Prebble Richard: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Prebble Richard: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
[Volume:610;Page:7843] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Let me make some positive statements about the report before I am critical because I think this whole matter has not reflected well on Parliament. 
But let me also reply to an absurd charge. The reason I do that is that an absurd charge made last week has been repeated by the media as if it were a fact so I thought I had better reply to that charge. No I am not the member who had the law changed in 1981. The idea that Sir Robert Muldoon would have changed the Electoral Act in my favour is an extraordinary stretch of the imagination. I certainly have never received citizenship via my wife. 
The other claim I want to correct is the absurd claim that the ACT party has said that it is wrong that anybody have dual citizenship. We have not said that. Indeed I have come out of examining the Electoral Act believing that those who have gone before us and who have re-examined this section eight times are not silly. What the law states is that one is not forbidden from standing for Parliament if one has dual citizenship; what one is forbidden from doing is once one is an MP doing any act of allegiance. If one has dual citizenship and one does not use it then it has always been that one is in the clear. When one thinks about it one realises it is a sensible rule. There are many members of Parliament who have dual citizenship through no act of their own. 
Mr Duynhoven originally had dual citizenship. He did not even know that he had it. I would be the first to defend him in that circumstance. Mr Duynhoven told the committee that he did it for his benefit and that of his children—not for his constituents and not for New Zealand—to enable them to travel around Europe. I guess he did it because he looked at this Government’s policies and realised that his children may need to live in another country. 
John Key 
: An insurance policy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: An insurance policy! He did not get up and say he did it for the benefit of the people of New Plymouth. 
Let us say some constructive things about this report. The first thing I have to say about the report which reflects very well on the Clerk is that it is a very well-written report. I advocate that those people who are interested in the matter get a copy of it and read it. It is well set out and the committee was able to agree unanimously to large parts of it. So I give credit there. 
The second issue is that I want to give credit to the chairman of the committee. The House will not know this but I was opposed to Mr Matt Robson being made chairman. I thought it was a political gift from the Government which was trying to find him a job—and maybe it was. But I thought he chaired the committee well or tried to. He also did something that was courageous. As chairman when asked the question of whether Mr Duyhnoven’s actions meant that the seat of New Plymouth was vacant he was prepared to say that they did even though he knew that answer would not be popular with our Prime Minister. 
In that respect I also want to give credit to the Government’s other two partners. The Green MP turned up and so did Mr Dunne. Both members started off by saying that it was all nonsense. In fact at earlier meetings they had said that Mr Duynhoven was not caught. But when the Solicitor-General gave us very clear advice and took us through the section to show that it was not confusing but was very clear those two members had enough I think duty towards this House to come to the correct decision. I thank them for that. 
I also thank Mr Peters. Mr Peters was in the position where he had publicly said he would defend Mr Duynhoven but when he with the help of I think Mr Dail Jones actually looked at the law and at what Mr Duynhoven had done both of them said it was quite clear that he was caught. 
That is the duty of members of the Privileges Committee. Members of that committee do not go back to caucuses and ask for advice. The tradition of that committee is that it is here not just to uphold the privileges of this House but to uphold Parliament; to make sure that our rights that we have as a House are being followed and that if MPs break those rights regardless of their party they will be applied. That requires a commitment by MPs. Either we believe in Westminster democracy or we do not—and I do—and if we do we have a duty to uphold it. I praise all those members who reached that conclusion. 
Now I am afraid to have to get to the bits where I think we have as a Parliament been let down. But I want to give one bit of praise to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has the right to decide whether the committee can hear from the Solicitor-General. I asked her and we did hear from the Solicitor-General. So we had private counsel. People would argue about it but the Solicitor-General is the country’s top law officer and I thank the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson for allowing us to hear from the Solicitor-General. 
I am afraid that is about where the good things finish. There is a duty from the Attorney-General to this House and the Privileges Committee. No one believes that the Attorney-General actually thinks this section is confused. I do not believe for 1 minute that Margaret Wilson thinks that Harry Duynhoven did not fall under that section and that the seat was not vacant. I say the same thing of Dr Cullen. Dr Cullen likes to tell us how clever he is yet he is now telling us—clever as he is—that he could not understand a section of the Act that the Green MP could understand. It is not credible is it? 
Rod Donald 
: She has a law degree! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am not trying to be tough on her; I am just saying that if the Green MP can see it surely Dr Cullen could. 
Then we have Lianne Dalziel. I say to those worried about immigration that she claims to have a law degree yet she said the section was confusing! I do not believe those members. To say that about members of the Privileges Committee is from a parliamentary point of view a devastating criticism. I think it goes to the heart of whether this Government has the moral authority to govern. 
I do say to Mr Speaker and I have said it before that in my view he had no choice but to send the matter to the Privileges Committee because Mr Duynhoven had said he did not break the law and I think he still thinks that he did not break the Act. Well this is a devastating comment but why is he a Minister if he thinks that? I believe that once we reported back to the House Mr Speaker should have acted. It does not reflect well on us that we are now holding this debate. 
The final criticism I have is for the Prime Minister. In our system of Government a Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he or she is elected by the whole House and has the support of this House. The Prime Minister has a duty to report to us. This is not a minor matter. This is an important matter and the Prime Minister’s silence has been deafening. She has a duty to come down and speak. Her spin doctors told her to send down lesser minions to argue the case and that it does not look good for the Prime Minister to argue for something that clearly is wrong. Well if that is what the Prime Minister thinks then she should not have done it. 
 The Prime Minister treats this House with contempt partly for the reasons put forward by Mr Peter: because she cannot foot it in this House she cannot actually reply to debate and she has to hide behind a barrage of spin doctors. If that is so then Dr Cullen ought to be Prime Minister. At least he was prepared to come down here to put a case which is something we cannot say about our Prime Minister. That is something I have not heard said against any Prime Minister in my time in the House. Can any member imagine Norman Kirk not coming down to defend anything or David Lange or Geoffrey Palmer? Even on the Great Western Railway issue he still would have come down and spoken. But Helen Clark treats this Parliament democracy and the country with contempt. This Government comes out of this report shamefully.