he is thinking of the interests of Monaco. Members opposite are engaging in what I could only describe as sophistry in saying that Harry Duynhoven is entitled to suffer a more serious consequence than Richard Worth who has not even bothered to put his particular matter before the Speaker for a judgment call on whether he has vacated his seat. He has never done it. 
Finally what of the absurdities! If I had dual citizenship I could repudiate New Zealand citizenship after an election and not vacate my seat. We questioned the Solicitor-General on that and he confirmed that that was the absurdity of the current law. The law states that if I had dual citizenship and I repudiated my New Zealand citizenship after the election then that would not mean I had vacated my seat. How on earth could Parliament have intended that? If I applied for British citizenship—I have a Scottish grandad and my husband has dual nationality—even though the Queen of England is the Queen of New Zealand and it is to her that we swear allegiance in this House and even if my application were declined I would have vacated my seat under section 55(1)(c). That is the nonsense of the current law. The law the way it stands is a nonsense and it must be reviewed not in haste but properly by the select committee looking at the Electoral Act. 
I note that this section has been amended three times twice to cover absences and both of those during wartime. The law was first amended in 1914 so that soldiers could leave Parliament and not offend against the absence rules. It was amended again later on in the Second World War so that Walter Nash could be absent from New Zealand and not offend the absence rules which would have determined that he had vacated his seat. It was done again in 1981 and who was that for? I wonder who it was. Who got nationality from his wife? I wonder who it was. Maybe Mr Prebble could enlighten us. 
My view is that section 55(1)(c) should not be interpreted in a narrow technical way. The general public does not buy the sophistry we have heard from the desperate and dateless Leader of the Opposition. I believe we should now put this matter to one side. The Speaker will make his ruling on the advice of the Privileges Committee and on the debate we have had in this House. I stand by my view that section 55(1)(c) was never intended to produce the result that it had in this particular case.