Robson Matt: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Robson Matt: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7723] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This issue began around the question of Harry Duynhoven and whether he could sit in this Parliament. It was referred to the Privileges Committee so the committee could look at a matter of privilege. The Speaker of course has the legal responsibility of declaring a seat to be vacant—or not. The Privileges Committee in its majority report found that the law did indeed state that the seat was vacant. But more questions were thrown up than we actually had answers for. 
This debate is typified by the facts that the Privileges Committee when adjudicating on a New Zealand citizen who is also a Dutch citizen was chaired by an Australian-born member of Parliament who is entitled to sit in the New Zealand Parliament and that we did so in the Maori Affairs Committee room where the spirit of the 1835 declaration announcing tino rangatiratanga in New Zealand was present. And every member of this House has had to consider whether some way or another he or she has inadvertently or even advertently breached the law. 
The question that emerged in terms of the situation for New Zealand is this. Dual citizens in New Zealand can stand for the New Zealand Parliament. That is allowed by law; it is enshrined in a constitutional document the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Every New Zealand citizen has the right to sit in the New Zealand Parliament. Yet at the same time if an act is done under a statute that no one was aware of an act that is as minor as a member with dual citizenship renewing his or her passport—as one is entitled to do in law—that puts that MP at risk. It is not even the act of achieving a passport or achieving citizenship; if one looks at the law one finds it is possibly just the act of inquiring about or making an attempt to obtain a passport for whatever particular reason. 
In this Parliament we have had the privilege because of this debate to upskill ourselves in a whole range of areas. We had Sir Geoffrey Palmer appear before the committee and whatever the opinion people may have of the views he holds he is recognised as a very learned lawyer in New Zealand. We had advice from Terence Arnold the Solicitor-General and various comments in the media from constitutional lawyers so the debate has been educational for members of Parliament. But the one point that has struck me is that in almost all that comment nobody has suggested that we should not have dual citizenship in New Zealand. That reflects two things. First I hope that it reflects a very broad-minded attitude that we do not just judge people’s allegiance to New Zealand by where they may have been born the colour of their skin or their religion which in this world is a good step. Second it reflects the fact that dual citizenship is in every part of New Zealand life accepted. 
In fact we have gone one step further than that on the question of residence. In this Parliament even at the present time one does not have to be a citizen of New Zealand in order to be a member of Parliament. One can be a member if one was on the electoral roll in 1975. That was my position. In 1975 I was a New Zealand resident and subsequently I was elected to this Parliament. No one can say that I have not been the most loyal and wonderful member of Parliament in representing New Zealand’s interests. In fact with regard to New Zealand’s interests when I have spoken to the Australian Government it has had no doubt that my allegiance lies with New Zealand’s defence policies and not with those of Australia. New Zealand is in no danger that I would swap the allegiance I hold to New Zealand for allegiance to the Australian Government. Yet as Mr Peters pointed out last night my allegiance may be to Ned Kelly. May I say that someone like Ned Kelly who had he been here would have been entitled to be elected to the New Zealand Parliament and would have made a very good member of this Parliament. He would have raised the standards very high. 
Of course we have had the benefit of not only the Deputy Prime Minister but also of a lecturer in history with some knowledge in that field. History is a debatable subject and we do not all have to agree on its interpretation. However we do know that the purpose of the Act of Settlement 1701 was to ensure Protestant dominance in Great Britain and to retain the power of the Protestant groups. In New Zealand well before other countries we accepted Roman Catholic Prime Ministers. In fact one of our best Roman Catholic Prime Ministers also had his allegiance to Ned Kelly: Michael Joseph Savage one of the great Prime Ministers of New Zealand. Not only was he a Roman Catholic but he was an Australian who was born very close to where Ned Kelly had his major areas of operations. Michael Joseph Savage was a very good Prime Minister. As well on the National side of the House in terms of spurning the Act of Settlement 1701 we have had James Brendan Bolger who I believe is also a Roman Catholic. Therefore we in New Zealand have put aside this legislation about allegiance to other countries. 
What are we being asked to do? In its majority report the Privileges Committee stated that yes this particular section of the Electoral Act means that the seat can be declared vacant. But it has also raised the question of the ambiguity of many laws and practices in New Zealand that recognise dual citizenship. We as a country have also not declared that for it to be said that one is patriotic one has to have a type of false patriotism and be able to say that the only country one will ever live in and stand on the soil of is New Zealand. We recognise our heritage. We recognise the ability to have allegiance to New Zealand and to hold dual citizenship and that is a very good thing. 
What are we faced with? Parliament is faced with fixing a problem and fixing it in the eyes of the public not with hiding some treachery and not with hiding some allegiance to countries that will undermine New Zealand’s sovereignty. New Zealand First is often telling us that it is here to fix it. Well let us take up that wonderful slogan from New Zealand First and let us all fix what is an anomaly in this Parliament. Let us not—and I do not think the public wants us to do this—go on a witch-hunt to find out who may have a passport who may have made an inquiry about a passport for one of his or her children or his or her partner or who may in the secrecy of his or her home have even cheered for an alternative team to the All Blacks. Who knows which Australian-born MPs here may hedge their bets until half-time in a game and then change their support? If an MP changes backwards and forwards on a sporting matter would we then say that he or she will betray New Zealand? Of course we will not. There are plenty of people with New Zealand passports who I would say have betrayed our interests in many many ways. But it does not follow that because one is a dual citizen one will betray New Zealand’s interests. By accepting dual citizenship I do not believe that previous Parliaments meant that expulsion would be the consequence of seeking a passport. Nor do I believe that this Parliament should sit by and make sure that we perpetuate a nonsense. We have in front of us a bill that will allow us to bring some sense to this law and we will put it in front of the Electoral Law Committee and then remedy the problems. To use New Zealand First’s slogan let us make sure that Parliament fixes the problem.