Sowry Roger: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7709] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Let me make it quite clear that the National Party totally opposes this bill. This bill is a cynical manipulation of Parliament by the Labour Government supported obviously by the Progressives and United Future. It is a cynical attempt to allow a member of Parliament who has broken the law to get off that breaking of the law. I start by saying that not only is this a cynical move—in fact the most cynical move that I have ever seen this Parliament take part in—but I do not believe for one moment that people who watch this from the outside think anything other than that this is a carefully planned move. 
The danger is that Mr Speaker himself is in danger of being seen to be part of the planning because of his inaction under section 129(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 whereby he is required in circumstances such as these to declare a seat vacant. He is required to do so without delay. So we find ourselves here tonight to try to avoid his having to do that on the next sitting day. Certainly the Opposition believes that he should have done that today at 2 o’clock when it was clear to every New Zealander that Mr Duynhoven was no longer eligible to sit in Parliament. Rather than Mr Speaker making that decision today we have seen him for his own reasons decide not to make that decision until the next sitting day thereby providing the Government with a window of opportunity in which to change the law in a retrospective way. 
We are being asked to believe that that is just pure good luck for the Government—that it is coincidence that the cards happened to fall the Government’s way. I do not think New Zealanders believe that. New Zealanders believe that this Government micromanages. That is what the Government spin has been about for years. I believe that it has micromanaged this and I believe that it is in danger of looking as if it is micromanaging the Speakership of Parliament. That causes me a great deal of concern and pain quite frankly because I for one believe in the integrity of this place. That is undermined by this bill. 
The bill states that a member of the Labour Party who breaks the law can get a law change retrospectively and that is OK. We have seen a whole range of spin from the Government as to why that is OK. First of all we were told that it is a silly law. I say to members of the Labour Party that I get all the time people who were picked up for driving less than 10 kilometres per hour over the speed limit and got a ticket and they think that is a silly law. But they do not have the privilege of having the law changed retrospectively for them. Only Labour members have that opportunity. Then we were told by Dr Cullen that the reason was the cost. It would cost $350000 to have a by-election New Zealanders would not like that so the Government would change the law to avoid it. Well it will cost taxpayers $3.5 million in taxpayer-funded time to change the law so the cost argument does not stack up either. Then we were told—this was the doozy—that Mr Duynhoven would win his seat anyway. We even heard Michael Cullen saying tonight: “Well he’s got the largest majority in the country. He’s going to win anyway so let’s not have a by-election.” 
Simon Power 
: Let’s not have a general election then. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: What a weak pathetic excuse! Does that mean that if Mr Duynhoven had been a list MP he would be gone? There is no cost in bringing in the next list MP. 
Simon Power 
: A marginal seat. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: If his seat was a marginal seat and he did not have that huge majority would we be having a by-election? If it was a marginal National seat perhaps we would be having a by-election but as it is a safe Labour seat we do not. Perhaps that is the reason. I have never heard such cynical reasons given—and reported on—for legislation that we are being asked to support. This is arrogance. This shows that the Labour Party will go to any length at all to keep one of its members in Parliament. If a member has broken the law that party gets out there puts the spin around tries to discredit the law then changes it for that member. Those are the reasons that we are opposing this bill. 
I say again that I regard it as a tragedy for the Speakership of this Parliament that the Speaker is now being seen by some to be complicit in that approach. That is a tragedy for the Speakership of this Parliament. Speakers come and go. Speakers are judged on their independence their integrity their standing up for Independents and for smaller parties in Parliament and their standing up for the parliamentary process. 
Simon Power 
: Parliament’s man. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Speaker is Parliament’s person and the only thing any of us including the Speaker walk away with from this place is the respect of other parliamentarians. When I see law as clear as this law is and I see a process that can only look like the Government taking advantage of an opportunity that has come its way because the Speaker decided to postpone making a decision when he did not have to postpone it—in fact when the law states that he should not have postponed it—I have to say that is a sad day for the Speakership. 
What about the bill itself? Is this a bill that states that the law is so wrong that it will be fixed? No. It is a bill that fixes it for this Parliament; after the next election it will be gone. 
Simon Power 
: It’s not a matter of principle. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: There is no great principle. This is not a change for all time. This is a retrospective change for members of this Parliament. Presumably in the next Parliament if a Labour member goes and does this we will have another piece of retrospective legislation. Mr Barker is shaking his head; it will not. The member might have a marginal seat or be a list member so Labour might want to have a by-election. 
This is a nonsense and the Labour Party knows it. Why not decide to change the law for all time? Why do it just for this Parliament if the principle is so big and if this law is so archaic—even though Parliament addressed it just a few short years ago; last year in fact? This shows how cynical the Labour Party has become. This shows a degree of arrogance: “We’re here and we’ll break every rule to stay here.” The public will see through that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Peter Dunne.