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:7758] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make just a few short comments in the title debate. In my view the title should refer to the equal treatment of both list and electorate MPs. The mischief that the bill is attempting to cure impacts directly on the ability of list MPs to retain some modicum of security in their seats should they also be subject to section 55 as it currently stands. 
MMP provides for two kinds of MPs one of whom is an electorate MP who represents a community of locality. Those communities have specific interests that arise out of their residing in a particular area and within a particular community. It is the traditional form of representation and it is quite right that we continue to have that representation in this Parliament. 
But MMP also provides for the representation of communities of interest whereby groups of people who span across the whole of the nation who are equally committed to various issues are able to have those issues represented in Parliament. Many of those issues are and still remain locally focused—for example the pumping of sewage into the sea is both a local and a national issue. Those issues often cross communities but as part of this process it is nonetheless very important that we have a system that enables the representation of communities of interest as well. 
This provision treats those different MPs differently and it treats the representation of communities of interest and communities of locality differently as well. The Greens consider that to be a very serious unintended consequence of this provision and an indication that it has simply not kept up withchanging times. 
 The other major issue for us is the general consideration of New Zealand law regarding dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is supported and recognised as acceptable in this country. We live in an increasingly diverse society. All of the diverse interests in our communities deserve to be recognised and represented in this Parliament. The representatives of those people and interests should also be entitled to serve in this Parliament if they themselves come from diverse backgrounds. 
In the 150 years of this Parliament we have been through the various debates about the representation of interests—for example women’s interests by women Maori interests by Maori people Island interests by Pacific Islanders. But we are still at a very early stage in that process indicated by the fact that we still have only one Muslim MP. That MP has only recently come into this Parliament in the last election. We are still in the process of trying to work through how to best represent the various diverse backgrounds and interests of the people who live and contribute to our country. There needs to be a sensible approach in the law for recognising that diversity within this Parliament as represented by the various MPs. While this bill takes a rather dramatic approach to doing that none the less it makes space for a proper debate and consideration of the way in which diversity—and dual citizenship in particular—is represented in this Parliament and the effect and acceptability of dual citizenship. 
We must protect Parliament from the treachery that section 55 is trying to preserve us from while at the same time protect every citizen’s right—including the rights of MPs as citizens—to hold openly acknowledge and exercise their genealogy and heritage within their dual citizenship. The Greens consider that this is an appropriate way to do that and reflect that the bill opens the capacity for that discussion to happen where it might not otherwise.