Pettis Jill: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7727] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I hope that as many New Zealanders as possible are listening to Parliament today. I know it is sadistic to wish that on my fellow citizens but I hope people are listening to this debate today. It is an important debate but the reason I hope many New Zealanders are listening is that this debate is further proof that National picks the wrong issues. New Zealanders think a by-election would be a complete waste of time. The people in Taranaki think that to hold a by-election would be absolutely ridiculous. I say to National members: “Keep on this theme. Keep at 20 percent and falling because you’re picking the wrong issues.” Every time the National Party ACT and New Zealand First mention the word “principle” the sale of Stemetil and other anti-emetics goes up. Those people over there would not know a principle if it came up and banged them on the back of the head. We need to progress this bill and stop listening to all the ridiculous mouthings coming from that side of the House. We need to pass this bill and get on with the real business of Parliament which is about passing progressive social legislation. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to start my contribution in this debate by making one point very clear: no one in this country is above the law. No citizen in this country has a right to break the law and not be punished for it. No one can use the defence of not knowing yet here today Parliament not only is passing a law that will put someone above the law as a consequence but we are doing it for not just any citizen but actually one of our own. It is an absolute disgrace for this Parliament to think it can hold one of its members above the law then pass a law to state that even though that person has breached section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act we will forgive him and we will pass a law retrospectively to make sure it is OK. That is an absolute outrage and the people of this country know that. It pours disdain on this Parliament. That is the first point I want to make. 
Secondly the Labour members and those others who will be supporting this bill should be held in absolute contempt for even thinking that we can put anybody in Parliament above the law and can legislate to correct an inaction. I ask the House whether if somebody had inadvertently breached some law or taken some action with regard to Work and Income New Zealand and had been found out we would be passing a law today to state that that is OK that we are sorry that person did that inadvertently that although that person caused a problem we will let him or her go and we will pass a special law that is retrospective so that that person is deemed not to have broken the law. Would we be doing that? I ask the Labour Government whether it would pass that sort of legislation for anyone. Not on your nelly! I say again that no one in Parliament—particularly Harry Duynhoven—is above the law yet here today I feel absolutely ashamed that I am involved in a debate that does just that. This is a black day for this Parliament and this Helen Clark - led minority Labour Government. It is a black day that will go down as a disgraceful blot on the history of this Parliament. I am appalled that I have to be here to witness it and I am absolutely delighted that our party with others will vote against this legislation. 
Why is this legislation so broad? Why is it as wide as it is? If the Helen Clark - led minority Government is determined to correct the issues around Harry Duynhoven’s eligibility if Government members genuinely believe that they are right then let them correct that one mistake. The legislation that they have introduced expires at the end of this term. They have done that they have provided that it carry through to the end of this term only because they intend to bring in other legislation to amend the anomalies in the Electoral Act. From my perspective two things arise out of that. The first is they could bring that legislation in tomorrow and correct the anomalies—if there are anomalies and I can see that there are one or two. They could make that correction. [ 
Interruption 
] I will come to the senior Government whip in a minute. They could do that tomorrow. 
I am glad the senior Government whip is starting to interject because he is the person I want to talk about. What are labour members covering up? Why have they made this legislation so broad that it applies not just to Harry Duynhoven but to every member in the House? Who are they covering up for? I myself have gone through the National caucus and I have also asked the other whips whether they have any problems with their members. They have all been able to assure me that there are no problems with their parties. The only whip who has not been able to tell me that is the senior Labour whip David Benson-Pope. He is the only whip who will not say to me that his party is clean. He is the only whip who will not come to me and say that he has checked and there is no problem with his members. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What a dirty little deceit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are too many interjections. This is a serious debate. Mr Carter is to be heard in relative silence. 
JOHN CARTER 
: My colleague Gerry Brownlee raised the matter of whether the Prime Minister had a British or a European passport. I ask the same question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Phil Goff because I have heard a rumour that he might be the one with a problem. Whether that is true I do not know. Unless those members are prepared to stand up and say yes or no how do we know? Does the House not have the right to know? Does the public not have the right to know? Maybe it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade or somebody else in Cabinet. Surely it is easy enough for each Minister in Cabinet to stand up and say it is not him or her. Why can those Ministers not do that? Why can we not go through each Minister starting with the Prime Minister and ask him or her to say whether he or she has breached the law? I would love to know the answer to that. Why can the Labour whips not stand up and say they have checked with each Cabinet Minister and none has breached the law? We do not get that answer. It is easy enough to say. I can say it for the National members. I know that the other whips can say the same for their members. Why can the Labour Party whips not do it? 
Now we have doubt and that is the worst part of this legislation. Not only are we saying today that somebody is above the law but also we now are worried about whether there is a cover-up. Seven of the 10 members on the Privileges Committee including Matt Robson said that there was a vacancy. The only three who said there was some ambiguity were the Labour members. They were the Deputy Prime Minister; Margaret Wilson the Attorney-General; and the Minister of Immigration. One has to ask oneself what those three are covering up. I wonder about that. It has to be somebody in the Labour Party. This has a smell about it that we now need to have exposed. It stinks. This is a black day for this Parliament. No one is above the law. The minority Labour Government led by Helen Clark should not cover up these things. Labour members should come clean and tell the House what is actually going on so that we do not have to sit here double-guess and cause anxiety amongst the people of this nation as to whether they are being misled.