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:7793] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I appreciate being given the call and I recognise that I am somewhat privileged. I do have other matters in Part 2 that I think this Committee needs to consider. Firstly there is a highly rational reason for sections 55(1)(b) and (c). Although there has been an attempt to portray those sections as fuddy-duddy relics of ancient requirements that do not matter any longer there is actually a very sensible pattern in them which is no doubt the reason that Parliament left them in place when it last looked at the Electoral Act 3 years ago. 
The rational reason is that the Act trusts the people. The Act provides that there is no reason that the people should not be left to elect someone who has dual citizenship as long as they know about it. That sort of thing comes out in an election campaign. The people elect the person they choose but that person cannot then succumb to the temptations that come in office and change his or her allegiance fetter his or her discretion or come into a relationship with a foreign power after he or she has been elected. If the person does so that person has to resubmit himself or herself for effective ratification by the electorate. So the law is not penal or punitive. It simply provides that someone who changes his or her status in that kind of way needs to go and get a fresh mandate from the electorate. A person can do that. The law does not state that a person cannot owe dual allegiances but it does state that if a person creates an allegiance while he or she is a parliamentarian that person has to then go back and seek the re-approval of the people. 
That is a very sound principle and I cannot see that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be able to improve on it. Therefore when we look at the provision for retrospective change in clause 5 of the bill and at the period of retrospectivity we see that this rushed process is saying that it does not matter that the people have elected us on the assumption that on a change in our status they will get another go. We will pre-empt that opportunity not just for Mr Harry Duynhoven but also for anyone in this House. That is a very significant change to the vacancy rules. In effect it changes the contract the constitution and the basis on which we are here as members. 
We urge the Labour Party to vote for the amendments that Richard Prebble has put forward by which the suspension of those sections would not apply to ACT. We do not want the benefit of this measure. We believe we have been elected here by New Zealanders who expect us to have to live with the consequences of the decisions that are made in this Parliament. A member who applies for Dutch citizenship or any other citizenship while he or she is an MP is in effect saying he or she will leave the rubble that he or she may create and will be able to go off and live on a Dutch pension irrespective of where the New Zealand economy goes to. Mr Duynhoven may have provided one of the most benign examples of what can happen. It may be that people think there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to go and live in the Netherlands. But there is everything wrong with a member of Parliament sitting here voting and affecting the future of New Zealanders and meanwhile having an exit hatch wide open without people being aware of that at the time the MP was elected. 
The provision we are suspending states that if a person creates an escape hatch while still a member of Parliament then he or she had better get a fresh mandate. We have effectively said that Mr Duynhoven and all the other mysterious members who have created their escape hatches—from the Prime Minister with her escape hatch to the United Nations all the way down—can do so using and perhaps abusing the powers they are given as members of Parliament and perhaps selling their vote to foreign powers. They can take on an escape hatch by perhaps fettering their discretion and pledging their vote—and that is not fanciful; it has happened in the British Parliament. Votes have been sold in return for future benefits. 
The provision that we are suspending is part of the constitutional protection for New Zealanders that prevents a member of Parliament from being potentially tempted to use his or her powers to gain an advantage from a foreign power or to gain some sort of concession. I am sure that the Dutch Ambassador raced Harry Duynhoven’s application through far faster than she would have done for any ordinary citizen. One can already see that an MP is in a privileged position to extract concessions from foreign powers.