Franks Stephen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7791] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have three issues to cover in this Part 2 debate. The first is an unintended—I am sure—or I hope unplanned effect of the proposed new provision that people can be kicked out of Parliament if they lose their New Zealand citizenship. This is a “Mugabe” clause. That might be funny to people who think that the idea of treachery or betrayal is funny. That might be funny to the senior Government whip who has sat there letting his Labour spokespersons scoff at the idea of wanting to uphold affiliation and loyalty. But these kinds of provisions have been turned on their heads in other places. In May 1999 a woman was ejected permanently from the Turkish Parliament by the decree of the President. He had stripped her of her Turkish citizenship because she had dual citizenship and members did not like her wearing a headscarf in Parliament. That is what a provision like this is used for. 
This kind of provision is used routinely in Central Asia where there is a bicultural society—lovely thing that bicultural society—and the new indigenous majority does not like the Russians. So how has it got rid of the Russians from its Parliament? It has used a provision exactly like this to strip them of their citizenship and kick them out immediately. That is a lot easier than going through an electoral integrity bill. It is an awful lot easier than going through the procedures put into electoral legislation in 2000 by that Labour Government which at that stage was claiming to uphold integrity in the constitution. A Government just has to use a section like this—find someone it does not like with dual citizenship use executive power to strip that person of that citizenship and it has got rid of its irritant. 
That is the sort of reason that these things should not be going through this Parliament in one day under urgency. They are constitutional issues and they need thought. If this Government were serious about a select committee review it would have said that this bill had effect for a reasonable time so that the select committee could look at it. It could have said that this suspension lasted until say November when the select committee could have taken account of the possibility that something like clause 6 could be misused to eject people the Government did not like. That is a constitutional provision an odious provision and the Government does not care about it. 
I heard Government members scoffing earlier at the idea that members of Parliament had had any correspondence with people complaining about the action being taken today. I can tell members about one correspondent—Neil Harrap inventor of the Fly by Wire adventure attraction. He is an exporter to a number of places in the United States and the man who was caught very unfortunately by the tragic accident in Queenstown. Neil Harrap called me and said: “I thought they couldn’t do retrospective legislation but I have just been told that Parliament has cancelled my insurance retrospectively under the Health and Safety in Employment Act.” I said that I did not think Parliament would have done that retrospectively. There is a strong constitutional convention against depriving people of rights retrospectively and anything retrospective should be of the most limited extent possible. But I looked the Act up and he was right. 
The last time this Parliament deliberately did something retrospective it cancelled Neil Harrap’s insurance and now having paid his premiums he is facing liability for something he personally had nothing to do with. Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act he is facing full liability for that accident without his insurance. This Government did that deliberately despite the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision against retrospectivity and now it is bringing this bill into Parliament with absolutely no comment from the Attorney-General under section 7 of that Act. Where is the legal guardian of the Cabinet’s conscience? Where is the Attorney-General? Where is the section 7 opinion? I have only just touched on the issues involved in Part 2 but we are being asked to race this bill through with a completely unnecessary degree of retrospectivity. 
If the Government wanted to go along with New Zealand First and United Future I could have understood it but there is something sinister here. This is a corrupt process. Government members might laugh at the Turkish Parliament ejecting a member because it had stripped her of her dual citizenship but a Government that can get the Greens to support it in this kind of retrospectivity when they do not even know who it applies to is of great concern. As the price of their compliance the Greens have not insisted on knowing—or even asked—just what this legislation covers.