Duynhoven Harry: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17256] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I have found this a particularly interesting debate over the period since June last year when it first began or at least it first began for me and my family in June last year. I have been aware that on the last few Sunday nights an excellent historical drama set in 1660s England about the reign of Charles II has been shown on television. At the conclusion of that drama was a little clip on what followed which was that the Scottish King James II— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: He wasn’t Scottish he was French. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Sorry I am corrected. He was a French king. My history is not great. I can tell members the history of motoring things with great clarity but I am not too good on the history of kings and queens. However the next bit I know very well which was that Prince William of Orange became the next king of England. Prince William of Orange became King William III the husband of Queen Mary. Why is that important to our Parliament? Every day that we all take part in this Parliament most of us walk past a large painting in the lobby entitled “The Peaceful End of the Glorious Revolution” which was of course that which installed King William III and Queen Mary. It was the signing of the Bill of Rights by that Dutch Protestant King of England King William III on 16 December 1689. 
Why is that important for us? That particular Act was pretty important for a whole bunch of reasons. However an Act that followed which was much more important to this debate was the Act of Settlement 1701. That Act again passed by King William III was to ensure that the Catholic faith never ever in the future got anywhere near being enthroned in England as a king or queen of England and to this day that is how it has been. Why is that important to us? It is important to me. My good fortune is that I am the only New Plymouth MP ever in the 150-year history of that seat to actually have been born in New Plymouth. That is an interesting fact. What is even more interesting and I only discovered much later is that by another dint of good fortune I also happen to be born Dutch. My father’s arrangements to become a New Zealand citizen had run into some sort of glitch and they were not formalised until 3 weeks after I arrived. I do not think I arrived early. My mother always said that I arrived feet first late and noisy so I guess I have continued in that vein ever since. 
Tony Ryall alleged before that I had broken the law—presumably a deliberate act—by applying for a passport from the Netherlands that led to this entire debate. He then went on to allege that I would have still have broken the law under the new Act because I had my passport from the Netherlands previously removed. All of that is totally wrong. It is factually wrong. I did not do either of those things. If the National Party says something often enough presumably it will believe it. We can understand that but it should not expect the public of New Zealand to fall for that nonsense. It is simply untrue. 
Ken Shirley just alleged that I swore allegiance to a foreign power. That is also wrong and also simply untrue. I did not do either of those things. As I said by dint of good fortune I happened to be born Dutch. I was also born in New Zealand and I happen to be a New Zealander of which I am very proud. When I am travelling overseas I regularly promote the virtues of New Zealand. Long before I was an MP I did that. In addition because I happened to also be born Dutch like many other New Zealanders of my generation whose parents immigrated to this country—incidentally my mother was born in Taranaki and was a New Plymouth person—we had a right that the Dutch Government decided to take away in March 2005. That right was to confirm our Dutch citizenship. It was not to get anything new but to confirm what already existed. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: An act of allegiance? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No it was not an act of allegiance but simply to confirm that we had been born Dutch citizens as well as New Zealand citizens. Around 30 members of Parliament in this House either hold or are eligible to hold dual citizenship and many of them will have dual passports. It is important to get one’s facts right. I simply did what any other person in my position would do and that was to ensure that my children had a right to Dutch citizenship if it applied.