Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
[Volume:610;Page:7845] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 As a member of the Privileges Committee I had the advantage of hearing all the evidence that was put before the committee Mr Duynhoven’s submissions on exactly what actions he took in respect of reaffirming his Dutch citizenship and the legal submissions of Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the application of the Electoral Act and section 55(1)(c). The committee was also presented with advice from the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House. The Greens joined the majority of the committee who agreed that Mr Duynhoven’s action did lead to the vacancy of his seat. We were persuaded by the submissions of the Solicitor-General that section 55(1)(c) on its face was clear and that Mr Duynhoven’s actions did trigger the automatic legislative consequence and that is that the seat was vacated. We were not persuaded by the arguments that because Dutch law would regard Mr Duynhoven’s citizenship as unbroken therefore New Zealand law should also. 
But equally the Greens joined a different majority in the committee that agreed that the law needed to be changed because the public policy behind it was in our view flawed the law did not cure the mischief it was designed to cure and because the consequences were disproportionate to the action. The Greens are strong advocates of changes to other legislation for exactly those reasons. 
The primary principle for us in this case was that dual citizenship is an acceptable and legitimate personal state of affairs. It is absolutely essential that those who hold that right are able to exercise it otherwise it becomes a nullity. For many thousands of New Zealanders entitled to dual citizenship this is a very serious issue about the affirmation of a person’s heritage and genealogy and the obligation to protect that heritage for that person’s descendants. The Greens support the exercise of dual citizenship and do not agree to the denial of that fundamental right. That is why we support for example the Western Samoan petition. We do not agree with the arbitrary deprivation of a person’s citizenship those persons including MPs and that is why in our view forcing Mr Duynhoven out of Parliament would have been an act of injustice. 
Arguments from other parties in effect do challenge the commitment of MPs who hold dual citizenship and their commitment to our country. Surely they do not mean to do that because such an argument is a logical fallacy. It is an implication that simple affirmation of citizenship or nationality to another country that does not require the abrogation of New Zealand citizenship presumes that a person is untrustworthy or suspicious simply because of that nationality. Those members would accept that if an MP became a citizen of another country during a term of Parliament as a result of marrying a foreign national that is OK but they argue that the mere act of affirming one’s dual citizenship is an inherently treasonous act and that by taking on a second citizenship an MP automatically renounces his or her commitment to New Zealand. There has been no logical or reasoned argument why that should be in this case. That claim is completely unfounded and without any evidence. 
We live in an increasingly ethnically diverse society. All New Zealand citizens are entitled to representation and to stand for Parliament as a representative. Any New Zealand citizen is entitled to stand for election to this House including those who hold dual citizenship but we fear that the logical consequence of the opponents’ arguments was that only New Zealand citizens who do not have other citizenship could be a parliamentary representative. In our view that is xenophobic and completely undemocratic. 
One of the obscurities that arose out of the Privileges Committee consideration was the fact that while an MP could not technically take on an additional citizenship he or she could none the less renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship and remain an MP for the entirety of the term. Such a renouncement would not trigger the Electoral Act and would not require a by-election to allow the electorate to review the MP’s mandate to represent him or her. In our view that was farcical. The Greens are very pleased that the Government accepted our amendment to the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Act that an MP is required to remain a New Zealand citizen for the duration of his or her tenure as an MP. 
One of the other anomalies that arose out of our consideration was that where section 55(1)(c) applies an electorate MP whose seat has been deemed vacant can immediately stand again to seek another mandate from the electorate. The fact that the unseated MP can seek further mandate shows that the MP has not done anything illegal but in an MMP environment list MPs who are caught by section 55(1)(c) will lose their seats permanently and be replaced by the next person on the list. 
While the position of list MPs is different from electorate MPs and the list process does have its own peculiarities we must remember that we are talking about a very serious consequence. After a general election every 3 years the New Zealand community is asked to make some very serious decisions about who will represent them and their interests in the House of Representatives—a fundamental position of power in list democracy. The consequence of that section for a list MP is to be stripped of that responsibility with no recourse to resume his or her seat nor any recourse to the constituency that supported that representative in the general election. 
We believe that a party’s list vote is indicative of both support for the party policy and support for the list candidates as representatives of a community of interest. In our view a community of interest should not be accorded a lesser status. Section 55(1)(c) does not take into account the specific needs of an MMP environment and therefore unjustifiably treats MPs differently. 
There was some argument in the committee reflected in the recommendations in the report that legislation to remedy those anomalies should apply only to the disability incurred by Mr Duynhoven. We disagreed and we support the majority decision that recommended that section 55(1)(c) be suspended for all MPs for the whole term of the Parliament. Legislation that is retrospective only and which makes an exception for only one MP undermines the very principle that we support. 
Because the principle we advocate for is that dual citizenship is valid and acceptable and that a member’s allegiance to New Zealand cannot be questioned simply because he or she is a citizen of another country we could not support legislation that affects only one individual nor could we support legislation that denies the right and opportunity in the case of dual citizenship of all other members of this House who are entitled to that citizenship to renew their passport or take up that citizenship during the period from now until the next election. That is because we do not consider that dual citizenship holds an inherent threat to this country. So we felt that those recommendations were not helpful and we did not support them. 
Finally in the end it is our view that the report accurately reflects the submissions that were made to the committee and the discussion of the committee.