Prebble Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7770] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to what members have pointed out are very unusual commencement and expiry dates in Part 1. The bill basically comes into effect on its passing and then we have this procedure; I have not seen a date like that given in a bill before. The legislation expires at “the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force.” I have been trying to think why an expiry date of that sort would be picked and I think I have an answer to Mr Jones’ amendment and to Mr Dunne’s. They both want the bill to expire one on 6 August and the other on a similar date after the bill is passed. 
It is my view that that does not save Mr Duynhoven because if the bill comes into effect he will be an MP and then when the bill expires the whole effect of the bill will be removed. He has still committed the act; he is still out. I am still going to vote for it because I think that that is what should happen to him but I feel obliged as an MP to draw it to the attention of other MPs who have a more benign view towards Mr Duynhoven’s activities. 
I have put forward two alternative dates both of which I ask the Committee to support. Because I am totally opposed to this bill the first says that instead of the bill coming into effect on the day it receives the royal assent the commencement date should be 1 January 2006—which would not assist Mr Duynhoven. My second amendment says that the bill will expire on 1 January next year. I do that because the Government has said that it is referring this matter to the Justice and Electoral Committee. If the Government really thinks it is a problem and then gives it urgency we could have the whole matter resolved by 1 January but the Government is saying in fact that it is a terrible anomaly a dreadful thing which it never knew had happened and which should not be in the law—but by the way the bill is going to expire. 
Why is that? If the Government really does think that it is perfectly OK for New Zealand members of Parliament to swear allegiance to foreign States then why is it OK to do it in this Parliament but not in the next? If the Government really believes that this is a good measure then why does the bill have an expiry clause in it at all? If the Government is now saying that the Justice and Electoral Committee will consider this matter why have we not given an instruction to that committee and put a reasonable close-off date on the bill? It is an interesting question. 
The  
Holmes  
Show rang ACT—and I guess they will ring other parties—and commented that if the bill goes through as it is it will not only help Mr Duynhoven but give approval for MPs to take out dual citizenship. I was asked how many MPs in our party could do that. That was a new question for me so I had to go around and find out. Interestingly enough four ACT members of Parliament could if this bill went through take out a foreign passport. They might have to go through a few processes but they could do it. I ask the Committee whether we are really serious about that. That would be more than 30 MPs overall. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s New Zealanders first. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I would have thought so. I am happy with that. Are we serious about passing a bill with this expiry date which really says to every MP who could take out say an Irish passport—which is quite a common one that many people can qualify for—that they should do it because after this election if they think they will be re-elected they will not be able to do it again? Some passports can be taken out for at least 10 years and for 10 years Mr Clayton Cosgrove if he qualifies will be able to have an Irish passport so he will not have to queue up when he goes to the EC as New Zealanders have to queue up. Do we think that is desirable? 
The ACT party does not therefore we are putting up alternative closure dates. The first one I have put up—if we support it—would mean that this bill is a nullity. The second says let us have an expiry date that holds the Government to the statements being made here. If the Government really thinks that there are anomalies that ought to be fixed then it ought to be able to do that by 1 January 2004. But of course what Government members are really doing is giving themselves—and the rest of us in Parliament without our asking for it—not just a licence but an encouragement to go and get a foreign passport.