Donald Rod: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Donald Rod: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7721] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill and indeed we are pleased to have been able to work with the Government in the development of this legislation. I have known Harry Duynhoven for almost 20 years mostly through our joint involvement in the Trade Aid organisation. I regard Harry Duynhoven as a friend; but it is not our longstanding friendship that is our reason for supporting this bill. This bill is not the “Save Harry Duynhoven Bill”. The Green Party would support this legislation even if it saved the seats of Winston Peters Roger Sowry or Richard Prebble. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Would Roger Sowry have National support? 
ROD DONALD 
: That is an important point. Under this ridiculous law list MPs do not even have the opportunity of standing again in a by-election and that is why I particularly mentioned a list MP in this context. This confirms the principle—a long held principle—that New Zealand members of Parliament can have dual citizenship. It fixes an obvious nonsense in the Electoral Act—an archaic provision that has been gathering dust for over 150 years. It is accepted in this country that an MP can be a citizen of another country or hold a passport of that country without his or her allegiance to New Zealand being undermined or negated in any way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Mapp can interject from his seat—not by moving closer to Mr Donald. I think this is a serious debate. I want to hear Mr Donald whose party has this one call in this first reading. I do not think he needs to be subject to that sort of noise. 
ROD DONALD 
: Indeed a number of members of this House perhaps upwards of 30 are citizens or hold passports of other countries and that includes a few of our own members I would acknowledge. Anyone who votes against this law is in effect challenging the commitment of those MPs to our country. Surely they do not mean to do that. It is also accepted that if an MP becomes a citizen of another country during a term of Parliament as a result of marrying a foreign national that is OK. The law was amended in 1981 to make that explicit but it was not amended to protect sitting MPs from renewing their foreign passport or taking out dual citizenship. 
The stupidity of the current law is highlighted by the fact that not only has Harry Duynhoven broken the law—and we do acknowledge that a vacancy has been created—but also that he is eligible to immediately stand again in a subsequent by-election. How ridiculous can the law be? But even more significantly the current law has not been amended to require MPs to maintain their New Zealand citizenship while they are in Parliament. I would ask opponents of this bill whether they are happy to leave in place a law that means that every member in this House at the moment could legally renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship and remain in Parliament. It is clearly a nonsense. Both these extraordinary flaws in the Act need to be fixed and will be by this bill. 
Clauses 4 and 6 ensure that every MP’s loyalty to New Zealand is not in question providing he or she remains a New Zealand citizen. There has been some talk about amending the bill to apply only to Harry Duynhoven or to apply only from the period from the election until now. I think both of those ideas are patently ridiculous and undermine the very principle that we are trying to reinforce with this bill. Because the principle we are trying to reinforce is that dual citizenship is valid and acceptable and there is no question about any member’s allegiance to New Zealand if he or she is also a citizen of another country. 
If we constrain this bill to one MP then it becomes the “Save Harry Bill” and ignores the principle in fact undermines the principle. If we make it only from the election until now what we are doing is denying the rights and opportunities of all other members in this House who are entitled to have a foreign passport when that passport comes up for renewal or who are entitled to take up a foreign citizenship during the period from now until the next election. So we say those amendments are not helpful and in fact undermine the very principle that we are trying to reinforce with this law and we will not support any such amendment. 
In our view this bill is clear straightforward and short. It will deal with the immediate problem that has been highlighted and also give the Justice and Electoral Committee the opportunity to have a wider review of the legislation to make sure all the archaic elements are dealt with. This bill should not be a matter of great debate in this House but clearly it will be. It will be because National and ACT in particular are determined to make fools of themselves. If they had their way Harry Duynhoven’s seat would be declared vacant and a by-election would need to be held. That would cost I am told around $350000. 
I have heard some other members say that this session of urgency will cost more. That is only because they are dragging out this debate. I say that that is a complete waste of public money. Would any taxpayer thank National and ACT for putting the country through this unnecessary expense? I have had only one communication saying that there should be a by-election and heaps of people saying “What an absolute nonsense; why don’t you fix the law and fix it quick.” How many people have asked ACT to waste a whole heap of public money on a by-election? How many voters in New Plymouth have asked National to campaign for a by-election? The Government must have been sorely tempted to call one because National would have been on a hiding to nothing. That is because Harry Duynhoven is the most popular constituency MP in this country. He won over 20900 votes at the last election: more than any other MP in this House. He has the second-largest majority in this House. What is more National ACT and New Zealand First voters gave him that majority. Their own voters must be wondering about the credibility and commonsense of the leaders of the parties they voted for. Because just under half of the people who voted ACT—747 voters—also voted for Harry Duynhoven. Almost one-third of the people who voted National—2079 of them—endorsed Harry Duynhoven as their local MP. Members should go into the Internet and check the split vote report. That is the same reason that I sense New Zealand First members want to support a “Save Harry Bill”. Because if they have done their research they will know that well over half of their voters—2299 of them—voted for Harry Duynhoven as their local member of Parliament. So I suggest that certainly ACT and National get a reality check— 
Dail Jones 
: Was there a New Zealand First candidate? 
ROD DONALD 
: I would have to check. Mr Jones should have a look and tell me in a minute. 
Dail Jones 
: There wasn’t one. 
ROD DONALD 
: Well there we go. I suggest anyway that National and ACT get a reality check from their own voters before opposing this bill. My colleague Metiria Turei will raise a number of other issues during the second reading debate. But for now I simply want to say that the Green Party believes that Harry Duynhoven—or any other sitting MP—should not suffer the unintended consequence of losing his seat as a result of reclaiming his Dutch citizenship something he actually had when he was an MP from 1987 to 1990 and from 1990 to 1993. Harry Duynhoven was not putting his Dutch heritage ahead of his commitment to New Zealand and parties opposed to this bill should stop their political point-scoring and pass this bill.