Power Simon: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7757] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I feel it is necessary to respond to the Hon Rick Barker’s comments about the wording of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill being a general provision and therefore not requiring the tense in the title to be singular. What a load of rubbish! Do we call it the “Income Taxes Act” or do we call it the “Income Tax Act”? The simple fact of the matter is that whether the title is in a singular or plural fashion is extraordinarily pertinent in this case. To refer to the “Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill” makes it quite clear that somebody else is sitting on the Labour Party benches who has done exactly what poor Hon Harry Duynhoven has done. 
My colleague Mr Jones who pointed out the “s” on the end of “Vacancies” made a fine contribution to this debate. It has enabled the Committee to focus on the fact that more than one vacancy is occurring at present. Rick Barker’s contribution—that the general provision is a drafting technique—is the most ridiculous contribution this House has had from him and that is quite a big ask. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You mean since his second reading speech? 
SIMON POWER 
: Since his second reading speech. I see that Mr Barker must now be back in his office signing off some JP nominations. 
What is clear from the title to this bill is that somebody is sitting on the Labour Party benches who is not clear of the mud in this instance. I know that many of my colleagues have asked the whips to confirm which of their colleagues are in this position. I see Lynne Pillay and Helen Duncan have come down and joined us in the Chamber. Have either of those members created a vacancy in the terms of this bill? There is no response from those members. They had an opportunity to put themselves in the clear—to make it clear to the New Zealand public that it was not them who made the mistake but that it lies at the feet of another member of their caucus. 
 The ACT party I have to concede in a clever manoeuvre has now required each of those members listed by way of amendment— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why are you surprised? 
SIMON POWER 
: It was a bit of a surprise. Each of those members will now have to vote for or against an amendment as to his or her specific residency. I think that will be a very interesting procedure for the Committee to watch because at that point those members will be personally declaring by way of their vote whether they themselves have created a vacancy in terms of this bill. 
I just want to say that introducing retrospective legislation into this House requires us to leap a pretty big hurdle. It has to be an issue of such seriousness to the country that most parties are prepared to support it—a high-level constitutional principle that for some reason has been overlooked or has created a bizarre circumstance. This is not one of those situations. Be it on purpose or by accident Harry Duynhoven has broken the law. It does not matter how old the law is. It does not matter whether his intentions were well placed. It does not matter what his majority is. It does not matter whether he would win the seat. What matters is the fact that the law was broken. 
Matt Robson got to his feet and said: “Actually you should be able to apply for dual citizenship. What a stupid rule.” If that is the case do not limit the bill to this Parliament. If as the Hon Matt Robson says it is dual citizenship for MPs is a sound idea then by all means the Government can pass legislation—if it can muster the numbers—to say that that is the case. It should not limit it to one term because that raises the suspicions of the New Zealand public to the fact that there is somebody else in this Chamber that this legislation applies to—they can see that the title is plural—and that the Government wants to limit it to one term of Parliament. That is a gross abuse of the parliamentary process. 
I see that the Hon Marian Hobbs has joined us in the Chamber. Is she the member who has created the other vacancy? There is no answer there either.