Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7771] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to come back to the point that has been raised by earlier speakers in this debate about what the purpose of this bill is. It is a matter I raised during the title debate in the first reading last night. This bill arises out of the Privileges Committee’s report on the case of Harry Duynhoven but the way the bill is crafted takes it far beyond the case of Harry Duynhoven. 
Part 2 which we will deal with shortly is the retrospective provision which in my view is acceptable. But because of the absence of a clear expiry date other than the date of the next general election Part 1 not only condones any future behaviour by members seeking to acquire foreign passports during the life of this Parliament as I said earlier it also goes further and encourages them to do so. It actually says that Harry Duynhoven’s position is being protected retrospectively because we are not certain of the circumstances that gave rise to his breach. 
In any case even if we do consider that he breached the law we are now going to encourage others to do so with the full protection of the law. We do not just say that the way the bill is drafted protects people who might inadvertently stumble into the same situation in the future by having a 2-year window between now and the date of the next election we send to even the meanest intelligence in this place the clear signal that if members possibly think they have a chance of qualifying they should get in there now get their passports and take their chances because they will not get another one. 
We think that is totally contrary to the intention of the bill. That is why I have moved an amendment to add a new clause clause 3A to Part 1 to indicate that this bill applies from the period of 14 August 2002 to 6 August 2003 only so that it captures that retrospective aspect entirely and solely. It closes the door on the possibility of either of two things happening: the general invitation I spoke of a moment ago for everyone to go for broke because they now had a legal sanction to do so and those who might be sitting in the Chamber in silence knowing that either they had undertaken or were about to undertake an action that could put them in a similar situation but had chosen not to reveal their identities. 
To me the most reprehensible aspect of this whole process is that I suspect that a number of people have been quite happy to see Harry Duynhoven take the rap and quite happy to see that this is a case about him knowing that there but for the grace of the proverbial they might go also. So the amendment I have moved is designed to make it clear that the intent of this bill is honoured and to prevent what I think would be the most absurd cavalier and insulting invitation to members of this Parliament to flout not so much the law with impunity because it would be the law at that point but the intent of the law. That would be the case if the bill went ahead in a way that said that members now had a 2-year opportunity to do no wrong in respect of foreign citizenships nationalities renewals of passports or the like. 
That is not what this issue is about but if these provisions stand that is what it will become about. That is why we have made it clear that if those provisions are not amended we will not be supporting the bill further.