Mapp Wayne: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17272] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The title debate is an opportunity to review the scope of this legislation. One cannot help but reflect on the fact that clause 6 in Part 1 is the source of governmental embarrassment. About a year ago the Prime Minister was saying that it would all be fixed and that a mere technicality was being perfected. For some unexplained reason the Government has changed its mind. I have yet to hear from any Government member why under this legislation—to be known as the Electoral Amendment Act 2004—the rules that effectively prevailed prior to Mr Duynhoven being in breach of the Electoral Act have been affirmed. Admittedly there is a minor change in that if a person already has a passport or a document issued by another Government he or she can get it renewed or re-issued. 
But I want to know why we are now in the odd situation of Parliament—I use that term collectively—having passed legislation exempting Mr Duynhoven from the 1993 Electoral Act not carrying over that exemption into this legislation. That is a fair question and one that I believe the public of New Zealand deserves an answer to. In particular I would like to hear the Government say what caused it to change its mind. The matter is hardly referred to in the report which simply recommends that the new section be clarified. It makes no reference whatsoever to its purpose in the first place. 
Also the report contains no reference whatsoever to that legislation having been induced by Mr Duynhoven’s breach of the law. I know that Mr Duynhoven took a call and gave a whole series of exculpatory statements but the fact remains that he was in breach of the law and this Government bailed him out by what has to be referred to as an affront to constitutionalism—by having a special piece of legislation. So one member of this Parliament was not actually elected by the people of New Zealand. One member of this Parliament is here because of partisan legislation. That is the constitutional affront. 
There was another approach that could have been taken and that was to hold a by-election. The Government refused to take that path and I would not be at all surprised if Mr Duynhoven rues the day he himself did not make that choice. Now he has to wait until the general election to find out whether he has the trust of the people—to find out whether he is elected by the people instead of by partisan legislation of this Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] I say for the benefit of the Minister that that is the legal situation. Mr Duynhoven is here by virtue of legislation not the will of the people. 
The Minister ought to take a call because today we are dealing with the Committee stage of the Electoral Matters Bill which has as one of its central features the issue around Mr Duynhoven. This Parliament and the people of New Zealand deserve better than the Minister’s silence. It is reasonable when issues of high constitutional moment are being dealt with that the Government take at least one call to explain why it was legitimate to pass legislation to allow Mr Duynhoven’s breach of the Electoral Act to be perfected by legislation and why 2 years later that kind of action will not be able to be carried on henceforth. I ask the Minister why the Government has made that choice. He has the opportunity to explain.