Cullen Michael: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7719] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise in this debate to talk to the issues. The facts in the case are clear. Mr Duynhoven has resumed his Dutch citizenship and Dutch law deems him to have been Dutch from birth. In that position now he joins approximately one-third of the current members of the House sitting in the Chamber at the present time in holding dual nationality. The interpretation as to whether that would breach the Act and create a vacancy is less clear. The majority of the Privileges Committee said yes. Professor Palmer a constitutional expert said no but so did Professor Philip Joseph who is one of the two other leading constitutional lawyers in the country— 
Dail Jones 
: Read page 4. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —somewhat outweighing Mr Dail Jones in that regard. The principles are clear. The principle is that we should all owe allegiance to New Zealand and that every member of this House is now a New Zealand citizen but equally dual nationality is not inconsistent with the practices and traditions of this House and of this country. Indeed some of those who have already waxed lyrical in this debate hold dual citizenship and are married to people who are the consul for a foreign country. 
The present law is foolish outdated inconsistent and ridiculous. Some people believe that one could renounce one’s citizenship the day after the election and still remain an MP; that one could exercise a British passport for three parliamentary terms without renewing it go to Britain ponce around as though one were a pom but hold a position as a New Zealand member of Parliament. Yet Harry Duynhoven simply doing what is his birthright comes within the purview of the statute. 
It is interesting that the first reaction of the National Party from Mr Brownlee was to say that we should legislate to overturn the stupidity in the law. But then they did this private little secret survey. At the Privileges Committee I said we should have a proper survey by the committee of all MPs if necessary on oath to find out the facts. But Mr Prebble immediately said no and the National Party said no. Instead we have had these surveys in secret and National now assures us they are all right. The National Party having done a secret survey then decides that its principles are that it is opposed to a change in the law. 
Now what if National had found out that Mr Richard Worth had in fact breached the Act? Mr Richard Worth is the consul for Monaco—a somewhat louche principality bordering the Mediterranean whose only purpose in life is to make money by gambling and is noted for somewhat dubious princesses. Mr Worth last year when asked to choose between his duty and his pleasures hesitated for not a moment before choosing his pleasures instead of going to an El Alamein service. “Mr Monaco” is on the record as saying that when he is at a public function the national anthem of Monaco should be played—which I assume is “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?”. But he is all right. 
But Harry Duynhoven who has been Dutch since birth is not all right because the Dutch Government changed its law and for a period of time he was not Dutch and he re-established his Dutch citizenship. The law is an ass and when the law is an ass it should be changed. That is the reality. 
Then we have been told by members opposite—by Mr English—that this has never been done before. In one of those glorious “Prebble-isms” on  
Morning Report 
 this morning we were told that the New Zealand constitution is unwritten and the Electoral Act is part of it. Here is the Electoral Act and it is written in great detail. Four times in its history this House has legislated in these matters to get members out of a mess—most recently in 1981 when a member of Parliament was marrying a foreign citizen and then in 1943 when Walter Nash was overseas for a long period as a diplomatic representative. It is definitely not true that this has never been done before. It has been done four times before in New Zealand’s history. 
The real issue of course is what should our allegiance be. On that there can be no doubt: our primary allegiance must be to this country but—[ 
Interruption 
]—clapping his hands is Mr McNair who is entitled to American citizenship. Sitting next to him is Mr Dail Jones who is a British citizen. Moving further along we come to Mr Prebble who is a British citizen. Behind him is Ms Bradford who is entitled to American citizenship. I make no secret of the fact that I am a dual citizen having been born in the UK. Ms Pansy Wong opens her mouth in horror at the thought of dual citizenship. Well there are words we are not allowed to use in this House about that kind of reaction. 
Where does all this stuff derive from about foreign princes and powers? I hope Mr English is listening to this. It dates back principally to the Act of Settlement of 1701. What is the main purpose of the Act of Settlement Mr Speaker? I think you and I know that. It is to keep Roman Catholics off the throne and to keep Roman Catholics out of Parliament and to keep Roman Catholics out of the ministry. That is the whole purpose that this derives from. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We’ve been paying you back with electoral victories ever since. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Brownlee says yes. He thinks that is a good idea. That means his name will be struck off the St Bedes College old boys’ list for a start. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a gross misrepresentation of the fine interjection I made. At least I never came to this House and abused my former old boys by saying I intended to tax the daylights out of them as Dr Cullen has done. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am glad to have let some of the air out of that rather over-inflated tyre on that particular matter. But it actually goes back further: this stuff about foreign princes and powers—“foreign princes and potentates” is the original—goes back to the Act of Appeals of 1533 which is actually the first major move in the English Reformation and abolished appeals to Rome. The whole background of this in our law is suffused with anti-Catholicism. In New Zealand law it first comes in the Constitution Act of 1852 when the purpose then was to be British. Now if one was and took out a British passport one would be in breach of the law because there was no such thing as a “New Zealand citizen” in 1852 and not for many many decades thereafter. It is a piece of nonsense that we are dealing with in this particular respect. 
Mr Prebble of course came up with his usual Aunt Sallies. Sitting there as a British citizen—he went very quiet in the Privileges Committee when I pointed that out when we got into questioning—not a million miles from being connected with the consul of a foreign power and one of such a dubious nature we are sending our police and army personnel there to rescue it at the present time. But no that is perfectly all right! It is perfectly all right for Mr Worth representing a foreign power; and last year let us remind ourselves he wanted to represent the Italian challenger to Team New Zealand. I regard that as close to some form of treason in this country. It is much more serious than asserting one’s right to be a Dutch citizen from birth as Dutch law allows. 
But no we are going to have all this pompous self-righteous nonsense paraded through the day from Opposition members as they try to argue somehow or other that Harry Duynhoven ought to feel the full force of a law that none of us actually knew had that effect—certainly not Mr Prebble previously; certainly not Dr Mapp previously— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Simple resolution—have a by-election. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —certainly not Dr Mapp previously knew that was the effect of the law. We have never had a briefing from the Clerk’s Office or from the Parliamentary Service Commission that members needed to be aware that if they were British citizens they could not renew a British passport. 
I have no doubt in my mind that many MPs in the past have breached that law. Many MPs I am certain have breached that law in terms of renewing British passports. Parties opposite having carried out secret surveys assure us they are clean and now on principle they can vote against the bill. I do wish Richard Worth had not passed on a technicality. I would love a by-election in Epsom where ACT would put Mr Richard Worth out of Parliament and I have to say this bunch of National Party turkeys opposite want a by-election in New Plymouth where our Harry would return with a massive majority and they would not even come second. They would be lucky to come third and more probably fourth behind ACT. New Zealand First would come second ACT would come third National could come fourth. But of course they know they have not got the majority so they are safe to take their principles into oblivion by the end of the day.