Volume 610 Week 32 - Wednesday 6 August 2003(continued on Thursday 7 August 2003) 
Volume 610 Week 32 - Wednesday 6 August 2003(continued on Thursday 7 August 2003) 
[Volume:610;Page:7719] 
Wednesday 6 August 2003 
( 
continued on Thursday 7 August 2003 
) 
Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise in this debate to talk to the issues. The facts in the case are clear. Mr Duynhoven has resumed his Dutch citizenship and Dutch law deems him to have been Dutch from birth. In that position now he joins approximately one-third of the current members of the House sitting in the Chamber at the present time in holding dual nationality. The interpretation as to whether that would breach the Act and create a vacancy is less clear. The majority of the Privileges Committee said yes. Professor Palmer a constitutional expert said no but so did Professor Philip Joseph who is one of the two other leading constitutional lawyers in the country— 
Dail Jones 
: Read page 4. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —somewhat outweighing Mr Dail Jones in that regard. The principles are clear. The principle is that we should all owe allegiance to New Zealand and that every member of this House is now a New Zealand citizen but equally dual nationality is not inconsistent with the practices and traditions of this House and of this country. Indeed some of those who have already waxed lyrical in this debate hold dual citizenship and are married to people who are the consul for a foreign country. 
The present law is foolish outdated inconsistent and ridiculous. Some people believe that one could renounce one’s citizenship the day after the election and still remain an MP; that one could exercise a British passport for three parliamentary terms without renewing it go to Britain ponce around as though one were a pom but hold a position as a New Zealand member of Parliament. Yet Harry Duynhoven simply doing what is his birthright comes within the purview of the statute. 
It is interesting that the first reaction of the National Party from Mr Brownlee was to say that we should legislate to overturn the stupidity in the law. But then they did this private little secret survey. At the Privileges Committee I said we should have a proper survey by the committee of all MPs if necessary on oath to find out the facts. But Mr Prebble immediately said no and the National Party said no. Instead we have had these surveys in secret and National now assures us they are all right. The National Party having done a secret survey then decides that its principles are that it is opposed to a change in the law. 
Now what if National had found out that Mr Richard Worth had in fact breached the Act? Mr Richard Worth is the consul for Monaco—a somewhat louche principality bordering the Mediterranean whose only purpose in life is to make money by gambling and is noted for somewhat dubious princesses. Mr Worth last year when asked to choose between his duty and his pleasures hesitated for not a moment before choosing his pleasures instead of going to an El Alamein service. “Mr Monaco” is on the record as saying that when he is at a public function the national anthem of Monaco should be played—which I assume is “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?”. But he is all right. 
But Harry Duynhoven who has been Dutch since birth is not all right because the Dutch Government changed its law and for a period of time he was not Dutch and he re-established his Dutch citizenship. The law is an ass and when the law is an ass it should be changed. That is the reality. 
Then we have been told by members opposite—by Mr English—that this has never been done before. In one of those glorious “Prebble-isms” on  
Morning Report 
 this morning we were told that the New Zealand constitution is unwritten and the Electoral Act is part of it. Here is the Electoral Act and it is written in great detail. Four times in its history this House has legislated in these matters to get members out of a mess—most recently in 1981 when a member of Parliament was marrying a foreign citizen and then in 1943 when Walter Nash was overseas for a long period as a diplomatic representative. It is definitely not true that this has never been done before. It has been done four times before in New Zealand’s history. 
The real issue of course is what should our allegiance be. On that there can be no doubt: our primary allegiance must be to this country but—[ 
Interruption 
]—clapping his hands is Mr McNair who is entitled to American citizenship. Sitting next to him is Mr Dail Jones who is a British citizen. Moving further along we come to Mr Prebble who is a British citizen. Behind him is Ms Bradford who is entitled to American citizenship. I make no secret of the fact that I am a dual citizen having been born in the UK. Ms Pansy Wong opens her mouth in horror at the thought of dual citizenship. Well there are words we are not allowed to use in this House about that kind of reaction. 
Where does all this stuff derive from about foreign princes and powers? I hope Mr English is listening to this. It dates back principally to the Act of Settlement of 1701. What is the main purpose of the Act of Settlement Mr Speaker? I think you and I know that. It is to keep Roman Catholics off the throne and to keep Roman Catholics out of Parliament and to keep Roman Catholics out of the ministry. That is the whole purpose that this derives from. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We’ve been paying you back with electoral victories ever since. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Brownlee says yes. He thinks that is a good idea. That means his name will be struck off the St Bedes College old boys’ list for a start. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a gross misrepresentation of the fine interjection I made. At least I never came to this House and abused my former old boys by saying I intended to tax the daylights out of them as Dr Cullen has done. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am glad to have let some of the air out of that rather over-inflated tyre on that particular matter. But it actually goes back further: this stuff about foreign princes and powers—“foreign princes and potentates” is the original—goes back to the Act of Appeals of 1533 which is actually the first major move in the English Reformation and abolished appeals to Rome. The whole background of this in our law is suffused with anti-Catholicism. In New Zealand law it first comes in the Constitution Act of 1852 when the purpose then was to be British. Now if one was and took out a British passport one would be in breach of the law because there was no such thing as a “New Zealand citizen” in 1852 and not for many many decades thereafter. It is a piece of nonsense that we are dealing with in this particular respect. 
Mr Prebble of course came up with his usual Aunt Sallies. Sitting there as a British citizen—he went very quiet in the Privileges Committee when I pointed that out when we got into questioning—not a million miles from being connected with the consul of a foreign power and one of such a dubious nature we are sending our police and army personnel there to rescue it at the present time. But no that is perfectly all right! It is perfectly all right for Mr Worth representing a foreign power; and last year let us remind ourselves he wanted to represent the Italian challenger to Team New Zealand. I regard that as close to some form of treason in this country. It is much more serious than asserting one’s right to be a Dutch citizen from birth as Dutch law allows. 
But no we are going to have all this pompous self-righteous nonsense paraded through the day from Opposition members as they try to argue somehow or other that Harry Duynhoven ought to feel the full force of a law that none of us actually knew had that effect—certainly not Mr Prebble previously; certainly not Dr Mapp previously— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Simple resolution—have a by-election. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —certainly not Dr Mapp previously knew that was the effect of the law. We have never had a briefing from the Clerk’s Office or from the Parliamentary Service Commission that members needed to be aware that if they were British citizens they could not renew a British passport. 
I have no doubt in my mind that many MPs in the past have breached that law. Many MPs I am certain have breached that law in terms of renewing British passports. Parties opposite having carried out secret surveys assure us they are clean and now on principle they can vote against the bill. I do wish Richard Worth had not passed on a technicality. I would love a by-election in Epsom where ACT would put Mr Richard Worth out of Parliament and I have to say this bunch of National Party turkeys opposite want a by-election in New Plymouth where our Harry would return with a massive majority and they would not even come second. They would be lucky to come third and more probably fourth behind ACT. New Zealand First would come second ACT would come third National could come fourth. But of course they know they have not got the majority so they are safe to take their principles into oblivion by the end of the day. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill and indeed we are pleased to have been able to work with the Government in the development of this legislation. I have known Harry Duynhoven for almost 20 years mostly through our joint involvement in the Trade Aid organisation. I regard Harry Duynhoven as a friend; but it is not our longstanding friendship that is our reason for supporting this bill. This bill is not the “Save Harry Duynhoven Bill”. The Green Party would support this legislation even if it saved the seats of Winston Peters Roger Sowry or Richard Prebble. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Would Roger Sowry have National support? 
ROD DONALD 
: That is an important point. Under this ridiculous law list MPs do not even have the opportunity of standing again in a by-election and that is why I particularly mentioned a list MP in this context. This confirms the principle—a long held principle—that New Zealand members of Parliament can have dual citizenship. It fixes an obvious nonsense in the Electoral Act—an archaic provision that has been gathering dust for over 150 years. It is accepted in this country that an MP can be a citizen of another country or hold a passport of that country without his or her allegiance to New Zealand being undermined or negated in any way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Mapp can interject from his seat—not by moving closer to Mr Donald. I think this is a serious debate. I want to hear Mr Donald whose party has this one call in this first reading. I do not think he needs to be subject to that sort of noise. 
ROD DONALD 
: Indeed a number of members of this House perhaps upwards of 30 are citizens or hold passports of other countries and that includes a few of our own members I would acknowledge. Anyone who votes against this law is in effect challenging the commitment of those MPs to our country. Surely they do not mean to do that. It is also accepted that if an MP becomes a citizen of another country during a term of Parliament as a result of marrying a foreign national that is OK. The law was amended in 1981 to make that explicit but it was not amended to protect sitting MPs from renewing their foreign passport or taking out dual citizenship. 
The stupidity of the current law is highlighted by the fact that not only has Harry Duynhoven broken the law—and we do acknowledge that a vacancy has been created—but also that he is eligible to immediately stand again in a subsequent by-election. How ridiculous can the law be? But even more significantly the current law has not been amended to require MPs to maintain their New Zealand citizenship while they are in Parliament. I would ask opponents of this bill whether they are happy to leave in place a law that means that every member in this House at the moment could legally renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship and remain in Parliament. It is clearly a nonsense. Both these extraordinary flaws in the Act need to be fixed and will be by this bill. 
Clauses 4 and 6 ensure that every MP’s loyalty to New Zealand is not in question providing he or she remains a New Zealand citizen. There has been some talk about amending the bill to apply only to Harry Duynhoven or to apply only from the period from the election until now. I think both of those ideas are patently ridiculous and undermine the very principle that we are trying to reinforce with this bill. Because the principle we are trying to reinforce is that dual citizenship is valid and acceptable and there is no question about any member’s allegiance to New Zealand if he or she is also a citizen of another country. 
If we constrain this bill to one MP then it becomes the “Save Harry Bill” and ignores the principle in fact undermines the principle. If we make it only from the election until now what we are doing is denying the rights and opportunities of all other members in this House who are entitled to have a foreign passport when that passport comes up for renewal or who are entitled to take up a foreign citizenship during the period from now until the next election. So we say those amendments are not helpful and in fact undermine the very principle that we are trying to reinforce with this law and we will not support any such amendment. 
In our view this bill is clear straightforward and short. It will deal with the immediate problem that has been highlighted and also give the Justice and Electoral Committee the opportunity to have a wider review of the legislation to make sure all the archaic elements are dealt with. This bill should not be a matter of great debate in this House but clearly it will be. It will be because National and ACT in particular are determined to make fools of themselves. If they had their way Harry Duynhoven’s seat would be declared vacant and a by-election would need to be held. That would cost I am told around $350000. 
I have heard some other members say that this session of urgency will cost more. That is only because they are dragging out this debate. I say that that is a complete waste of public money. Would any taxpayer thank National and ACT for putting the country through this unnecessary expense? I have had only one communication saying that there should be a by-election and heaps of people saying “What an absolute nonsense; why don’t you fix the law and fix it quick.” How many people have asked ACT to waste a whole heap of public money on a by-election? How many voters in New Plymouth have asked National to campaign for a by-election? The Government must have been sorely tempted to call one because National would have been on a hiding to nothing. That is because Harry Duynhoven is the most popular constituency MP in this country. He won over 20900 votes at the last election: more than any other MP in this House. He has the second-largest majority in this House. What is more National ACT and New Zealand First voters gave him that majority. Their own voters must be wondering about the credibility and commonsense of the leaders of the parties they voted for. Because just under half of the people who voted ACT—747 voters—also voted for Harry Duynhoven. Almost one-third of the people who voted National—2079 of them—endorsed Harry Duynhoven as their local MP. Members should go into the Internet and check the split vote report. That is the same reason that I sense New Zealand First members want to support a “Save Harry Bill”. Because if they have done their research they will know that well over half of their voters—2299 of them—voted for Harry Duynhoven as their local member of Parliament. So I suggest that certainly ACT and National get a reality check— 
Dail Jones 
: Was there a New Zealand First candidate? 
ROD DONALD 
: I would have to check. Mr Jones should have a look and tell me in a minute. 
Dail Jones 
: There wasn’t one. 
ROD DONALD 
: Well there we go. I suggest anyway that National and ACT get a reality check from their own voters before opposing this bill. My colleague Metiria Turei will raise a number of other issues during the second reading debate. But for now I simply want to say that the Green Party believes that Harry Duynhoven—or any other sitting MP—should not suffer the unintended consequence of losing his seat as a result of reclaiming his Dutch citizenship something he actually had when he was an MP from 1987 to 1990 and from 1990 to 1993. Harry Duynhoven was not putting his Dutch heritage ahead of his commitment to New Zealand and parties opposed to this bill should stop their political point-scoring and pass this bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Matt Robson. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have not had a second call at this point in the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to make a comment about that. There are 12 calls in this debate. Six calls go to the Government or its supporters and that has been the situation ever since the general election. Every second call goes to a Government MP. The Labour Party and the Progressive Party have 54 out of 120 seats and get every second call. The National Party will get its call in due course. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So do I take it from your ruling that you regard United Future as being a Government party bearing in mind that it got the second call last night ahead of New Zealand First? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I did not say that. I said that had a Labour member taken the second call last night the Labour Party member would have got it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to clarify this matter. Mr Donald has just told us that he is proud of the fact that he helped to draft this bill. It would seem to me that the divide really is between those members of Parliament who saw the bill only when it was tabled last night and the other MPs—apparently from the Green Party maybe from United Future as well and from the Labour Party—who did. I think that is where the division should be. Half the speakers should be MPs who were not allowed to see the bill prior to it being tabled and the other half should be MPs who have colluded with the Government in this constitutional change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a novel point but it is not accurate. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This issue began around the question of Harry Duynhoven and whether he could sit in this Parliament. It was referred to the Privileges Committee so the committee could look at a matter of privilege. The Speaker of course has the legal responsibility of declaring a seat to be vacant—or not. The Privileges Committee in its majority report found that the law did indeed state that the seat was vacant. But more questions were thrown up than we actually had answers for. 
This debate is typified by the facts that the Privileges Committee when adjudicating on a New Zealand citizen who is also a Dutch citizen was chaired by an Australian-born member of Parliament who is entitled to sit in the New Zealand Parliament and that we did so in the Maori Affairs Committee room where the spirit of the 1835 declaration announcing tino rangatiratanga in New Zealand was present. And every member of this House has had to consider whether some way or another he or she has inadvertently or even advertently breached the law. 
The question that emerged in terms of the situation for New Zealand is this. Dual citizens in New Zealand can stand for the New Zealand Parliament. That is allowed by law; it is enshrined in a constitutional document the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Every New Zealand citizen has the right to sit in the New Zealand Parliament. Yet at the same time if an act is done under a statute that no one was aware of an act that is as minor as a member with dual citizenship renewing his or her passport—as one is entitled to do in law—that puts that MP at risk. It is not even the act of achieving a passport or achieving citizenship; if one looks at the law one finds it is possibly just the act of inquiring about or making an attempt to obtain a passport for whatever particular reason. 
In this Parliament we have had the privilege because of this debate to upskill ourselves in a whole range of areas. We had Sir Geoffrey Palmer appear before the committee and whatever the opinion people may have of the views he holds he is recognised as a very learned lawyer in New Zealand. We had advice from Terence Arnold the Solicitor-General and various comments in the media from constitutional lawyers so the debate has been educational for members of Parliament. But the one point that has struck me is that in almost all that comment nobody has suggested that we should not have dual citizenship in New Zealand. That reflects two things. First I hope that it reflects a very broad-minded attitude that we do not just judge people’s allegiance to New Zealand by where they may have been born the colour of their skin or their religion which in this world is a good step. Second it reflects the fact that dual citizenship is in every part of New Zealand life accepted. 
In fact we have gone one step further than that on the question of residence. In this Parliament even at the present time one does not have to be a citizen of New Zealand in order to be a member of Parliament. One can be a member if one was on the electoral roll in 1975. That was my position. In 1975 I was a New Zealand resident and subsequently I was elected to this Parliament. No one can say that I have not been the most loyal and wonderful member of Parliament in representing New Zealand’s interests. In fact with regard to New Zealand’s interests when I have spoken to the Australian Government it has had no doubt that my allegiance lies with New Zealand’s defence policies and not with those of Australia. New Zealand is in no danger that I would swap the allegiance I hold to New Zealand for allegiance to the Australian Government. Yet as Mr Peters pointed out last night my allegiance may be to Ned Kelly. May I say that someone like Ned Kelly who had he been here would have been entitled to be elected to the New Zealand Parliament and would have made a very good member of this Parliament. He would have raised the standards very high. 
Of course we have had the benefit of not only the Deputy Prime Minister but also of a lecturer in history with some knowledge in that field. History is a debatable subject and we do not all have to agree on its interpretation. However we do know that the purpose of the Act of Settlement 1701 was to ensure Protestant dominance in Great Britain and to retain the power of the Protestant groups. In New Zealand well before other countries we accepted Roman Catholic Prime Ministers. In fact one of our best Roman Catholic Prime Ministers also had his allegiance to Ned Kelly: Michael Joseph Savage one of the great Prime Ministers of New Zealand. Not only was he a Roman Catholic but he was an Australian who was born very close to where Ned Kelly had his major areas of operations. Michael Joseph Savage was a very good Prime Minister. As well on the National side of the House in terms of spurning the Act of Settlement 1701 we have had James Brendan Bolger who I believe is also a Roman Catholic. Therefore we in New Zealand have put aside this legislation about allegiance to other countries. 
What are we being asked to do? In its majority report the Privileges Committee stated that yes this particular section of the Electoral Act means that the seat can be declared vacant. But it has also raised the question of the ambiguity of many laws and practices in New Zealand that recognise dual citizenship. We as a country have also not declared that for it to be said that one is patriotic one has to have a type of false patriotism and be able to say that the only country one will ever live in and stand on the soil of is New Zealand. We recognise our heritage. We recognise the ability to have allegiance to New Zealand and to hold dual citizenship and that is a very good thing. 
What are we faced with? Parliament is faced with fixing a problem and fixing it in the eyes of the public not with hiding some treachery and not with hiding some allegiance to countries that will undermine New Zealand’s sovereignty. New Zealand First is often telling us that it is here to fix it. Well let us take up that wonderful slogan from New Zealand First and let us all fix what is an anomaly in this Parliament. Let us not—and I do not think the public wants us to do this—go on a witch-hunt to find out who may have a passport who may have made an inquiry about a passport for one of his or her children or his or her partner or who may in the secrecy of his or her home have even cheered for an alternative team to the All Blacks. Who knows which Australian-born MPs here may hedge their bets until half-time in a game and then change their support? If an MP changes backwards and forwards on a sporting matter would we then say that he or she will betray New Zealand? Of course we will not. There are plenty of people with New Zealand passports who I would say have betrayed our interests in many many ways. But it does not follow that because one is a dual citizen one will betray New Zealand’s interests. By accepting dual citizenship I do not believe that previous Parliaments meant that expulsion would be the consequence of seeking a passport. Nor do I believe that this Parliament should sit by and make sure that we perpetuate a nonsense. We have in front of us a bill that will allow us to bring some sense to this law and we will put it in front of the Electoral Law Committee and then remedy the problems. To use New Zealand First’s slogan let us make sure that Parliament fixes the problem. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 So far this debate has been full of red herrings from the Labour Party and its supporters who must be deeply embarrassed about having to come to this Parliament in order to protect one of their own. I shall go through them. Mr Robson seems quite unable to recollect that just 3 years ago this law was reviewed in this Parliament and he voted for it. So if the law was so hopeless why did he not vote against it then? Why did Harry Duynhoven not vote against it then and why did the mystery person in the Labour Party who is being shielded at the moment by the silence of that party also vote for it? 
I want to talk about the comments made by Rod Donald. That man has inflicted more damage on the electoral system in this country than anyone else I know. Today he has come in with the great theory that there should not be a by-election because the likely candidate is so popular that he will win it anyway. In other parts of the world a term is used for that sort of view of the electoral system. What Rod Donald is saying is that Harry Duynhoven is so popular he should be running the country and nobody should dare to challenge him. That is utterly ridiculous. Then he advanced the preposterous suggestion that by not having a by-election he is helping the National Party New Zealand First or ACT. A principle is at stake here and it should be upheld. Mr Duynhoven has breached the law. He has been found by his colleagues to be in a situation where his seat is vacant and there should be a by-election. 
Then Michael Cullen came in here this morning and gave us a truly histrionic performance as he went through the history of what he considered to be archaic pieces of legislation. That somehow related to a bill that this Parliament passed just 3 years ago. I say to Dr Cullen that if all the members surrounding him who were so excited by his speech truly believe what he said then those who are Maori members will stand up and say they think that the Treaty of Waitangi is an archaic and hopeless document. They will stand up and say the treaty is a piece of work that should not be considered in the legislative sense because it happened so long ago that it is no longer relevant. We know that that will not happen. That would absolutely destroy the argument that Maori have as they go about their business at the moment taking over New Zealand. 
I want to ask the Maori members particularly how comfortable they are with the idea that foreigners can sit in this Parliament and determine their destiny—because that is what they are voting for. Dr Cullen said that a third of the members in this Parliament are entitled to dual citizenship. I suggest the number is bigger than that. I am entitled to dual citizenship but I do not hold it and I do not seek it because this is the country I live in this is the country I serve and this is the country I want to be unambiguously committed to. 
I have read the testimony of Harry Duynhoven to the Privileges Committee and I have never seen such a snivelling load of crap—and I use that term very very deliberately—in my life. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. I will not have that sort of language in here. The member knows that that is out of order. He will stand withdraw and apologise. He is very lucky that he is allowed to continue with his speech. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I have never seen such a load of drivelling nonsense in all my life. For that man to go to the Privileges Committee apparently in tears and to start saying that he did not mean to do what he did and that he did not expect the consequence of that is an absolute nonsense. For Harry Duynhoven to suggest that he did it for his children is an even bigger disgrace. What is wrong with citizenship of this country for his children? Why does he insist that he should be able to give his children European passports when millions of New Zealanders do not have that opportunity? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: What about all your colleagues? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I say to Mr O’Connor who sits there and asks about all my colleagues that the only party sitting in this House that will not confirm that all its members have one citizenship is the Labour Party and the most eerily silent person on this matter is the Prime Minister. 
Let us look at the Prime Minister’s situation. She is married to British citizen and she is a Prime Minister who loves to travel. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: She’d get it on residence grounds alone. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a good point. The Prime Minster has not made comments about this issue at all. I now ask this question: why will the Labour Party not confirm that all its members other than Harry Duynhoven are clean on this matter? It would be easy for the whips to stand up and say they have been around the Labour members to do a check and have found they are clean. No the whips cannot do that because they know those members are not clean. 
We know that that is the case because when we actually examine this bill we notice that there is a reference in clause 4 to section 55(1)(b) of the Electoral Act. We know that we do not need that amendment to fix the “Harry problem.” What is needed is simply the amendment to paragraph (c) as we understand it. But section 55(1)(b) of the Act states that a member creates a vacancy in his or her seat if the member “takes any oath or makes any declaration or acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to any foreign Prince or Power”. 
When the Minister Rick Barker came to the House with a series of carefully prepared notes—large sheets of paper that he brandished in front of himself so that he would not make a mistake in what he said—to begin the first reading debate he told the House that simply because a member of this House swears an oath of allegiance to another country that member should not lose his or her seat. That makes us incredibly suspicious about who the person is in the Labour Party who has taken an oath of allegiance to some other country some other principality some other Crown or some other authority. We worry about the silence of the Prime Minster who we know is in a situation where she could have a British passport. I think that the Labour whips should do this House a favour and stand up and confirm that their team is clean. They will not do it—just silence is all that we get. They know who that member is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Ask them whether the Prime Minister has a British passport. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I suppose we could do that and I think I will take this opportunity to do so. Mr Prebble raises a good point. I ask the Labour whip: does the Prime Minister have a British passport? 
John Carter 
: Or any other passport? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Does the Prime Minister have a European passport? Is the guilty party who is being protected by the amendment to section 55(1)(b) of the Act the Prime Minister? No one of the Labour whips keeps her head down. The other Labour whip shuffles about and is frightened to answer. The Labour whip of course is part of the Maori caucus but is quite happy to have a bunch of foreigners determine the future of Maori in this country—no problem whatsoever—and is happy to pass this bill today. 
If the points raised by Matt Robson Rod Donald and Michael Cullen are correct and if the suggestion from Rick Barker—that any member could swear allegiance to any other country and not lose his or her seat—is correct then why is the legislation being altered only for this term of Parliament? There is an element here of protecting not only Mr Duynhoven but also some other unnamed person or persons. 
I finish by saying that the National Party is completely disgusted by the way that this whole business has been handled. The Act is extremely clear. All those who have a responsibility to look at it have concluded that there is an unambiguous situation here and as a result Mr Duynhoven should have his seat declared to be vacant. 
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. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 That is the first time I have been disappointed in a contribution from John Carter. It does neither him nor his party any credit to have insinuations like that made in what should be a very serious debate. It was not clear from his contribution that the purpose of this bill—and other members should know this—is to ensure that no member of the current Parliament loses his or her seat merely because he or she swears allegiance to or obtains the citizenship of another country. The bill has been introduced on the advice and recommendation of a majority of the Privileges Committee and I urge its speedy progress through the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because of the way we vote now we are not able to determine the reason for parties voting below their number; we have a situation where votes are hidden by that process. With regard to the Labour vote I raise the issue of whether on this legislation the whip is carrying the proxy of Mr Duynhoven. It is important for the House to know whether Mr Duynhoven has a proxy vote. He has been reported in the media in the last few hours as being within the precincts of Parliament—in his office but not coming to the Chamber while this debate is going on. That is a legitimate choice and maybe a wise choice—for him not to take part in the debate. He did appear before the Privileges Committee. But given that this debate is centred on him I seek through you Mr Speaker to find out from the Labour whip who cast a lower number of votes whether he is carrying Mr Duynhoven’s proxy on this legislation. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to oblige the member. I can assure the House that the Labour Party is at more than full complement in terms of its vote entitlement at this time. The vote being down by two is to accommodate the fact that the Speaker is abstaining on this question and that Mr Duynhoven’s vote is not part of the 50 votes that I am exercising. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the unusual circumstances that we are dealing with where we know that there is a Privileges Committee report on the Table declaring a seat vacant and we are now in urgency—effectively preventing the report of that committee from being dealt with by the House—retrospectively changing the law so that the conclusions of that report cannot be given any effect it is arguable that with this bill we are being asked to elect an MP. There is no real question about that being the consequence of what we are doing. That would constitute a change in the method of voting as stated in the Electoral Act. That is one of the six or seven—I am not sure which—entrenched provisions in that Act that require the support of 75 percent of the House. It is not a frivolous question that I am asking; it is a serious one and a number of Speakers’ rulings relate to this matter. I wonder whether you Mr Speaker might take whatever time is required to consult the Clerk and others and to give us a ruling on why in fact this is not a bill—given the effect of it—that requires the support of 75 percent of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked me to give thought to it. I will. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now raise a different point of order but a very serious one which I believe you should give very serious consideration to because it concerns the reputation of the House and indeed of yourself. You told the House—and I am not questioning it—when you were referring this matter to the Privileges Committee: “I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.” I think that in doing so you were mindful of the fact that the way that vacancies in Parliament used to be declared actually required a resolution of the House. If you look at  
McGee 
 you will see that it sets out that the Speaker can do so only on being ordered by the House; the Speaker then issues warrants. That of course is a matter that caused some debate within Parliament and Parliament decided to change the law. We decided that it was not appropriate that a vacancy be declared as a result of a party vote and we changed the law so that it now is not a question for Parliament; it is actually a matter of statute law. The instruction to you in the statute is quite clear; section 129(1) states: “If the Speaker is satisfied that the seat of a member elected to represent an electoral district has become vacant the Speaker must without delay publish a notice of the vacancy and its cause in the  
Gazette 
.” 
Mr Speaker you quite properly said that you as Speaker did not feel that you could do that until you had heard from the House. Well you now have heard from the House. The Government cannot manipulate the Order Paper. It is not that you said you would wait until you had heard from the Privileges Committee debate; you said you would wait until you had heard from the House. We are now in a position where you as Speaker have heard that the Privileges Committee listened to this matter and after listening to it every single member of that committee I think actually thinks the seat is vacant. The National Party members on the committee Mr Carter and Mr Mapp were quite clear in their minds. The Green member of Parliament who actually turned up to the Privileges Committee saying she did not think Mr Duynhoven’s seat was vacant listened to the submissions from the Solicitor-General and from the Clerk of the House—who you have told us is the best Clerk in the Commonwealth—who were quite unanimous that there is no ambiguity: the seat is vacant and has been from at least 11 June. The United Future member of Parliament who also arrived at the Privileges Committee saying he did not think the seat was vacant listened to the argument and said that yes it was. I was of the view when I read it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the member come to the point a little more quickly. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am making this clear to you Mr Speaker because you know all those facts. You know them from the House. They have been recorded; they are now in  
Hansard 
. Your statutory duty is to act without delay. It is not a matter that you do in the House and I am saying to you that your duty for the integrity of this Parliament and for your own integrity is to go from this place to your office right now declare the seat vacant and issue the writs. Not to do so gives the impression that in fact you are colluding with the Government in trying to prevent this part of the Electoral Act from taking place. I just say Mr Speaker that I am concerned about your reputation but I am also concerned about the reputation of this House. That is your duty and you should go and do it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the member that I always listen to the points he makes because he is a senior member. Of course I want to say only one thing: I am certainly not colluding with the Government at all on this issue and I make that statement absolutely. I will take note of the member’s point of order as with Mr Brownlee’s and I will report a little later. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have had the point of order and I will go away and reflect on it. 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I take the opportunity to remind the House of the principle behind this bill. It is quite sound. This bill suspends the operation of section 55(1)(b) and (c) for this Parliament. It does so because those provisions have inappropriate consequences. 
I want to take up the point that has been raised by the National Party on a number of occasions and that is why the bill is restricted to this Parliament. There is a very good reason for that. I said in my first reading speech that I will be writing to the Justice and Electoral Committee to raise this issue with it and to invite it to report back to Parliament as it will do on the electoral law as it applied to the last election. It is customary in this House to have a bill after each election and before the next to tidy up any areas in which there are deficiencies or imperfections. This matter will be one of them. 
The law as it stands does have some unusual consequences. It is extraordinary that someone can come to this House holding dual citizenship and can renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship with no effect but on the other hand a person who is entitled by law and by birth to dual citizenship who comes to this House as a New Zealand citizen but who signs some paperwork to confirm his or her entitlement to citizenship of another country then has to resign. I do not think anybody would say that is a sensible thing. 
Some speakers and others outside the House have commented that the actions of Mr Duynhoven were unlawful but his actions were not unlawful at all. They were no more unlawful than someone signing a letter of resignation. 
This bill properly confers entitlements on all members of this forty-seventh Parliament. It will not go beyond that because prior to this Parliament coming to an end this Parliament will hear a report from the Justice and Electoral Committee and will debate the law properly. 
It has been widely accepted in this country that people can have dual citizenship. There has never been any doubt about that and personally I think it is a good thing. It is not to be confused with the situation of Mr Duynhoven taking out what is his by right of birth and by the retrospective action of Dutch law. I commend the bill to the House for its second reading. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 The National Party is opposed to this legislation for two reasons. One the law itself is clear and two the principle of retrospective legislation is fundamentally wrong in this instance. I will firstly deal with the issues of law that came up in part through the point of order but also obviously in a more general sense through the Privileges Committee. It is about the application of section 55. I find it extraordinary that we can have the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House saying the law is clear and unambiguous and we can have that consented and agreed to by the majority of the Privileges Committee but who dissents? It is all the Labour members. 
I will single out a particular individual for saying that the law was ambiguous and that is the Attorney-General. She is a former professor of law. Her chief adviser is the Solicitor-General. Is she now saying to the country that she does not have confidence in—there really can be no other interpretation—her chief legal adviser? The Solicitor-General after all said that the law was unambiguous and that the seat is vacant. We have yet to hear the Attorney-General speak in this Parliament on this matter. When the Attorney-General concludes against the advice of the Clerk and the Solicitor-General that the law is in fact ambiguous and uncertain and therefore the seat is vacant at the very least one would expect the Attorney-General to be participating in the debate. How can the country have confidence in the judgments of the Attorney-General when she disbelieves categorically the views of her chief legal adviser? 
Section 55 is clear. The situation that Government members have raised about dual nationality and so forth is irrelevant. There is a different set of rules relating to members of Parliament. Those people in our community who seek to represent the nation and to pass laws have additional duties placed upon them and that is right and proper because we are making laws for New Zealanders. Parliamentarians and Cabinet Ministers of which Mr Duynhoven is one—or at least was one—make public policy for this nation. That is why there is a higher burden on us than there is on general members of the public. We are all here voluntarily. None of us had to come here. We chose to do so because of our views on what we think is right for our country. It is therefore proper that we should have one loyalty and one alone. 
I will now turn to the application of section 129 and the role of the Speaker. I know Mr Speaker that you are going to reconsider that properly but I ask for your consideration on this—and I am sure you will be taking advice from the Clerk. The Privileges Committee by majority said that the seat became vacant on 11 June so the question then becomes whether Mr Duynhoven is a member of Parliament now or whether his actions as at 11 June created a vacancy at that point in time. The question then becomes how does section 129 apply: is it the Speaker making a decision or is it the Speaker implementing the reality of the vacancy which in fact occurred on 11 June 2003 as reported in page 13 of the Privileges Committee report? That is an important issue and I know that the Speaker will be considering it seriously. If the situation is that the Speaker is simply making a declaratory act based on the Privileges Committee report then the seat is already vacant and Mr Duynhoven is no longer a member of Parliament. 
I guess that in some respects was almost recognised by the Government in the last vote when the Government did not cast a vote for Mr Duynhoven. It recognised the risk of Mr Duynhoven even casting a vote because he may not actually be a member of Parliament at all. He is not sitting in the House. We heard him say on television that he should not be here. Again that raises the presupposition that he is no longer a member of Parliament. 
This matter then turns to the role of retrospective legislation. As a matter of constitutional law this Parliament is supreme. It seems to me that what the Government is doing right now is actually saying that a person who is no longer a member of Parliament can be a member of Parliament—that Parliament itself by a statute is effectively electing a member of Parliament. Maybe that is what the Government should be doing though most people would recognise it as a constitutional travesty. Although Parliament conceivably does have that power surely we should not go around passing laws that say: “Joe Bloggs who is not a member of Parliament is now a member of Parliament.” Obviously when put like that it sounds like the absurdity it is but it seems to me that is precisely what Parliament is seeking to do in this situation. 
That is why National is so insistent on the by-election. We heard the absurd situations raised by Mr Donald about why a by-election was a bad idea and they were all about the electoral result. They had nothing to do with principles or the law itself. We had the same situation from the Government which should know better than to say: “Well Harry will win anyway. Why put people to the bother?”. In that case why even have elections at all? Why not just go by opinion polls? Whenever the opinion polls changed we would just change the Government. It is self-evident that that is an absurd proposition. The decision as to who belongs in this Parliament and who does not belongs to the people and all of us have to take the consequences of that decision on board irrespective of the outcome. 
It might well be that Mr Duynhoven standing again—and no one has suggested that he cannot stand again—would be re-elected. Would I be amazed and surprised if that was the outcome? I suspect not. Would his majority go up? Who knows? Would it go down? Quite probably. That is irrelevant; it is completely beside the point. There is a proper procedure here and that is a by-election. Is it an extraordinary event? No. Has this country had by-elections before? 
Shane Ardern 
: Yes. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I see Mr Ardern nodding his head. Yes the country has had by-elections before. It is a reasonable thing to do. When a situation arises in Australia that is always the result. No one in Australia would even conceive of putting legislation into the House to declare a person who is no longer a member of Parliament to be a member of Parliament. The result is clear unambiguous and obvious: there is a by-election and the results of that by-election are whatever they are. That is how a democracy works. 
So when you Mr Speaker take the advice of the Clerk and consider the application of section 129 it is obvious what the result should be: the seat is vacant there should be a by-election and the consequences of that are whatever they are. That is how a democracy works. Nothing could be plainer than that. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise briefly in support of this legislation. I find it astonishing as will most of the listeners in this country to have heard the sanctimonious self-serving claptrap we have heard from the Opposition this morning. I cannot help but think that the National Party and ACT party are the parties that in the case of ACT have Donna Awatere Huata the imaginary member for the sake of the money she generates for the party’s funding and in the case of the National Party have Maurice Williams the man whom it suspends but whose vote it continues to cast. So those parties should not talk to us about smell. They should have a look in their own rubbish tins before standing up and embarrassing and disgracing themselves with that nonsense. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is hard to believe that someone with some brief experience in local government who has now been in the House for a few years could get up and make such an appallingly hopeless incompetent unfocused speech then sit down and think he has done his duty by his taxpayers by the people who elected him and might I say by his party. That was a disgraceful intervention by that member David Benson-Pope and he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Could he address this most fundamental issue: why is the Labour Party not prepared to say that all its members with the exception of Harry Duynhoven are not in breach of section 51 of the Electoral Act? [ 
Interruption 
] Of course the member as the senior whip for the Labour Party has had the opportunity. He has had the opportunity for the last 4 weeks ever since this subject was known. He has had the opportunity for the last 48 hours ever since some of his colleagues would have informed him of the outcome of the Privilege Committee’s deliberations. 
For here is the real point: a majority of the Privileges Committee of this House finds that inadvertently or otherwise Harry Duynhoven breached section 51 of the Act. That means—if those members of the select committee were reflecting the position that their colleagues would take in the House—that a majority of this House now finds Mr Duynhoven in breach of the Electoral Act. That being the case of course and if that is the way the vote is cast the Speaker is put in a very difficult position at that point in time because he will have heard the House and he will have heard the select committee. 
I think it is entirely appropriate that this matter went to the select committee because it meant we were able to hear evidence from a range of submitters including Mr Duynhoven’s counsel the Solicitor-General and also the Clerk of the House. In fact I believed at the time that the defence put up by Geoffrey Palmer was simply likely never to succeed because it minimised the importance of electoral law and the choice of a Government in any democracy particularly a democracy with a British constitutional background. 
What was amazing was this: on the select committee we had some lawyers—well legally trained people—like the former Dean of the University of Waikato School of Law Margaret Wilson. One has to wonder how someone with that supposedly expert background in academia or so they say could find that the law was unclear and ambiguous. The Solicitor-General did not see it that way. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Chief legal adviser. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes the chief legal adviser. The Clerk of the House did not see it that way. In fact if we read very carefully Geoffrey Palmer’s submissions we see he knew it was not going to be seen that way and that is why he had secondary pleadings all lined up to throw his client upon the mercy of his colleagues in this House. So how on earth could the Attorney-General a former Dean of the University of Waikato School of Law find that the law was unclear and ambiguous? And that tells us volumes because the Waikato law school is all about Treaty of Waitangi stuff. It is not about law; it is about touchy-touchy feely-feely Treaty of Waitangi stuff so any issue of great constitutional moment is not likely to be carefully entertained by that faculty. That is the reason so many of its students in their last year shoot through to the law faculties in Auckland Wellington or Dunedin to get a respectable closing part of their degree. 
But I come back to my point. Lianne Dalziel the Minister of Immigration is also someone with legal training we are told and a staunch advocate of trade union laws. She also found the law—surprise surprise—ambiguous and not clear. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: She’s a lawyer? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: She is a lawyer. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: They found in unison. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It was sort of like pure intellectual serendipity. There was no combination or covert behind-the-scenes collusion on how they might make up their minds; they just found in unison alongside Dr Cullen. We can forgive Dr Cullen because after all he is a historian and the big picture is what historians are interested in not the finite detail or the humdrum of the ordinary existence of normal human beings like us. They are interested in the grand huge picture and in the end justifying the means; that is what left-wing historians are all about. I can forgive Dr Cullen because of his propensity to come to that sort of conclusion but it is very hard to forgive two so-called lawyers unless of course one makes the usual compensation for where they last practised their trade. 
That said let me make this point very clear: we in New Zealand First are extraordinarily disappointed about this issue because we do think that Harry Duynhoven though he broke the law did not breach the spirit of the law and that in all the circumstances as so often exercised in British and New Zealand justice a way can be found around his paying the price for such a mistake. It is not a matter of protecting one of our own but of doing the right and fair thing. It is easier to do justice in some ways—and this is what I would say to the National Party—but 
often the greater calling in Parliament is to do what is right and in Harry Duynhoven’s case we in New Zealand First believe he should not suffer the ultimate punishment of losing his salary from 11 June of losing his superannuation benefits. 
And the effects are extraordinarily serious. Have members fought a by-election? Let me tell members as someone who knows this personally that if he was put to a by-election he would lose his benefits. He would come back having lost the same career opportunities as others who came in with him. I personally know that that stinks and is unfair but as a matter of principle it had to be done. In Harry Duynhoven’s case it is just not right when we can avoid it and I am prepared to defend that in front of any taxpayers all around this country. They are often not aware of the facts when they come to their talkback-show decisions. 
But my having said that our commitment was to a person who owned up whom we believed was telling the truth and who had been through a significant agonising period whilst trying to wrestle with this present problem. We never made a commitment to have a blanket suspension of this important part of our law for the whole term. We are not going back on our word but sadly this Government a minority Government as it is will not accept our amendment that the change be confined to Harry Duynhoven alone and that its ambit cease the day after it is applied to him so that his situation is dealt with. In that circumstance we have to oppose this legislation. 
We ask at the end of our contribution to the second reading this very simple question: why can the Labour Party not face up to the fact that it is the only party not prepared to place its cards on the table? Who is the member or members it is trying to shield here now? Government members are abusing Harry Duynhoven as much as anyone else is. They have misused their colleague they have misused his background and they have misused his record of integrity for their own deceitful ends. It is despicable. [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope had a chance to make a full speech but he could not. Even he could not defend his actions and he seeks to make a speech now by way of intervention. Who are the people—is it the man from Christchurch? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Which man? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Tim Barnett—is he the one who is carrying two or three passports? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is it the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Is it the Prime Minister? Is it Mr Goff? It has to be someone because why would a political party in such a precarious situation where Harry Duynhoven is concerned go to these extraordinary lengths to offend the rest of the House and Parliament and our constitution were it not that there was something very serious not known to us and that its members cannot have known because they will be embarrassed? Why do they not come clean? 
Dail Jones 
: Is it a list MP? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Is it a list MP? 
David Benson-Pope 
: It’s a conspiracy! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh Mr Benson-Pope a conspiracy—yes it is a conspiracy. Why do we need a blanket suspension? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I think it is important in this debate which members have quite rightly said is an important debate in this House to remind ourselves that it is not just about a parliamentary colleague Harry Duynhoven. Certainly the events that surrounded Mr Duynhoven have been what has triggered us as members of this House and specifically also the Speaker to look at the precise effect of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act which is the subject of the bill that is before us. As one of the preceding speakers noted when the Privileges Committee came to look at this matter it became in effect a matter of statutory interpretation as to the approach that would be taken on the basis of the facts that were presented before us. Those facts were that a member had reactivated what he thought was already his—that is his Dutch nationality by birth. It was the act of filling out a form that was considered by the majority and by the Solicitor-General to bring him within the context of this legislation. 
Some of us who have been looking at and teaching statutory interpretation and who have made reference to the Legislation Advisory Committee’s report on the preferred approach to how one should interpret legislation point out the importance of always looking at a single section and particularly a part of a section within the context of the overall intention and purpose of that particular part as well as of the legislation in its totality. That was the basis upon which I approached this matter. It became apparent from the discussion in the committee that an event that could trigger that section or that could be considered to be an act for the purposes of that section could be merely making an inquiry—in the street maybe—as to whether citizenship was a possibility or having a conversation with someone in authority from the embassy of another country and saying that one may wish to pursue one’s right to a passport or to dual citizenship. That seemed to me to verge upon the ludicrous. That matter was raised by the honourable member Mr Prebble. Others thought—including the Clerk—that that would be a long bow to draw. 
The point to be made however is that all those points had to be considered in the context of the purpose of the legislation. That was the basis upon which I believed and came to the judgment that if members looked at the total context and did not take a strict interpretation—which members are not required to do in this legislation—then to argue that there was ambiguity in this particular factual situation when section 55 was applied to it was a valid if somewhat courageous position to take in the face of political prejudice. 
 What then emerged of course when we heard the testimony was that we were dealing with a situation that had absolutely no malice or ill will in it at all. An individual had committed an act for the purposes of this legislation of the sort that any number of members could have committed and probably did commit in the past and probably could have committed in the future if this event had not triggered debate about the issue. The event that was at risk here was of course the question of dual nationality. There is nothing unlawful or wrong about New Zealand citizens holding joint nationality. In fact many of my profession have argued for it because they were prevented on occasion from being able to practice in law because that sort of rather narrow interpretation was given. 
There is a legitimate debate to be had on whether in order to be able to be a New Zealand citizen one can be only a New Zealand citizen and cannot hold dual nationality. In this age of globalisation many countries have been reconsidering their approach to that. As we have heard Australia which is perhaps among the more chauvinistic of countries has now decided to acknowledge that there can be dual nationality. It seemed to me that the event we were talking about and the facts and the circumstances that arose from it were those where an entirely innocent mistake was made if one wants to put it like that—I do not even call it a mistake but an event—to pursue what is a legitimate right in any other context except for the very narrow one of section 55 of the Act. In that context then we had to go on and consider given that the majority of the committee had held that yes there was a technical breach of the Act—and I think everyone acknowledged that it was technical in that sense—the appropriate response. There was a division of opinion as to that. 
We have heard much in this House about members being above the law and making laws for their own purpose etc. I think it is important to remind the House that in other circumstances when a citizen breaches the law the matter would not normally come to this Parliament but would go to the courts. In much the same way this debate is in effect the equivalent of a court in terms of determining the appropriate remedy in this particular situation. We all know that when citizens have broken the law particularly when they have done so inadvertently if they come forward declare that there has been an error and hide nothing the court does not award the maximum penalty in those circumstances. Yet that in effect is what the Opposition is arguing for in the case of Mr Duynhoven. 
This is essentially a technical breach without ill will. When someone comes forward owns up and subjects himself to the judgment of the appropriate peers here in much the same way as one does in court proceedings then I think it is entirely appropriate to say that no the maximum penalty will not be awarded in those circumstances—the vacating of the seat—but it is appropriate that Parliament takes upon itself the responsibility to try to redress the anomaly that has been exposed in the legislation. 
There has also been some discussion as to why the amendment is drafted to include the whole period of this Parliament. For me the Opposition has presented an influential argument on that. I think there would have been some merit in taking the amendment just up to the present date but we have the publicly declared position of a member of this House holding an honorary consulship. We have heard that nothing in the mere holding of that appointment would offend against section 55 of the Act. That member has not had Mr Duynhoven’s courage and has not subjected himself to the judgment of this House. So we have not heard whether he is in breach of that provision not by the mere holding of that appointment but as one sees if one goes on to read the provision in terms of whether he does anything in that relationship that could be seen to offend against that provision. I for one will be seeking for that member if we do not pass the amendment set out in this bill for the whole of this Parliament to bring himself before the judgment of the Privileges Committee so that we can look to see precisely the full nature of what he does and how he does it. 
 It seems to me it is only fair if there is to be one form of citizenship for everyone to put himself or herself within the possibility and the scope of it. The issue may appear to be simple on the surface but I have no doubt that in the action—in the day-to-day working within that role—one could make a case that allegiance is being given to another country. We should have the opportunity to debate that in this House and we should not see it hidden away. We are told we have to accept the word of the Opposition on that issue. We are told things are all right and we must accept that. Certainly not! We have to have one standard for everyone and everyone should subject himself or herself to it. The Government can see the nonsense of the Opposition’s position in terms of bringing this House into disrepute which is why we have recommended that we address the fundamental issue. 
Section 55 of the Act is a nonsense. It is a stupid provision and we have to ensure it is made right. In order that in the future this House is not brought into disrepute by the speeches that we have been subjected to in defence or in support of this particular bill we must go the heart of the matter and cure what is wrong in the legislation and we must do so in the interests of all members of this House. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 In Britain the Attorney-General is not a member of the Cabinet in order to make sure that he or she does not give party partisan advice. After listening to that contribution made by the Hon Margaret Wilson I think we ought to look at that too. We have a bill to in effect elect a member of Parliament. It is a change to our constitution. We heard an extraordinarily partisan speech from the Attorney-General. Either she believes what she said in which case the courts in New Zealand have a terrible Attorney-General or worse still she does not believe it. I think that she does not believe it because she had a go about honorary consulship. 
Margaret Wilson voted for a section of the Privileges Committee’s report that stated that section 55 of the Act is not triggered by “appointment as an honorary consul or the acceptance of a foreign award or honour nor to owing a ‘local allegiance’ which arises by virtue of temporarily residing in a foreign country.” She voted for that and then she decided to make a cheap political point—not one that an Attorney-General should make and certainly not with regard to a section as serious as that one. This bill is damaging a lot of reputations. It is damaging Parliament’s reputation because for the first time ever we have decided to elect a member rather than leaving that to the people of this country. 
I want to address some remarks to Mr Duynhoven and I hope he is listening to this debate. I have known him for a long time and I do not think I have ever given him—consciously anyway—bad advice. I believe that he has been given some appalling advice. This process is shredding his reputation. Mr Duynhoven is very proud of the fact that he has a majority of 14000 or something like that. He is the highest of the high. I have had the position of having the biggest majority in Parliament. As MPs we all know that it is a great feeling. Mr Duynhoven is proud of his majority and he worked hard to get it. Yet by tonight he will have a majority of 21. He will be able to name every one of them. Some of the people whom he would not cross the road to support will put him in Parliament. He will have a majority of 21; he will be the lowest of the low. 
That is Harry Duynhoven’s choice. He does not have to do that. The correct advice in terms of the Westminster system to have given to him was that he should resign. Harry Duynhoven can still do that. He can save his reputation by going from wherever he is and handing in his resignation. Why should he do that? We are told by his colleagues that if he puts his case in front of the people of New Plymouth he would be re-elected and I think that if he trusted them he would be too. He would be able to walk back into this House after being elected by the people of New Plymouth rather than after being elected by MPs. Mr Duynhoven should ask himself whether he really wants to be elected by members of Parliament. That is the advice he should have received from everyone. The Lord only knows why he decided to go to see Sir Geoffrey Palmer for advice. If he had gone to see David Caygill he would have said the seat was vacant and the honourable course of action was to resign. But instead Mr Duynhoven went to see Sir Geoffrey Palmer. 
I say to Sir Geoffrey Palmer that it is a matter of great shame that a former Prime Minister of New Zealand seems to think that the worst aspects of Washington lobbying firms and law firms are what he wants to spend his time engaged in. No doubt he is happy with his Mercedes-Benz. However Sir Geoffrey Palmer should be more concerned about his reputation. The committee was shocked by the representations made to it. If members would like to read the section of the report on the  
de minimis non curat lex 
 principle they will see we decided to strengthen it when we rejected those representations by stating we “unanimously rejected” Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s advice. I do not believe any member of the committee thought that Sir Geoffrey Palmer believed a single word that he said to us. He should be somewhat concerned about his reputation. 
Sir Geoffrey Palmer actually said to us that Dutch law should apply in New Zealand. I thought he made the case as to why a member of Parliament should not pledge allegiance to a foreign State. Who would think that Dutch law should apply in New Zealand were it not for the fact that an MP had pledged allegiance to a foreign State? New Zealand law should apply here. The moment that Sir Geoffrey Palmer walked out of the room not one single member thought that Dutch law should decide who is elected in this Parliament. None of us supported the arguments he put forward. 
We had a bit of a debate about whether Sir Geoffrey Palmer has ever won a court case. I live in west Auckland where we are sprayed because of the painted apple moth. The people who live in the area around me are not wealthy and they have asked me whether Parliament would change that programme. I have said that it would not do that. So they went to see Sir Geoffrey Palmer who took a huge fee off them and said that he could fight it. Yet they are still being sprayed. The only case I know of that has ever been lost before the Waitangi Tribunal is the case where Sir Geoffrey Palmer told a group of poor Maoris that the kiwifruit was a taonga. Even the Waitangi Tribunal thought that that was a stretch. I say to Sir Geoffrey Palmer that the money is not worth it and that he should think about his reputation. 
Let me go on to see who else is being shredded. Our Prime Minister who has been very silent today learnt about this matter on 4 July. How long did she take to decide that she needed to act? That day—4 July—Mr Duynhoven’s warrant was suspended. We have known about the issue for a considerable period. The law states the Speaker must act “without delay”. The Prime Minister acted without delay in taking 12 hours to suspend Mr Duynhoven’s warrant. Have we taken 12 hours? No we have not. We all know that the seat was vacated on 11 June and here we are on 7 August. Our reputations as parliamentarians are being shredded because nobody believes that we are acting without delay. 
But I want to go further than that and say Mr Duynhoven has put the Speaker in an impossible position. When Mr Duynhoven’s colleagues said we should have a bill were they actually trying to help him? Of course they were not. They know that he would have won a by-election. The reason that his colleagues are getting this bill through is to protect some MPs who were not prepared to be upfront and go to see the Speaker. Why is Mr Duynhoven lending his name to that? He should not do that. He should resign. 
 But I will go further than that and say to Mr Duynhoven that much as I like him he was not as upfront as he has tried to pretend to be. When he turned up to the committee I asked him for a copy of the application. He said he had it. Although I asked him for it it has not arrived. I asked him when he really applied for the first time but we have not had an answer from him. It turns out that Mr Duynhoven had a number of attempts to get Dutch citizenship and one of them became lost in transit. The fact of the law is that the moment Mr Duynhoven filled out that form and sent it off it triggered the application of section 55 of the Act. If he did do it earlier than he has said his obligation to resign becomes greater. 
Let us consider other matters. The most controversial bill this year—the prostitution bill—went through on Mr Duynhoven’s vote and he was not validly a member of Parliament at the time. That ought to concern him as well. 
I say to the House that here is a member of Parliament who has said that he did not give the matter a moment’s thought. I accept his word on that. But do I think that is the right thing for a Minister to say? Of course he should have thought that citizenship was worth a moment’s thought. He did actually know it was important because an hour after he sent the form off he thought perhaps he should tell the Prime Minister about it. If he had gone to see the Prime Minister an hour earlier he would not be in this position. I say to Mr Duynhoven that we should not be in this position either. He should tender his resignation today. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I had the privilege of being part of the Privileges Committee on the evening of 30 July in the absence of Peter Dunne and during that evening the committee received evidence from Terence Arnold QC—our Solicitor-General—on section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act which is at the heart of this debate. Today I would like to talk about the background to that section and the way in which it has been interpreted during periods of time over the years. 
First of all as we know that section of the Act had its origins in 1852—151 years ago. The first point I make is that it absolutely beggars belief that over those 151 years this is the first time that section 55(1)(c) has been breached. Countless parliamentarians have gone through this Parliament since 1852. Many of them would have had dual nationality. In order to get dual nationality they would have had to apply for example for a British passport. Under section 55 of the Act immediately they took that action—“immediately” as Richard Prebble correctly says—their seat would have become vacant under the law. It is very very clear that literally hundreds of MPs may well have breached the law over the last 151 years. Is it not remarkable that after all that time the first MP in history to put his hand up and say he thinks he may have broken that law is Harry Duynhoven? For the first time someone has put his hand up. 
By the way the law was strengthened from 1975 onwards. From that time people have not been able to become members of Parliament without having New Zealand citizenship. So there has been shall we say a higher responsibility on MPs since 1975 if they breach this law to put up their hand and say so. We then go through the procedure that we face for the first time here today. 
I would like to make the point too that the minority report of the Privileges Committee lays some weight on the fact that a select committee had another look at this law in 1993. If that is true I can only say the select committee in 1993 did a very very poor job of work indeed. As I will mention in a moment I believe the policy intent of this law has a loophole in it that is big enough to drive a bulldozer through. If any self-respecting lawyer had been in the House in 1993 and thought about the policy intent of section 55(1)(c) of the Act—which I am about to talk about—that lawyer would quite clearly have seen that the section is quite ridiculous. 
I turn now to the policy intent of section 55(1)(c) which was explained by the Solicitor-General Terence Arnold to the committee. He said that the policy intent was to prevent a member of the New Zealand Parliament from having dual allegiance—that is an allegiance to New Zealand and the possibility of allegiance to another foreign jurisdiction. That seems to me to be quite a reasonable point. Any member of this Parliament needs to give allegiance solely to New Zealand and to no other foreign nation. Perhaps I can illustrate the issue by giving this example. Let us suppose an American member of the Senate becomes the honorary consul for the nation of New Zealand and continues to sit in the US Senate. Probably no one would be very concerned about that. But let us suppose a citizen of the US who is a senator is also the honorary consul for North Korea. In today’s environment one would think that the US Senate could regard that as unpatriotic and as illustrating a divided allegiance—in that case against what is at this moment one of the US’s prime enemies. Terence Arnold explained that that was the kind of situation that section 55(1)(c) anticipated. He gave the illustration of the Second World War. If during that war a member of this Parliament had applied to become a citizen of Germany that would have been evidence of swapping allegiance from New Zealand over to a country that was in those days our enemy. The point I make is that if that is the policy intent of section 55(1)(c) then there is a great loophole. 
Right here and now and during the last election any citizen of New Zealand who is also a citizen of any other nation has dual citizenship. I imagine that many of the MPs who contested the last election are in that position of having dual citizenship—of also being citizens of other countries. I myself for example am eligible for both an Irish passport and a British passport. I have not activated that but my father was born in Northern Ireland a jurisdiction that is recognised by both Ireland and the United Kingdom. So I am eligible for three citizenships here and now. I could easily have activated that before the last election. Had I done so I would be in Parliament owing allegiance from that point of view to three different nations but I would not have broken any law. There would be no basis on which anybody could ask me to vacate my seat in Parliament. 
That is the huge loophole in this whole thing. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Prebble is trying to interject but he has had his say and I want to have mine. The Solicitor-General in response to my specific question said that what I have said is exactly right. We all know it is right. We can be elected as members of this Parliament if we hold dual citizenship. There is nothing to stop it and we are not obliged to reveal that to the electorate. The Solicitor-General said that maybe a person in that situation could tell the electorate. For example in Harry Duynhoven’s case if he had taken this action before the last election he could have told the electorate that he had Dutch citizenship in addition to New Zealand citizenship. That was actually the fact of the case. Harry Duynhoven in effect was a citizen of the Netherlands at the time of the last election—and he broke no law. On that basis we have no justification for asking him to vacate his seat in the House. Therefore that is a considerable loophole. 
Let us look at the issue in another context. Let us suppose that at the time of the Second World War a person was elected to this Parliament who was a citizen both of New Zealand and Germany and that person had a malicious intent in entering Parliament. Therefore the member did not reveal during the election campaign his or her dual nationality and nobody knew about it because the member did not bother to tell anybody about it. It is not as though we have a police force that goes around looking for these offences because this is the first time there has been a so-called offence in 151 years despite it being obvious to me that the provisions of this law have been broken time after time. The individual whose situation I have outlined would have been perfectly validly elected to the Parliament of New Zealand. He or she could have served in it while giving his or her allegiance in various ways to the nation of Germany during the Second World War and in terms of this particular section there would have been no grounds whatever for asking that member to vacate his or her seat in Parliament. I think that is a major contradiction in this law. I think that this law in both its policy intent and its legal interpretation is obscure. 
There is one thing that I am very very satisfied about and it is this. Harry Duynhoven has not broken the spirit of the law or of section 55(1)(c) of the Act—he has not broken the spirit of that. In fact he has done the honourable thing for the first time in 151 years put his hand up said he may have broken the law and asked for it to be looked at. I think we should praise him for that and in no way criticise him. 
At the Committee stage of this bill Peter Dunne will move an amendment to limit the exemption we are making to the law to the period from 14 August 2002 to 6 August 2003. That is designed to ensure obviously that Harry Duynhoven retains his seat in this Parliament—and that is obviously the intent of the bill that we are looking at and also of Peter Dunne’s amendment. But it does mean that between today and the next election if anybody else in this House wants to renew a passport get another nationality or become a consul or whatever else for a foreign power he or she will have to come back to the Privileges Committee just as Harry Duynhoven did. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 First I want to say that I am a member of the Privileges Committee and had the advantage of hearing all of the evidence and submissions surrounding this matter and the different legal views of Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the Solicitor-General. The discussion in the committee was certainly rigorous. In the end the Greens were part of the majority that agreed that Mr Duynhoven’s action has led to the vacancy of his seat. There is no doubt that the law as it is written applied in this case and that Mr Duynhoven’s actions triggered it. But equally the Greens were part of the majority that agreed that the law needed to be changed because the public policy behind it is flawed. The law does not cure the mischief it was designed to cure and the consequences are disproportionate to the action. The Green Party supports this bill and will do so through to the final reading. 
The Greens accept that Mr Duynhoven whose actions have brought this issue to the fore has done nothing illegal or wrong. He has not breached or offended any law. His actions of confirming his entitlement to Dutch citizenship have simply triggered an automatic legislative consequence. For Mr Duynhoven this is a serious issue about the affirmation of his heritage and his genealogy and his obligation to protect that heritage for his descendants. We have every sympathy for that personal desire and we would staunchly defend his and anyone else’s right to protect that heritage. 
With this particular circumstance Mr Duynhoven had only a small window of opportunity to reaffirm his citizenship between April of this year and March of 2005. That period sits fully within the parliamentary term. In effect this provision requires Mr Duynhoven to choose between his job and his heritage. In our view that is an unacceptable consequence of this provision. 
I strongly believe that because of the citizenship laws in this country that allow for dual citizenship for individuals and that MPs are able to stand for re-election and election while holding dual citizenship this archaic provision does not in effect prevent the mischief it was originally designed to cure. It is a stupid law and like other stupid laws it should be changed. 
In the New Zealand context this provision dates back to 1852 but in fact is sourced in very old law well before the unjust colonisation of this country. The primary purpose of the provision is to protect against an MP making an allegiance with a country with which New Zealand is at war. The MP’s seat becomes vacant but the MP can stand again immediately so that the electorate can reassess the importance of an MP’s acquired allegiance and choose whether to reaffirm his or her representation. 
This raises two concerns for me. It is only an electorate MP who can stand again to seek another mandate. In an MMP environment list MPs will lose their seats permanently and be replaced by the next person on the list. While the position of list MPs is different from electorate MPs and the list process does have its own peculiarities it must be remembered that we are talking about a very serious consequence—losing one’s job permanently and with no recourse to resume one’s seat. I believe that a party’s list vote is indicative of both support for the party policy and support for the list candidate as representatives of a community of interest rather than a locality. The community of interest that supports that party and those representatives should not in my view be accorded a lesser status. This provision does not take into account the specific needs of an MMP environment. 
The second concern is the implication that a simple affirmation of citizenship or nationality to another country which does not require the abrogation of New Zealand citizenship presumes that a person is inherently untrustworthy or suspicious. One reason given for the provision was that for example in 1940 we would not have wanted an MP who affirmed his or her citizenship to Germany. I am not compelled by that reasoning and I believe that it has some serious negative implications. In particular as I say I am very concerned that circumstances may arise where an MP is presumed a potential threat to the nation simply because of his or her citizenship and not as a result of his or her actions. 
New Zealand law has taken a very liberal approach to dual citizenship particularly since 1977. Section 16 of the Citizenship Act says that a person may be deprived of his or her New Zealand citizenship where the person has first acquired the citizenship of another country and second acted in a manner contrary to the interests of New Zealand. That second part of the test is open to very wide interpretation but it is at least predicated on some overt act by which a person may be judged and not simply the fact that a person has or acts on his or her dual citizenship. The Citizenship Act has moved this country away from the paranoia and prejudice of the past and into an area where a person is entitled to acquire and exercise dual citizenship so long as he or she does not do anything contrary to New Zealand’s interests. Section 55(1)(b) and (c) is inconsistent with that approach and should be reviewed which is one of the opportunities that this bill makes way for. The Greens have no problem supporting the changing of a stupid law that is not effective in preventing the harm it is designed to cure and has unjust and disproportionate consequences that far outweigh the harm caused. 
I want to make a plea to the members of this House who support the legislation because of harsh and unjust consequences and ask that they take the words of the Leader of the House to heart that when the law is an ass the law should be changed. That same principle must apply to the laws that affect the New Zealand public. The public are quite right in questioning why it is that a law that is unjust and disproportionate and affects at most only 120 MPs can be quickly changed but similar laws that are manifestly unjust and cause massive disproportionate harm to thousands of New Zealanders are not accorded the same priority—like for example the cannabis prohibition law whereby 22000 New Zealanders every year are arrested and convicted simply because they smoke a joint or two. The law is applied unfairly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can make a point and she related it to the bill but now she is to come back to the bill. I presume that that was the point of order that was being raised. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: There are as I have just explained examples of laws in this country which affect thousands of people in this nation that are similarly applied unfairly and where the law is similarly proven to fail to cure the mischief it was designed to cure. In my view any MP who does not apply the principle that an unjust and unworkable law should be undone to other laws such as cannabis prohibition is rightly subject to public criticism of duplicity and self-interest. 
The Greens take a consistent and rational analysis of the efficacy of the laws in this country—an analysis based on what is just appropriate and right. That is why we work for the review of cannabis laws and why we support the repeal of section 59 so that adults can no longer beat children legally. We support this bill simply because— 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had just returned to the bill in the sentence she was developing. I am allowing her to carry on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to support the member. She is explaining why the Green Party is voting as it is. Just because the rest of us might not think that that is logical it is not a reason for her not to be able to do that. We have not stopped any other member giving his or her views. I am actually interested to know how the Greens have reached their conclusion. I think the member should be allowed to give her speech. If she can see a connection between the Electoral Act and marijuana I totally accept her word. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The Greens support this bill as simply dealing with one unworkable and unjust law on a spectrum of unworkable and unjust laws that must be changed. It is clear that until we as parliamentarians deal with other irrational inconsistent laws we will be accused only of self-interest at the expense of the rest of the community. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Sometimes some of the most amazing things that have happened around this place have been when parties that are in trouble on a range of issues—particularly legislative issues—try to deflect attention away from themselves because the ice they are skating on is very very thin. They are spreading the net looking at who they can blame and attack so that they can deflect attention away from themselves and that most certainly is happening in this case. This is a very important and very interesting debate. I suggest that we move on and get on with passing it through the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very important and very interesting debate. It has been brought about by the actions of a member of the Labour Party who according to the advice given to the Privileges Committee and therefore this House by the Solicitor-General has done concurred in or adopted an act whereby he became a subject or citizen of a foreign State or power or became entitled to rights privileges or immunities of a subject or citizen of any foreign State or power. That is the clear advice of the Solicitor-General who analysed the position as outlined on the facts of Mr Duynhoven’s case and based on the facts supplied by Mr Duynhoven. Page 2 of his report states and I quote: “Applying the analysis just outlined to the facts of Mr Duynhoven’s case the position is as follows: 1. Mr Duynhoven was not a Dutch national when he was elected to Parliament in 2002. 2. In order to become a Dutch national Mr Duynhoven had to take certain actions within a defined time frame. If he did not take that action Mr Duynhoven would have lost the opportunity to acquire Dutch nationality. 3. After and because Mr Duynhoven took the necessary action—that is filing this completed application on 11 June 2003—he became a Dutch national with retrospective effect.” Paragraph 5 states: “On this analysis it seems clear that Mr Duynhoven’s act of filling his completed application created a vacancy within the terms of section 55(1)(c).” That is an unequivocal clear statement with no ambiguity about it on the facts supplied by Mr Duynhoven. 
On the face of it looking again at section 129 of the Act one would say that there were clear grounds for a decision being made without delay but that is not a matter for me to decide and I leave it at that point. 
The Solicitor-General advised us and New Zealand First does not hold the views of the Solicitor-General very strongly and that point has been made by the leader of this party. However the statement has been made and it has been accepted by the select committee and I believe that those views have been accepted unanimously and that includes New Zealand First in the final analysis. 
In this case New Zealand First had offered the Labour Party its support in allowing Harry Duynhoven to retain his seat on a retrospective legislation basis. We said to the New Zealand Labour Party that Harry was a good bloke and we were pretty sure he would have done this absolutely without any malice by accident and in a blameless way. It is clear that all those views apply to Harry Duynhoven. We were and still are ready to support an Act that will reinstate Harry Duynhoven to this Parliament and apply to section 55(1)(c). However in front of us is a breach of that offer made by New Zealand First to the minority Labour Government. We gave it an inch and it took a yard. We offered to help it. It has thrown back our offer in our face slapped us in the face and said “You can offer these things but we’ll do what we like and you don’t count.” We made the offer and obviously it has not been accepted and the Government is now saying that the Act should apply not only to Harry Duynhoven but to anybody else who may have come within the sphere of section 55(1)(c). 
Furthermore—and this does not even apply to Harry Duynhoven because he did not swear allegiance to another power; he only filled out an application form to have his Dutch citizenship restored—the Government is saying that despite the fact that Harry Duynhoven did not swear allegiance to anybody else it will amend section 55(1)(b) of the Act as well. That section states that the seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant “If he or she takes any oath or makes any declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to any foreign Prince or Power;”. The Labour Party is saying that despite the fact that Harry Duynhoven did not do that it will amend the legislation for this term of Parliament so that it applies not only to Harry Duynhoven but to anyone else who may have applied for Dutch or British citizenship—not even Dutch citizenship because usually to get citizenship one has to swear allegiance. Harry Duynhoven just filled out a form. But in addition to those just filling out a form this legislation will apply to people who have sworn an oath or allegiance to another foreign power. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Why would they want to do that? 
DAIL JONES 
: Exactly. One does have to ask why go beyond what Harry Duynhoven has done? I am a lawyer. I am automatically suspicious. I get paid for being suspicious. I have won many many court cases—unlike I am told Sir Geoffrey Palmer with whom I was compared. There is no comparison between me and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I win court cases. I am told that Sir Geoffrey Palmer only loses them. That is why I was able to continue— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: But he charges a lot more. 
DAIL JONES 
: He does charge a lot more. That is why he is probably the better lawyer as far as the public is concerned. As far as this particular case is concerned who in the Labour Party is being protected here? No one in New Zealand First is being protected by this legislation. I have spoken to members and I have looked at passports to see whether they have been renewed. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Check the American Embassy. 
DAIL JONES 
: I have looked at the passport. Members know that when a passport is renewed the top right-hand corner is ripped off. I have seen the passport. That has not been done so no passport has been renewed. Mr Carter can try. I am concerned about Mr Carter’s comment when he asked whether I had rung the American Embassy. I am concerned about whether the Labour Party has been colluding with the United States Government to find out the allegiances of New Zealand members of Parliament. Mr Carter laughs and says they are his friends. Has the American Ambassador been contacted by the New Zealand Labour Party to find out whether New Zealand members of Parliament have been taking any actions? I find that to be a gross abuse of the Government’s power. I believe that it is a breach of the Privacy Act at the very least. I ask the American Ambassador in this House to report to New Zealand First and perhaps even Mr Speaker on what collusion there is between this Labour Government and the American Ambassador. That point has been put to me not just by Mr Carter but also by Mr Cullen making accusations about a New Zealand First member of Parliament on the basis of having been in collusion with the American Government and the American Embassy. I am sure that the American Ambassador will reply having made an investigation in his department on what collusion there is between Labour Ministers the American Ambassador and his staff. As a Parliament we need to know what is happening. 
A lot has been said about how far this legislation goes back and Dr Cullen jumped up and down about it going back to 1701. Really if we want to take this legislation back to its source we might even go back to 1215 because this legislation is all about our countrymen judging us and our countrymen being the people who should be in Parliament with us. As we know the Magna Carta was all about being judged by one’s peers. This legislation is all about being judged by one’s peers and being governed by one’s peers. That is what the Magna Carta was about. I think it is a real red-herring smokescreen to go back to 1852 1701 the peninsula war in the late 18th early 19th centuries—we could go back to the Magna Carta if we liked. We could probably go back to Roman law if we wished. 
The point is that this Act was considered in 1981. I understand that this Act was considered as recently as 10 if not 3 years ago. This Act is relatively new on our statute book. It is relatively new legislation and Harry Duynhoven broke it. New Zealand First is most concerned that the Labour Party has slapped us in the face. I tell the people of New Plymouth that New Zealand First thanks them for all the party votes it got in the last election. We did extremely well in New Plymouth at the last election. We are only too pleased to help Harry Duynhoven. He has done a good job in New Plymouth and we do not want the taxpayer to go to the expense of a by-election. But if this minority Labour Government is not interested in taking up New Zealand First’s genuine offer well then I am sorry but what else can we do but take the view that the Labour Party is hiding someone and we want to know just who the guilty person is. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I will take a brief call really to say only this: it is disappointing to hear some of the churlish remarks that have come from around the House. It is the right of members to say how they feel about this matter but perhaps members might like to think for one moment that there but for the grace of God go I as that could be applicable to a number of members who are sitting in this House. Section 55 as it is currently drafted has inappropriate surprising and unexpected consequences. A member in Mr Duynhoven’s situation should not lose his seat. Dual citizenship is not unusual in New Zealand. There is no reason to believe that members of Parliament with dual citizenship cannot put New Zealand’s interests foremost. I commend this bill to the House and I hope it progresses swiftly. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I am pleased the member made that contribution because that is exactly the point that needs to be clarified. She talked about dual citizenship; this issue is not about dual citizenship—that is not the issue. It seems that she and the Labour Party are confused now about what we are debating. 
The point is that members of Parliament are elected by people who vote for them on the basis of what they are. Some candidates will stand as citizens of New Zealand. Some will stand as dual citizens being citizens of New Zealand who have the right to hold an English or an Irish passport or a European or an American passport. The people have the right to know what allegiance a candidate has; then it is up to the people to chose whether they want to support that person. In my case I have New Zealand citizenship and a New Zealand passport only—that is all I have. Other people in this Parliament have New Zealand citizenship and New Zealand passports and have British or other passports. The people have a right to know that. The people decide whether they think it is appropriate that such a person should be elected to Parliament—it is one of the many factors they will take into account. When those people have made that decision on the basis of that person’s allegiance to whomever he or she has sworn allegiance to that is fine—the public have decided. That is democracy. 
The issue here is that if a member of Parliament having been elected to Parliament decides to change his or her status decides not only to retain allegiance to New Zealand but also to offer allegiance to another body a foreign body then the public have a right to know and the public who voted for that person should have the right to decide whether given that extra allegiance that the member has now given to some foreign body they want that person to continue to represent them. That is the issue. Harry Duynhoven having got New Zealand citizenship—in fact he was born in New Zealand and has it as of right—also was eligible because of his parentage to apply to another foreign body to get the passport nationality and privileges of that country and in doing so gave allegiance to that country. That is not the issue; the issue is that he now has changed his status and the public have a right to know that his allegiance now is not only to New Zealand but to some other country and therefore they have a right to decide whether they still wish him to represent them. That is the issue here. Harry Duynhoven by taking the course of action he did—by applying for Dutch nationality—changed his status and the public in New Plymouth then have a right to make a decision as to whether they think he is the appropriate person to represent them. That is democracy. Today we are debating the issue of democracy in this Parliament. 
A point that has been made before but is well worth making again is that it is very likely that if a vacancy were created and Harry Duynhoven stood he would be re-elected. We do not know. We will never know that now because the Government has taken away from the people of New Plymouth that democratic right to decide. The Government has decided that 120 people will cast their votes for or against Harry Duynhoven. We are going to end up with a situation whereby it is not the good people of New Plymouth who make a decision as to who is to represent them; instead 118 or 117 people in New Zealand will decide whether Harry Duynhoven is the appropriate person to represent New Plymouth. I say that we have an absolute fundamental breach of our constitution. This issue is all about democracy. Why should just a handful of people make a decision on behalf of the people of New Plymouth and take away their democratic right to make that choice? In doing so the Government is absolutely trampling right across democracy in this country. I say as I said earlier that that is absolutely appalling. 
Of course the Government will say that the reason it does not want a by-election is that it costs too much money. It is estimated that it might cost $200000 $300000 or $400000 to hold a by-election. I ask the House to reflect on the fact that we are going to be debating this bill for 9 or 10 hours today and the likely cost of that to the taxpayer is somewhere between $2 million and $4 million. That is what it will cost to pass this legislation to save Harry Duynhoven as opposed to a by-election cost of $300000 to $400000. I wonder whether taxpayers think that is good use of their money. I doubt it. I would love to be on a stage with a Labour member of Parliament and to ask that member to justify why it is better to spend $2 million to $4 million rather than to spend $300000 to $400000 and on the way through let the people of New Plymouth have their say. 
That is the first issue. The second issue is that this whole debate is about Harry Duynhoven and the fact that he took an action that caused him to vacate his seat. On the way through there are issues around whether given that he has vacated his seat he should have received the remuneration he has accepted which is probably about 20 grand but that is a bit irrelevant. The issue is this: why is the bill so broad? That is the issue that is now of concern in this Parliament. If this bill is about Harry Duynhoven why does the bill not focus only on him? If the majority of the people in this House decide that he should retain his seat then why does the bill not focus only on Harry Duynhoven? Why is the bill not worded so that it saves just Harry Duynhoven in his seat of New Plymouth. [ 
Interruption 
] That is the point. Winston Peters is asking who else is guilty on that side of the House. We do not know. 
What is worse is we the Opposition collectively have been asking who the person or people in Labour are who have the problem. At least Harry Duynhoven had the decency and the honesty to put his hand up and say he had a bit of a problem. What the Government is doing now is sheltering somebody or some people in its caucus who are hiding behind Harry Duynhoven. That is a disgrace. Mr Duynhoven should be embarrassed by that. He should be saying: “Hang on a minute. I don’t want to have to carry the full weight of this and cover up for somebody else.” Why does the Labour Party not come clean? Is it the Prime Minister who has a problem? Is it the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade? We do not know. Somebody over there is hiding behind Harry Duynhoven. I do not like that Parliament does not like it and I bet that Harry Duynhoven does not like it. The whole country should be asking why the Government is trying to cover up for somebody. Is it Chris Carter? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It could be me; that’s right. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I do not think so but I will ask him. I wonder whether he will stand up on a point of order and say that it is not him so that we can cross one off. I do not think he will. He is sitting there smiling. The point is— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He actually said it could be him. 
JOHN CARTER 
: If it is him he should be honest enough to stand up and say that it is and then we would know what Labour is covering up. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I qualify for a Dutch passport too. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is true; we do not expect that from Chris Carter but the fact is there may be others in the House who need to stand up and declare themselves. We challenge them today. Indeed I challenge the senior Labour whip to stand up and come clean. He had a chance to do that not so long ago. He took a call made a poor contribution and never once said that by the way he had checked the members of the Labour caucus and they were all clean. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Of course he has checked. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Richard Prebble makes that point quite rightly; the whip has checked and found something and now is not saying. That is the problem. He has the opportunity to tell us; even now he could do it by taking a point of order. He could stand up and say: “I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We’re clean now.” It would be outside the Standing Orders but at least it would solve the problem and we could get on with this bill. But the fact is the Labour members will not do it and they cannot do it because they know they are covering up for someone. The public of New Zealand have a right to know that this Government is prepared to spend up to $4 million of their taxpayer dollars to cover up for someone who will not come clean. That is an absolute disgrace and this is a black day for Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I promised the House that I would report back to it on two points raised with me at the commencement of the second reading debate. 
The first relates to those provisions of the Electoral Act that require a 75 percent majority before they can be amended. These provisions are identified in section 268 of the Act. Section 55 which is amended by this bill is not one of the reserved provisions. The 75 percent majority requirement therefore has no application to this bill. 
The second point is a more complex issue and it is right that I should give a full response to it. The Electoral Amendment Act 2002 has reposed a duty on the Speaker when the Speaker is satisfied that a vacancy exists to notify that vacancy in the  
Gazette 
 without delay. I do take Dr Mapp’s point that the Speaker is not necessarily the person who decides that a vacancy actually exists. Rather the Speaker is taking the consequential action to fill a vacancy that has already occurred and that could be established as a matter of law independently of any action of the Speaker. After all the Speaker is not given a role under section 55 the vacancy provision. The Speaker is given a role under section 129 the by-election provision. 
It is clear that the Speaker could take a decision to call a by-election without consulting the House at all. This would be contrary to all precedent but it is legally possible. I do not think for one moment that members would feel that any Speaker should act without consulting them if there was a real doubt about whether a vacancy actually existed. I ask members to reflect on whether they would be comfortable about a Speaker doing that. After receiving advice that I should consult the House first before arriving at a decision this was the course that I took. I think that it is reasonable on a Speaker’s behalf for me to defer taking action under section 129 for a short period to hear what the House has to say on such a critical issue as a member’s right to sit in this House. I believe that in doing so I am acting completely within the scope of the duty cast on me by the statute. 
Of course the Privileges Committee inquiry is the most detailed examination of this issue. But select committees report to the House. They are not independent decision-making bodies. My consultation with the House will involve the House’s consideration of the committee’s report. I made this point in my ruling on 23 July and I note that it was endorsed in the committee’s report when it stated on page 5: “... it is still appropriate for the Speaker to refer a question to the Privileges Committee and for the House to consider the committee’s report if there is a real doubt as to whether a vacancy has occurred. The Speaker then makes a judgment that is informed by that parliamentary consideration.” The House’s Standing Orders do give priority to consideration of a Privileges Committee report unlike all other reports and in these circumstances I do not consider that it is unreasonable for me to wait for that consideration to occur before I take action. 
Mr Prebble argues that the House’s consideration of this bill provides sufficient feedback for me to act. Other members have warned that the Speaker should not defer a decision so as to give the Government time to bring in legislation to avoid the consequences of the vacancy. I agree with this latter point. I will not delay for that purpose. But I point out that it has been open to the Government to bring forward this legislation at any time since Mr Duynhoven’s situation became known. There is nothing that peculiarly permits such legislation only now. My actions have proceeded quite independently of the Government’s legislative plans. 
I do not accept Mr Prebble’s suggestion that a debate on this bill substitutes for the House’s consideration of the Privileges Committee’s report especially where that report is guaranteed priority for debate at the House’s next sitting. I have consistently said that it is at that point that I will decide under section 129 whether a vacancy has arisen. I have never hidden this from the House and intend to maintain that course. 
In view of the fact that this is a lengthy ruling I am ensuring that a copy of it will be placed in every member’s bill box and members might like to study it carefully. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for the ruling. I want to raise one issue from the ruling you have given. You made the point that you asked members to reflect upon whether they would be comfortable with the Speaker making a decision as to whether a vacancy had occurred without consultation with the House. I put it to you that the law was changed exactly for that purpose; that members decided that it was not appropriate that the majority in the House determined whether there was a vacancy. We see the exact reasons for that decision occurring here today where the Privileges Committee has made a decision that there is a vacancy where the Clerk of the House has given his advice to the committee that there is a vacancy and where the Solicitor-General has given clear and unambiguous advice that there is a vacancy. 
For you then to say that members should reflect on whether they are comfortable that you make a decision on that rather than wait for the House to make its decision is I put it to you stretching beyond the point where the House wanted you to be. The House in its decision to legislate to give the Speaker the power to make the decision was sending the Speaker a signal that it did not believe that a Government using its majority in the House should be able to subvert Parliament and in fact make a decision that there was not such a vacancy. That is not what MPs expected and that is what we are now seeing occur. For the very reasons that we are seeing now Parliament gave the Speaker the power to determine independently whether there was a vacancy. 
The fact that you choose not to use that power—and that is your choice—is certainly of concern and I want to take you up on the point you made about members reflecting on whether they would be comfortable about your making that decision. I say to you that yes we are comfortable about your making the decision and it should be made rather than your letting a Government use the weight of its majority to subvert the whole process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Speaker was made the decision maker. Nothing precludes consultation. This is dealt with in the report and in my ruling. Independence does not mean no consultation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Motion agreed to. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has just occurred to me: I am sure that the House is very grateful that you are abstaining but what happens in the Committee stage? Will your abstention be recorded in some fashion? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to me but I intend— 
DAIL JONES 
: I know that you will not be present. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I intend to maintain that position. 
DAIL JONES 
: We really appreciate that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I actually have the right to be present during the Committee stage—in the voting lobby. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I want to start by saying a couple of things. Firstly I hope that during the coming hours those who are in the Chair will have full regard to the fact that this bill has not been to a select committee. There is no chance for anyone to make submissions on this legislation. We want to spend some time on working through the individual parts of the bill. I also hope the Government does not carry forward the approach it has taken so far today which has basically been for its members to sit there—apart from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland issues who sits and knits— and ignore the issue and not to take calls other than to use up a little bit of time. [ 
Interruption 
] I welcome the Minister with responsibility for Auckland issues taking a call later on when she has de-tangled her wool. 
The title of this bill does not reflect what it really does which is save one particular member Mr Duynhoven. We are changing the law to ensure that Mr Duynhoven is deemed never to have broken it. Nor does this title reflect the fact that there is another Labour MP who is caught by this. Parliament has not been given the courtesy of knowing who that is but we know that the Labour whips have steadfastly refused to state in the House that every other Labour MP is clean and that no other Labour MP has carried out the same offence that Mr Duynhoven has been found to have carried out. So one can only draw the conclusion that there is another Labour MP in this situation. The senior Government whip knows it and he is part of the code of silence in this Parliament on this issue. I hope the journalists in this country put some effort into finding out who the other Labour MP is. We can guarantee that every National MP is clean but can the Labour whip guarantee that every Labour MP is clean? No he cannot— 
Simon Power 
: He won’t. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: —and he will not because he knows that that is not the case. I flag that we will be voting for the amendments put by other parties that limit this bill to being for just Mr Duynhoven although we will of course be opposing the bill. Given that the Government will have a majority to force the bill through—which is outrageous in itself—the bill should at least in those circumstances apply only to Mr Duynhoven. I hope that if the Government keeps this bill as wide as it is other parties will in the course of the debate decide that it would be best if this bill were not passed in its current form—in fact not passed at all. A number of amendments will be put by the National Party as well as by other parties as we work through the process and we will certainly be looking for opportunities at the appropriate time to talk on those issues. 
I want also to pick up the issue that this bill effectively pre-empts a decision that has been required of the Speaker. It would be far better if that were also referred to in the title of the legislation—that this bill is pre-empting a decision that we believe very very strongly should have been made independently of this process. The ability to make that decision has been there for about 24 hours. We regret with a huge amount of sadness that that decision has not been made. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 We are now rushing under urgency into the discussion of this legislation in the Committee of the whole House. Members of the public have not had the opportunity to make submissions to a select committee. All they know is that late last night in this Parliament a bill called the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill was introduced by the minority Labour Government. We have had its first and second readings and now in the Committee stage at this point we are looking at the title of the bill. This bill should not be called just the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill; it should be very very specific legislation and be called the “Electoral (Harry Duynhoven Inadvertent Error) Amendment Bill” because really that is all it is. We have a lot of respect for Harry Duynhoven and this bill should be limited to Harry Duynhoven’s inadvertent error. But there are other clauses. 
Unfortunately by the way in which the Government has drafted this bill it has taken into account not only section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act which is a clause involving Harry Duynhoven’s inadvertent error but it has included section 55(1)(b) which has got nothing to do with Harry Duynhoven whatsoever. Hence the Government’s desire to call it the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. 
Is there not something interesting about the use of the word “vacancies”? The word is not “vacancy”. We believe that there is a vacancy but the Government in the title to the bill suggests there are vacancies. Is that not a nice distinction? We think there is a vacancy; the Government tells us there are vacancies and uses the plural form. It is admitting it in the legislation which is not legislation just for Harry Duynhoven; in the name of the legislation the Government itself is admitting that there is more than one vacancy hence the use of the plural word “vacancies” in this amendment bill. Surely in Parliament we are entitled to know who these other people are because the Government on its own admission in this title tells us that there is not a vacancy but there are vacancies. 
 I ask the Minister Rick Barker which other members have created other vacancies. Who is the other vacant member? So far he or she has been very vacant in his or her attitude to this legislation—totally vacant; the member has gone away on holiday or something. The Government is admitting in this legislation that there is more than one vacancy. It is saying that there are vacancies. Who are the other people? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Look at your own party. 
DAIL JONES 
: We have looked at our own party and we are not vacant here. That member is very vacant most of the time but as far as New Zealand First is concerned we know exactly what is happening. We are concerned that this vacancy—the additional vacancy making that “vacancies”—might perhaps even be a list member. If it were a list member like Kelly Chal that member would be gone; there would be no thought of a by-election or whatever. Kelly Chal went for one reason or another because she was a list member and if this other vacancy—or further vacancies; there could be two or more—involves a list member that person is history. It is quite possible that a list member who is unfamiliar with the law as was Kelly Chal might have done something that resulted in the renewal of a foreign passport and not even a British passport. 
The Government has admitted in this debate on the title that there are vacancies. As a Parliament we surely cannot allow legislation that so blatantly and openly supports vacancies. This is really ramming through legislation without consultation with the public. The bill was introduced late last night and it will be put through its first and second reading today. The bill is talking openly about vacancies and the Government is not telling us who the other people are. 
New Zealand First was happy to support Harry Duynhoven because of a vacancy in the New Plymouth electorate but we were slapped back by the Labour Party. It told us: “No we don’t want to accept your offer to support Harry Duynhoven.” It is telling us in the title of this bill that there are vacancies—it is not just Harry Duynhoven involved here and we are very much entitled to know who the other people are. On the face of it this bill should be entitled “The Harry Duynhoven Electoral Error Amendment Bill”—that is what we were told it was going to be. The Privileges Committee reported on only one person and now there seems to be more than one. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak on clause 1 of this important constitutional measure which is going through under urgency and which is introducing retrospective changes. The public has not had an opportunity to discuss it. I hope that the Chair will recognise that fact. I give notice that the ACT party is putting down a series of amendments—firstly to the title but there will be others further through. We do not want the law to apply to ourselves. We pledge allegiance to this country and we do not want the ability to give allegiance to anyone else so I hope the House will allow ACT members of Parliament to be exempt. We looked at a number of other MPs who we think might be covered and I give notice to the Rt Hon Helen Clark Jim Sutton and other MPs that I have put down an amendment regarding each one of them and I challenge them to support my amendment to show that they give allegiance only to this country. 
Simon Power 
: Interesting tactic. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Absolutely. Members might like to add some other people to the list. The rumours that are now going around regarding the real reason for this bill should be a matter of great concern to them. On the question of the title of the bill I think it is wrong. First I think we should just change the title to the “Elect Harry Duynhoven Bill” because that is what we are doing. That is a proper title; there is nothing frivolous about it. Alternatively I think the bill should be called the “Allow the Rt Hon Helen Clark to Have a Foreign Passport Bill” because that will be the effect of this bill. This bill will allow Helen Clark to have a foreign passport through her spouse so let us put that in the title. 
I challenge members opposite to vote for my amendments and to be upfront. What we are doing is saying as a Parliament that any member of Parliament can now give allegiance to any foreign power. On behalf of ACT New Zealand—that is our full title—I can say that we have no doubt about whom we support and I hope that members will at least allow ACT MPs to exempt themselves. We are quite happy to do that. We do not think this law is ambiguous; we think it is quite clear. We support the law and do not want to be exempt from it. If other parties do not want to be stained by the suggestion that they serve two masters I suggest that they should move amendments to exempt themselves. I challenge those MPs whom I have named to vote for my amendment to show that they have not taken out foreign passports and that they do not serve anyone else except the people of New Zealand. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Who paid them? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is a very good question. Things are getting worse and worse. I just say to members that this is a serious bill and those are serious amendments. This is not a bill about electoral vacancies. As Mr Jones said we do not know of any vacancies. This is a bill to elect Harry Duynhoven so let us be upfront: that is what we are doing. That is the first proposal I am putting up. 
The second one is that this will allow an MP like the Prime Minister to have a British passport. Do we think that is right? [ 
Interruption 
] The member should support my amendments if she is shocked at the thought that we have a Prime Minister who may have a foreign passport—and one can imagine Helen Clark not wanting to queue up; I mean she is overseas so often. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Have you got one? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I assure the member that I have never taken out a foreign passport as a member of this Parliament—never in my whole career. Can the member give me the same assurance about his colleagues? That is interesting—there is silence. Does the member not think that the Parliament and the public of New Zealand are entitled to an answer to my question? Mr Carter is silent on that too—talk about contempt! He is not even prepared to tell the public of New Zealand whether the Labour Party serves this country or some other country. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I will take a moment at the start of my contribution to follow on from what Richard Prebble has just been talking about. This morning I raised the issue of the Prime Minister’s status in relation to this bill and I simply asked whether she has dual citizenship and whether she has applied for another passport in recent times. I am reliably informed that that has been put to the Prime Minister by members of the media and she has described that as a scurrilous lie. 
No lie was ever told because no allegation was made. A question was asked and could not be answered by the whips. So I am very pleased that the Prime Minister is now out there saying: “It’s not me.” However it leaves open the question who is it? I say to the person who was described earlier today as the Philby of the Labour Party that he or she should come clean. The member should put his or her hand up and say “It’s me.” so that we do not have to go through the ignominy of having every other member of the Labour Party besides Harry Duynhoven put in a position of having to defend him or herself when the media asks that question. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Some will refuse to answer. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a very good point. When the media asks those members “Are you one of the vacancies referred to in the title of this bill?” some will refuse to answer. They will say: “Sorry I can’t answer you. I don’t want to answer. I can’t answer.” What will happen is that people like Clayton Cosgrove will have to stand up and say: “It’s not me.” But then I think well the name “Cosgrove” is very Irish. He has probably got an Irish passport. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh he said he has an Irish passport. How long has he had it and has he renewed it since the last election? 
Hon Member 
: Yes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is someone who straight away is a little bit dubious. Then there is our friend over at the back of the Chamber the great white hope for the Labour Party the Hon David Cunliffe who spent many many years in the United States. Did he get residence while he was there? Was he granted the right to hold a US passport? Is he on the phone to the ambassador now as he was the other day checking on New Zealand First members? Is he on the phone to the ambassador now saying: “Listen just keep quiet about my arrangements would you?” and saying to the media here in New Zealand: “I can’t comment on whether I am one of the vacancies.”? 
Then there is the Hon Chris Carter. Most of us would have said he is one of the great vacancies in this Parliament particularly in respect of some of his handling recently of the Auckland Regional Council situation. Is he able to tell us for certain that due to his relationship he does not have a right to another passport somewhere else? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I do have a right to another passport. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There we go! He has just confessed. He is another person who is entitled to dual citizenship. Has he been in the bottom drawer reading up the manuals to see whether he could receive one of these passports? That would make him under the law one of the vacancies. It will be very interesting later in the day when Mr Prebble’s amendments are put up one by one and Labour members are asked to back themselves or tell the truth and come up to the Parliament and say: “It’s me.” 
This bill in its title is quite explicit: “Electoral (Vacancies)”. It is not the “Electoral (Fix it up for Harry Duynhoven) Amendment Bill”; it is the “Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill”. Perhaps the Minister in the chair might tell us why it was necessary to have both paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 55(1) of the Act changed when to change just paragraph (b) would do it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to pick up a theme developed by my honourable colleague Gerry Brownlee—“vacancies”. I have read the dictionary on the word “vacancies” which means more than one vacancy. It is plural. I think the media of this country have a duty to phone all Labour Party members and ask them whether they have applied for a passport since the last election whether they have been granted a passport since the last election and whether they have sworn allegiance to a foreign prince or power since the last election. Those are straightforward questions that are easy to answer. 
Simon Power 
: Ask Matt Robson. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Hon Matt Robson a former Minister— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He said he didn’t. He’s on the record. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He is on the record. Clayton Cosgrove said he is eligible. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: No I didn’t. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He said he is eligible. The confession is there. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He’s clean. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He is clean. What about the Hon Chris Carter? What is his answer? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I neither confirm nor deny. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well there is an opening. We should remember what the situation is in this Parliament. We must take the word of each and every member on the face of it; otherwise they would be misleading Parliament and it would be a matter of privilege. Mr Carter might see that as a frivolous matter. Given that his interjection—which is on the record—was that he could neither confirm nor deny he now has a serious obligation to the Parliament and to the nation to say which is true. 
Obviously this piece of legislation using the plural word “vacancies” in its title was intended to cover Mr Carter. I asked him a simple question about whether it applied to him—and his interjection which is on the record has left us uncertain. I think it is clear in this situation that Parliament and the country are entitled to know what the facts are. 
In the course of our contributions we will be asking that question of every single Labour Party member. We will pause and give them the opportunity to reply because they have a duty to do that. That is what the law says. If the Government genuinely believes that it wanted to fix up one particular situation it could have done that. Mr Peters along with Mr Dunne is on the record as saying he would have supported a narrow provision. Actually it is unclear with Mr Dunne; he may well support a wide provision—I see he is shaking his head in denial. So as I understand it he will be voting against this legislation. I know that New Zealand First will be voting against it. 
National is clear that there should be a by-election irrespective of the outcome of that election. It is irrelevant; the law takes its course. The Government should have called the bill the “Electoral (Vacancies and By-election) Amendment Act” because that is the normal and proper consequence. That would be the Government’s proper duty. 
I refer to the Speaker’s ruling on this issue. It states that the Speaker is not necessarily the person who decides whether a vacancy actually is a vacancy. Well I have news for the Speaker: the vacancy exists and has existed since 11 June. In my view the proper course for the Speaker was to immediately recognise that fact. That would then lead to the consequence of a by-election. The Government could have done something it said it could not do: bring in retrospective legislation for Parliament to elect Mr Duynhoven to the seat. Even the Government would have said that that would be going too far. In principle what is the difference? Is that not what we are really doing here? 
Mr Peters himself said he has been through a by-election and knows what a difficult process it is and there are costs. I can understand the psychology of that. But we are not here for that; we are here to implement the law. That is the test. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The last speech forces me to make a presentation because it shows how little respect the National Party has for intellectual property. It was Dail Jones who spied the word “vacancies” not Gerry Brownlee. Mr Mapp did not correctly attribute the idea. I say to Mr Jones and all the other members of the Committee that there is no conspiracy here about “vacancies”. The law is drafted as a general provision and because it is a general provision it would be wrong to use the word “vacancy”. The point about the drafting is to be grammatically correct. It is a general provision as it should be and therefore the plural word “vacancies” has to be used. There is no drama there at all. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not know where Mr Barker got that advice from but it is nonsense. It is utter drivel to say that the law is drafted as a general provision and therefore must be worded in the plural. This is a bill for Harry Duynhoven—for one member—that is a “vacancy”. Mr Dail Jones is quite right that the suggestion of “vacancies” is a clear indication that the Labour Party is not admitting that it has members other than Harry Duynhoven who are caught by this provision. We want to know who the Philbys the Burgesses the Macleans and the Blunts of the Labour Party are. Who are these people who cannot be trusted to behave in the national interest in their own country? Who are the Philbys the Burgesses the Macleans and the ones who most resemble Blunt? Do members know who Blunt was? He was the artistic adviser to the Queen and he had certain proclivities which they all had. I cannot mention that fact of course but they had certain proclivities that made them susceptible to serving foreign agencies. So who are those people in the Labour Party? That is why the word “vacancies” is there. 
 That is why we have in brackets a clear admission without the names and it surely behoves the Labour Party to front up today in this important part of the Committee stage and tell us what is going on. If it does not we will find out eventually anyway. Mr Prebble is right to put up a series of personalised amendments and we will find out one by one whether Labour members are prepared to admit it at the time. 
When members think about the importance of this issue in our constitutional law they cannot surely argue anything other than that this Government has been absolutely frivolous with our constitution. I want to say this to them—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I want to tell the member for Waimakariri because it is very important that this sort of arrogance and pride goes before a fall. In my rather extensive political career I have seen parties on the rise and I have seen them on the fall. That member’s party is on the fall. 
Rodney Hide 
: Even your own party has gone up and down a bit. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes but right now we are going up and nothing will stop us now. Pride goes before a fall and arrogance is what usually befalls members of Parliament who think that because they have “MP” after their names or “Minister” before their names they are somehow now of a special species and above the ruck of a human existence that requires certain standards and decencies to be met. 
So I say again—please let us know who these other members are. Let us know what their offence might be because it is certainly far greater than Harry Duynhoven’s. We ask that the title of this bill be narrowed to Harry Duynhoven—the person whom we had a select committee hearing about and the person whom this bill is all about. Accepting that the plague that beset MI5 and the British Secret Service seems to have beset us as a country via the Labour Party’s Cabinet and back-benchers who are these people who are not prepared to tell us what they have been doing about swearing allegiance to their own country? 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I feel it is necessary to respond to the Hon Rick Barker’s comments about the wording of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill being a general provision and therefore not requiring the tense in the title to be singular. What a load of rubbish! Do we call it the “Income Taxes Act” or do we call it the “Income Tax Act”? The simple fact of the matter is that whether the title is in a singular or plural fashion is extraordinarily pertinent in this case. To refer to the “Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill” makes it quite clear that somebody else is sitting on the Labour Party benches who has done exactly what poor Hon Harry Duynhoven has done. 
My colleague Mr Jones who pointed out the “s” on the end of “Vacancies” made a fine contribution to this debate. It has enabled the Committee to focus on the fact that more than one vacancy is occurring at present. Rick Barker’s contribution—that the general provision is a drafting technique—is the most ridiculous contribution this House has had from him and that is quite a big ask. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You mean since his second reading speech? 
SIMON POWER 
: Since his second reading speech. I see that Mr Barker must now be back in his office signing off some JP nominations. 
What is clear from the title to this bill is that somebody is sitting on the Labour Party benches who is not clear of the mud in this instance. I know that many of my colleagues have asked the whips to confirm which of their colleagues are in this position. I see Lynne Pillay and Helen Duncan have come down and joined us in the Chamber. Have either of those members created a vacancy in the terms of this bill? There is no response from those members. They had an opportunity to put themselves in the clear—to make it clear to the New Zealand public that it was not them who made the mistake but that it lies at the feet of another member of their caucus. 
 The ACT party I have to concede in a clever manoeuvre has now required each of those members listed by way of amendment— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why are you surprised? 
SIMON POWER 
: It was a bit of a surprise. Each of those members will now have to vote for or against an amendment as to his or her specific residency. I think that will be a very interesting procedure for the Committee to watch because at that point those members will be personally declaring by way of their vote whether they themselves have created a vacancy in terms of this bill. 
I just want to say that introducing retrospective legislation into this House requires us to leap a pretty big hurdle. It has to be an issue of such seriousness to the country that most parties are prepared to support it—a high-level constitutional principle that for some reason has been overlooked or has created a bizarre circumstance. This is not one of those situations. Be it on purpose or by accident Harry Duynhoven has broken the law. It does not matter how old the law is. It does not matter whether his intentions were well placed. It does not matter what his majority is. It does not matter whether he would win the seat. What matters is the fact that the law was broken. 
Matt Robson got to his feet and said: “Actually you should be able to apply for dual citizenship. What a stupid rule.” If that is the case do not limit the bill to this Parliament. If as the Hon Matt Robson says it is dual citizenship for MPs is a sound idea then by all means the Government can pass legislation—if it can muster the numbers—to say that that is the case. It should not limit it to one term because that raises the suspicions of the New Zealand public to the fact that there is somebody else in this Chamber that this legislation applies to—they can see that the title is plural—and that the Government wants to limit it to one term of Parliament. That is a gross abuse of the parliamentary process. 
I see that the Hon Marian Hobbs has joined us in the Chamber. Is she the member who has created the other vacancy? There is no answer there either. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make just a few short comments in the title debate. In my view the title should refer to the equal treatment of both list and electorate MPs. The mischief that the bill is attempting to cure impacts directly on the ability of list MPs to retain some modicum of security in their seats should they also be subject to section 55 as it currently stands. 
MMP provides for two kinds of MPs one of whom is an electorate MP who represents a community of locality. Those communities have specific interests that arise out of their residing in a particular area and within a particular community. It is the traditional form of representation and it is quite right that we continue to have that representation in this Parliament. 
But MMP also provides for the representation of communities of interest whereby groups of people who span across the whole of the nation who are equally committed to various issues are able to have those issues represented in Parliament. Many of those issues are and still remain locally focused—for example the pumping of sewage into the sea is both a local and a national issue. Those issues often cross communities but as part of this process it is nonetheless very important that we have a system that enables the representation of communities of interest as well. 
This provision treats those different MPs differently and it treats the representation of communities of interest and communities of locality differently as well. The Greens consider that to be a very serious unintended consequence of this provision and an indication that it has simply not kept up withchanging times. 
 The other major issue for us is the general consideration of New Zealand law regarding dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is supported and recognised as acceptable in this country. We live in an increasingly diverse society. All of the diverse interests in our communities deserve to be recognised and represented in this Parliament. The representatives of those people and interests should also be entitled to serve in this Parliament if they themselves come from diverse backgrounds. 
In the 150 years of this Parliament we have been through the various debates about the representation of interests—for example women’s interests by women Maori interests by Maori people Island interests by Pacific Islanders. But we are still at a very early stage in that process indicated by the fact that we still have only one Muslim MP. That MP has only recently come into this Parliament in the last election. We are still in the process of trying to work through how to best represent the various diverse backgrounds and interests of the people who live and contribute to our country. There needs to be a sensible approach in the law for recognising that diversity within this Parliament as represented by the various MPs. While this bill takes a rather dramatic approach to doing that none the less it makes space for a proper debate and consideration of the way in which diversity—and dual citizenship in particular—is represented in this Parliament and the effect and acceptability of dual citizenship. 
We must protect Parliament from the treachery that section 55 is trying to preserve us from while at the same time protect every citizen’s right—including the rights of MPs as citizens—to hold openly acknowledge and exercise their genealogy and heritage within their dual citizenship. The Greens consider that this is an appropriate way to do that and reflect that the bill opens the capacity for that discussion to happen where it might not otherwise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is a very small bill. It is printed on one sheet of A3 paper folded in half. On the front we have the explanatory note. 
The title clause actually has two subclauses which is unusual in itself; we have two subclauses in the title clause. The first states: “(1) This Act is the Electoral (Vacancies) ...“. The point has been made that the title has the plural “Vacancies”. We know that the bill is all about “Saving Private Harry” that that is what drove it but why put the plural there? Who else does this bill apply to? Is it Clayton Cosgrove with his Irish heritage or is it Phillip Field the Minister in the chair? Do members remember that when Phillip Field joined this Parliament he changed his name? He became Taito Phillip Field. Why? 
Simon Power 
: Ask him! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I will ask him and I want him to take a call. His family in his homeland of Samoa made him a chief—a taito. Whether it was on Upolu or Savaii I am not sure but perhaps he will tell us. Did he have to sign or take allegiance to the village that he has responsibility for? Actually a taito’s role relates to more than a village; it is not that of a matai. I think he has an extensive regional governance role in Samoa. Does he have a Samoan passport? Is he prepared to tell the Committee whether he has a Samoan passport? Is he prepared to support and vote for Richard Prebble’s amendment so that the whole Committee can know what his status is? When we see “Vacancies” in the title we realise it is not a technical drafting matter; it is deliberate use of the plural. 
There is nothing more important than the Electoral Act in a representative democracy. It is the basis of our democracy. What the House is doing here today makes this possibly one of the most shameful days in this Parliament’s proud history. It is what we would expect of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Moi’s Kenya—when people fiddle with the Electoral Act to accommodate themselves. That is what this Government is doing; it is using the tyranny of its majority supported by its lapdogs United Future and the Greens to drive through a disgraceful measure that defies the Electoral Act. 
It is very clear. When the Solicitor-General and the esteemed Clerk of the House who is recognised as the best in the Commonwealth give the clear and uncomplicated advice that section 55 is clear and that a vacancy does exist then the Speaker should act forthwith. We had a statement from the Speaker today explaining that if in doubt he must consult the House but there was no doubt; the advice he had from his own Clerk the best in the Commonwealth and the Solicitor-General of this country was that there was no doubt so he did not need to worry about that. He had protected his proverbial which he is prone to do; he had taken advice and the clear advice was that he should act. He failed to act. It has been obfuscated and now the Labour Government is furthering that obfuscation and trying to cloud the issue. It is a disgrace. 
We may not like the measure in the Act that has triggered this matter and it may not be fair; sometimes the law is not fair. But if we as representatives who are charged as legislators with making the law are prepared to fiddle the law when it is inconvenient or does not suit us what signal does that send to the country? That is what the principle is all about. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It’s terrible. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is a terrible signal. I see we have another Minister in the chair—Mr Rick Barker. When he was in the chair a few moments ago he had the temerity to accuse the National Party of lacking principle. When he led off he accused the National Party of lacking principle. I ask Mr Barker where the principle is behind this. The Clerk of the House and the Solicitor-General say that the law is clear yet the Government uses the tyranny of its majority to change the Electoral Act in order to cover an inconvenience and an embarrassment. It may not be fair but that is not the point. People up and down this country are hit with the law every day. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The debate on this bill arises out of the particular situation that relates to Harry Duynhoven. When the Privileges Committee considered the Duynhoven case it made certain conclusions in respect of him. The way in which the bill is drafted extends the provisions far beyond Harry Duynhoven. I will put an amendment to Part 1 to limit the application of this bill to the period that commenced on 14 August last year and ended on 6 August this year. In the event that that amendment is not accepted United Future will not support the third reading. 
The way in which the bill is crafted at the moment potentially creates an absurd situation. At one level the bill deals with the particular situation that relates to Harry Duynhoven and validates his eligibility to remain a member of Parliament. But by being prospective for the balance of the term of this Parliament the bill does two things. Firstly it states that anyone else—and we have all heard the rumours and the speculation about whoever else might be involved—in the same situation is protected but it actually goes further than that. It implicitly issues an invitation to all members of this House to proceed to make the telephone calls make the inquiries and check their eligibility and to do so with impunity secure that their actions are protected until the next general election. 
I do not think that was actually what the Privileges Committee intended or considered when it examined this matter. I also do not think it is what the Government intended or considered. We have an apple and a pear here. We do not have a consistent flow of the same situation. One could call the apple “Harry” and call the pear someone else but the point at issue that provoked this debate and led to firstly the matter going to the Privileges Committee and secondly this bill was Harry Duynhoven’s eligibility to remain a member of this House. That is what the issue ought to revolve round. The way in which the bill is crafted—I suspect it is probably reflected in the title it has been given as a consequence—broadens the scope so that it does not just cover other people who might be involved but creates the absurd situation where everyone is invited by implication to engage in the very activity that led to this bill in the first place. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: One would be crazy not to. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That is probably true. People are now given not just a legal protection but a legal encouragement to do so because they have a 2-year window of opportunity. That is why I will be putting forward an amendment to Part 1 to deal with the intent of the legislation. The intent was to refer to the circumstances relating to Harry Duynhoven and a limited application that ceased at 6 August this year would deal with that situation. But to move beyond that creates a situation that is absolutely and utterly absurd and that is not acceptable as far as we are concerned. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am so pleased to hear the previous speaker the Hon Peter Dunne make it very clear to this Committee that unless the Government agrees to his amendment to limit the scope of this bill to the circumstances that gave rise to it—that is the Harry Duynhoven case—then United Future will not support it. I am very pleased to hear that because I was deeply disappointed to hear last night Peter Dunne still vacillating. I have always regarded Peter Dunne as one who would uphold the constitutional integrity of this House. So I am very pleased to hear he will not support the bill if his amendment is not accepted. 
However that does not make any difference to National’s position. We do not agree with the bill in any event. That is no reflection on Harry Duynhoven who acted innocently. But unfortunately whether or not he acted innocently the fact is he broke the law. The circumstances giving rise to this bill are very simple. In applying for Dutch citizenship he breached the law. The moment he did that his seat became vacant. It was a breach of section 55 of the Electoral Act. The moment that happened certain actions should have flowed. The Speaker should have declared that seat to be vacant and this House should have gone into recess. There should have been a by-election. It is just not credible for the Government to say to National: “Well your party wouldn’t do very well anyway if there was a by-election.” Who cares that that would be the case quite frankly? There is a principle here that is far more important than who would win or lose a by-election and it is the principle that parliamentarians should uphold the law. The fact we are here debating this bill shows the absolute cynicism of a Government that would use the law to benefit itself. I am absolutely outraged by the actions of this Government. 
I also disagree with Metiria Turia suggesting that because the demographics of our country are changing—and they are—and numbers of our population have citizenship of more than one country somehow that makes a difference to what we ought to uphold in this House. It is not an unreasonable constraint on members of Parliament to expect that when they swear allegiance in this House to this country when they seek to manage the affairs of this country they must bear allegiance to one country only and that is this country—New Zealand. For those outside this House fine! They can hold as many passports as they like and bear allegiance to whomever. But from the way this bill is drafted and Peter Dunne I think traversed this very clearly a few minutes ago it seems to send an invitation to all of us in this House to make the calls to start resuscitating or applying for other citizenships that we may be entitled to. I might consider now applying for aTino Rangatiratanga passport. I probably will not because I do not think that is acceptable. If I am going to stand in this House as a Member of Parliament then I should bear the allegiance I have sworn to bear and that excludes my applying for any other passport even if I am entitled to do that. 
But that is the impact of this bill and it is wrong. It is outrageous that a Government would use its power—its numbers—to inflict this kind of legislation on this House and to send a message to the public at large that if the law does not suit the Government it will change it anyway. Even worse the Government will put the House into urgency to do it. The Government talked about the cost involved in a by-election; well what about the cost of putting the House into urgency? It is outrageous. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 What we have is a very very misnamed bill. If it were properly titled it would be called the “Saving Harry Duynhoven from the Voters of New Plymouth Bill”. But that would not be correct either. From the way the bill is drafted it is not just a matter of “Saving Private Harry”. It should be titled the “Saving Harry Duynhoven (and Unnamed Members of the Labour Party) from the Voters Bill”. We on this side suspect that a list member or two are caught up in this bill. The significance of that is that those members are gone; there is no by-election—they are gone! I look across to my colleague and friend the Hon Peter Dunne— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: You’ve never said that before! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: When the Hon Peter Dunne of United Future had the unfortunate and sad circumstance of one of his MPs being caught up in the Electoral Act—which could happen to anyone—did he say to the Government: “Oh you need our vote Prime Minister so change the law. Because Kelly Chal has been elected change the law.”? No he did not. I do not think it would ever occur to Peter Dunne that the Government would change the Electoral Act to accommodate a member of Parliament. It would not occur to him. So what is the difference now? The Labour Government has introduced a measure that should be titled the “Saving Harry Duynhoven (and Unnamed Members of the Labour Party) from the Voters Bill”. I point out that if it were a list member that person would be gone and the next person on the list would come in. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Who is it? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Who is the next person on the list? The Government obviously does not like that individual and also does not like the thought of another by-election. But again as my friend and colleague the Rt Hon Peter Dunne pointed out— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Now you’ve promoted me. It gets better and better! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I have never before heard so much common sense in 5 minutes. This bill is not just about saving the Labour Party MPs who are in trouble and do not even have the courage to front up; it is actually about saving as Peter Dunne pointed out every MP in the House in the future who decides to sign up to a foreign power. Is that seriously what this Parliament wants? We could have Nandor Tanczos Rastaman signing up to Jamaica. We could have Helen Clark signing up to the UN. We could have my colleague Richard Worth signing up to Monaco as a bolt hole after the next election to hide his face. He could be signing up to that one. We could have Clayton Cosgrove after Ron Mark has beaten him declaring himself a political refugee throwing himself on the mercy of a country that has even slacker immigration rules than we do and floating in a boat somewhere but in the meantime saying under this bill: “Actually I can sign up to a foreign power.” 
Richard Worth 
: Where would you go? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh I would go straight to Epsom as the member for Epsom. I tell Mr Worth that ACT members do not need to sign up anywhere; we are New Zealand citizens with New Zealand passports. We do not sign up to any power overseas unlike the Labour Party. Think about it: what sort of ministry is Helen Clark running when the Hon Harry Duynhoven as far as we can figure out has not signed anything this year as a Minister except his allegiance to the Dutch Government? He is getting paid big bucks as a Minister and the only thing that he has done as a Minister—and let us be clear about this—of the Crown is to sign his allegiance to a foreign power. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I join this title debate wanting to refer to this bill as the “Double Standards Bill” and I have some questions for the Minister in the chair. Six weeks ago the Solicitor-General alleged that I had broken the law with regard to the Guardianship Act. The Attorney-General said that if I had broken the law then regardless of whether the law should be changed I had to face the music. I had to take the consequence of breaking the law as it stood that day. Furthermore one of the Government Ministers Damien O’Connor went even further. He said that any member of Parliament who breaks the law has to face the full consequences. Well I want to know what is different about this. Now we have the Solicitor-General saying that a member of the Government—a fellow Minister—has breached the Electoral Act. 
In both instances I think that a majority in this Parliament would prefer that the law were changed. A majority of the House actually supported the introduction of the new Care of Children Bill which would have made it plain that my actions did not in any way breach the law because those new provisions allow publication of proceedings of the Family Court provided that one does not mention names and that was clearly the case in my instance. So in both instances it is probable that a majority of Parliament would say that the law was outdated and needed to change. 
But I want to know from the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker why the Government’s top law enforcement officer will drag me before the highest court in the land and put me in the dock put me to huge private expense to defend myself but a different set of rules apply for Harry Duynhoven. I would like to know from the Minister Rick Barker why there is a different rule for Harry Duynhoven compared with myself. Can any member on the Government benches please explain to me why when the Solicitor-General alleges that I broke the law—even though the Government has introduced a bill to change it—I have to face the music but when it comes to Harry Duynhoven the Government has a different standard? The silence from the Government benches says it all. I know and every member of this Parliament knows in his or her heart of hearts why it is different. Because Harry Duynhoven is in the Government and I am in the Opposition. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is the reason. I challenge Mr Matt Robson to get to his feet and explain to this Committee why when the Solicitor-General alleges that I broke the law I have to face the music in the High Court but Harry Duynhoven is going to be saved by an Act of Parliament. I ask the Government members whether they would support an amendment—I am not asking for it; I am happy to be accountable for my actions— that would have me retrospectively saved. If it is good enough for Harry Duynhoven why is it not good enough for me? 
Rodney Hide 
: We should all have a clause! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Rodney Hide wants a retrospective provision so that anybody who has ever done anything to breach the law is exempted. Well that might be the sort of thing they would do in Zimbabwe but not the Parliament of New Zealand. I say to the Minister in the chair that we should have a standard that is higher than this sort of politics which says there is one rule for Government members and a different set of rules for the Opposition. That is an awful commentary on this Parliament. It is two standards of citizenship. It shows the double standards in this House and we deserve some explanation. I want to hear from the Attorney-General and from Damien O’Connor who were saying so loudly just 2 months ago that Nick Smith has to answer the law—that the Solicitor-General has said that so that is what has to happen. I want to hear from a Government member why when it comes to Harry Duynhoven things are different. I will be taking call after call to ask for that explanation because I believe this Committee deserves an answer. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 After listening to the debate today it does seem from the Opposition side of the Committee that we have had yet again little—or indeed no—contribution or justification from the Government side with regard to this particular bill. This is yet another day of shame for this Government especially. But it is worse than that because it is a day of shame for Parliament. The television cameras and the  
Hansard  
record of the proceedings of this debate will show the public yet again that the Government and Parliament are seen to be looking after one of their own. Whereas members of the public down on Lambton Quay or in the farms and valleys of New Zealand are left to their own devices to face the full force of the law parliamentarians it would seem do not. 
Some years ago a rather honourable gentleman by the name of Lord Carrington stood in the House of Commons when the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina and said words to the effect that he had not known of that event but he should have known. We have a Minister of this Government Harry Duynhoven who is a nice chap and all the rest of it but who is not actually doing what I think is the honourable thing. He should be saying he did not know but he should have known. How often do we see right throughout the parliaments of the Western democratic countries honourable members standing in their parliaments and saying those things? They say they did not know about something but they fall on their sword resign and then ask the people—it would be the people of New Plymouth in this case—to make a determination as to whether they were right or wrong and whether their behaviour was right or honourable. 
What I think is so wrong about this bill is that it takes away from Mr Duynhoven the opportunity to do the honourable thing. Harry Duynhoven could come down to the Chamber at any stage even in 2 minutes time and say to this Committee that he has just handed his resignation to the Speaker because he is an honourable man. But this Government has denied Harry Duynhoven the opportunity to do that. The question is why that is so. My answer is that it is because there are other members of this Government who are less honourable than Harry Duynhoven and who are hiding behind Harry Duynhoven’s proper move in recognising that he has broken the law. How often do we hear the people of this country say that they demand one standard and one law for all people in this country? Yet again we see nepotism. We see the Government looking after its own because Harry Duynhoven is a decent chap. 
I cannot help but reflect on the fact that for the first time in about—well in my time in this Parliament the polls are starting to show that this Government is not as popular as it thought it was. The opportunity for the public or indeed the people of New Plymouth to express their opinions to this Government on things like the “flatulence tax” and the foreshore and seabed issue is an opportunity that this Government will run a mile from. That seems to me to be why this bill is proceeding. I am perfectly sure that the Government would have polled on this issue. It would have been flat out on the phones over the last week or so to determine public opinion and it does not want to test that public opinion. 
So we will not have a by-election and Harry Duynhoven is being denied the opportunity to behave in an honourable fashion. According to the Speaker each one of us is an honourable member of this House. Yet in my view Mr Duynhoven has been denied the opportunity to express that honour in a very overt and upfront way. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak to the title of this bill. I start by saying that title debates clearly provide an opportunity to consider two issues. The first is the factual accuracy of the title and the second is its legal accuracy. The point has already been made that in the context of this title it is significant that the bill is called the Electoral (Vacancies)—with a plural on that nominal—Amendment Bill. Clearly it is contemplated that others in the House have crossed the line that Harry Duynhoven has unfortunately crossed. 
The reality is probably that about 30 people in this Parliament are entitled to the citizenship of more than one country. Whether they actually carry passports—and some of them do—issued by other countries is perhaps not the point. But we face a setting where there are possibly multiple breaches of the provision set out in section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. I believe as others have urged that we are entitled to know whom those people are. This bill is being promoted to deal with one alleged irregularity that of Mr Duynhoven but it masks the activities of other members. 
I have listened with a degree of bemusement to the personal attacks on me in the last few days which have ranged from the childish to the stupid over my role as an honorary consul. As members of this House will know there have been a number of honorary consuls in this Parliament over a considerable period of time. There was a Cabinet Minister who was apparently in such a post. I simply say—and it is a statement of the obvious in the context of this title debate—that honorary consuls are not subjects or citizens of foreign States or powers. They do not take oaths of allegiance to the sending State and they are not entitled to any of the rights of the subjects or citizens of that sending jurisdiction. 
I was disappointed in the comments that the Attorney-General made before. We contemplate that the chief legal officer of the Government is the Solicitor-General. That is not strictly correct. The chief legal officer of the Government is the Attorney-General the so-called  
parens patriae 
. So it has been interesting to hear Margaret Wilson’s comments that she has considered there is doubt as to whether a breach of the relevant legislation has occurred. She has taken that view in the face of contrary advice from a competent legal adviser—in this case the Solicitor-General—contrary to the clear views of the Clerk of the House and contrary to the views of a clear majority of the members of the Privileges Committee. If I had doubts about the competence of the Attorney-General to evaluate issues of legal concern I would have to say that those doubts are mounting at an increasingly alarming rate. 
In looking at the title of the bill I have made the point that we should know whom the other persons are who are affected by the impact of the legislation. The title of the bill should spring from the issue that was the subject of the report to Parliament which is headed  
Question of privilege relating to the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 1993 to Hon Harry Duynhoven. Report of the Privileges Committee Forty-seventh Parliament (Hon Matt Robson Chairperson) August 2003 
. When one looks at the title of this bill one sees that the second point that Mr Dunne made is also particularly compelling because what has occurred is a clear mandate a clear invitation to seek dual citizenship. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call and in response to Mr Worth’s contribution simply say that as we debate the title of this bill I think it is worth getting on the record this concept. Someone who holds a passport or citizenship of a foreign power is not an official representative of or an official advocate for that foreign power. I ask the member who has just spoken to reflect on that with regard to his position. I think there should be a higher standard for official representatives. He is an appointed diplomatic advocate who holds a warrant for a foreign power and he is charged with representing and advocating for a foreign nation as well as with being a member of this Parliament. On that point I conclude. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chair. My speech is being misrepresented. I would be grateful if the member who was present when I made the speech accurately represented its content. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a debateable point. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: No it is not. With respect it is a question of fact. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This bill labelled the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill is more correctly described as the “Electoral (Dispensation) Amendment Bill”—a bill that should be seen as having significant constitutional effect. It is a bill that I expected the Greens to take a principled position on given the high-minded attitude they took on the Electoral (Integrity) Bill. It is very obvious that the only integrity they were concerned about the only integrity that might have had any interest for them at all was the integrity of their relationship with the Labour Party and the prospect of Labour dumping the doormats and replacing them. That is what is happening here. 
This is greasy sucking up from a supercilious prat. I listened to the speech of the Green co-leader and I heard four reasons in it. First an election is expensive so do not hold it! The very idea that we do not hold elections because they are expensive! Quite apart from the balance of expense—in this situation we are spending more money on this debate than would ever be spent on the election—to hear Rod Donald for the Greens opening by saying we do not need it because it will be expensive was despicable. 
Second that the member was very popular! Well we all like Harry Duynhoven but most of us probably like most of our colleagues—at least we do in this party and I think they do in most parties; I hope they do. If this was about popularity there would not ever be elections—we would certainly dispense with them. That was Rod Donald’s second reason that we do not need to allow the Electoral Act to work. So when I look at the title and see the word “vacancies” instead of “electoral greasing” and all the other behaviour that this situation has brought out I find myself compelled to get to my feet. 
I have to say that if this bill were truly being described it would show the disgracing of our principal officers. This bill in my opinion should have something in its title that mentions what a disgrace it has made of our Speaker. Our Speaker has a clear duty under section 129 of the Electoral Act to without delay publish a notice of the vacancy. It is a purely mechanical act. It does not require anything after being satisfied of the vacancy. The vacancy as the Solicitor-General has told us occurred more than a month ago. We watched yesterday while our Speaker demeaned his office and demeaned himself by pretending that there was something that could be read into that section—something that says it means “satisfied … without delay after the House has debated the issue”. There is nothing in that section about a House debate. It is a purely mechanical function vested in the Speaker because it was thought that the Speaker would have enough respect for the conventions to be non-political and simply carry out the function. 
The other one is our chief law officer the legal conscience of Cabinet the Hon Margaret Wilson. I heard her suggesting that we did not need to follow the law because it was ancient. Well the law against murder is ancient too. The law against murder is very very old. In fact I cannot think of one that started earlier than: “Thou shalt not kill.” Because that law is old does that mean we scoff at it as the Hon Margaret Wilson and the Hon Michael Cullen do? No we abide by laws and we uphold laws in this House. This bill’s title should not say something bland like “vacancies”. To be correct this bill should have used the words “besmirching of the constitution” or “trashing of convention”. This bill is besmirching the House. It is certainly besmirching some of our senior officers. 
When I hear that the Greens support the bill because they want dual citizenship to be recognised I say that the law already recognises that. There is nothing wrong with dual citizenship. The law says that the people decide who sits in Parliament that they are entitled to elect someone with two passports and that they are entitled to elect someone like Taito Phillip Field who is openly representative of a group with a significant representation in New Zealand. But they also should get another chance to say whether they want to keep that person when the person signs up allegiance to a new prince or authority and takes a step that is beyond the status with which they came to the House and says instead: “I am now signing a new obligation.” Although this may have been a borderline case and although as the Hon Margaret Wilson said it is a technical breach—it is not even a breach of course; it is just an automatic consequence—it is the people who should decide who stays in this House. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Act 2003” and substitute the words Electoral (Harry Duynhoven Inadvertent Error) Act 2003”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendments two amendments in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble are ruled out of order. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 15/2 (Supplement). 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am intrigued to find that an amendment moved by Mr Jones to have the bill called the “Electoral (Harry Duynhoven Inadvertent Error) Amendment Bill is regarded as a valid amendment but that my first amendment which was that the bill be called the “To Elect Harry Duynhoven Amendment Bill”—which is the effect of the bill—is somehow frivolous. My second amendment which also describes an effect of the bill “To allow the Prime Minister to have a foreign passport” has also been found to be frivolous. How can it be that Mr Jones’ amendment is not frivolous but that my amendments—both of which describe results of the bill and may be the real reason for it—are frivolous? How can that be? I do not follow. What is the difference? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Speaker’s ruling 15/2 (Supplement) states: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When I read the words “To Elect Harry Duynhoven” and when I consider that there has been a Privileges Committee report on the issue—not on all of us but on one particular individual—I cannot see how you can possibly rule that such an amendment is frivolous. The proper course for you is to put the issue to the vote and the result will be the result. After all that is why the issue was referred to the Privileges Committee and this bill is a consequence of the Privileges Committee’s report. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think that there may be a test that would help decide whether an amendment is frivolous and it is this question: how will this be known colloquially; how will it be known in years to come when people are trying to distinguish this amendment from other amendments to the Act? I have no doubt that it will be known as the “Duynhoven amendment”. That is the way it will be identified and therefore I fail to see how an amendment could be seen as frivolous if in fact the amendment is an attempt to call the bill what it will probably be popularly called for the rest of time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point is that the bill is about how the seat became vacant; not the election of the member. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1Preliminary Provisions 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 This part—which has two clauses one being “Commencement” and the other “Expiry”—is important because it shows the nonsense that this House is putting through today because of the Government’s desire to make sure that the law as it applies to everyone else does not apply to one of its own. That is the simple issue here. 
The Government has started off by spending 15 minutes of the 4 or so hours we have spent debating the bill by justifying it which is a pretty half-hearted justification. The justification has centred around the fact that the law was so archaic that it needed to be done away with and that Mr Duynhoven broke an old archaic law so it does not really matter and we should just change it. 
So where do we change it? We change it in this part and we do not change it for ever but just for the course of this Parliament. Once the election has been held that is fine. We will go back to the old archaic law. Presumably if another Labour MP breaks it the Labour Party will try to change it again for the next Parliament. If the law is so bad I ask Mr Barker why it is not being changed for good. Why not do that in this bill? Why just change it for this Parliament? Because that simply does not make sense if the law is as archaic and as bad as Mr Barker has said. The two principles do not add up I say to the Minister. Mr Duynhoven will get his Dutch passport out of this. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: New passport. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: A new passport perhaps. Who knows? What happens in the next Parliament presuming that he is an MP if he reapplies? Will we have to come back to debate another bill? Will we be back here changing the law for him again? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No we won’t; they won’t be in Government. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is right. The Labour Party will not be in Government because New Zealanders—and Labour members should listen to the radio at the moment—are outraged at this. 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Government members laugh. Labour has the view which is the height of arrogance that Mr Duynhoven broke the law but the Government will change the law for him and it will be OK because Labour is the Government and it can do that. It is above all that nonsense of having to live by the same rules as everybody else. It is so tiresome is it not when one is caught out breaking the law? It was fine when there was an allegation that Mr Smith broke the law. The Government let him go and fight his one in the court. We had Labour Ministers saying that he should be held responsible for his actions. That is what Margaret Wilson said. Damien O’Connor said: “The law is the law and it should apply.” Then about 2 weeks later Mr Duynhoven broke the law. Where is “The law is the law and it should apply.” then? Oh no we have a different standard of citizenship for Mr Duynhoven. He is allowed to have Parliament spend 10 to 12 hours of its time changing the law to suit him. 
Dianne Yates 
: Can the member sit down? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member for Hamilton East who is sitting there knitting asks me to sit down. I say to Dianne Yates that people in this country expect us to be here debating. They do not expect us to be sitting here knitting away and making decisions that change the way parliamentarians are elected. At the end of this day Mr Duynhoven will not have been elected by the people of New Plymouth but by the knitter from Hamilton and her Labour colleagues. That is who will have elected him not the people because this report has found that he should have already gone. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has given a clear indication to the Committee that we will be moving an amendment to Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” with regard to the expiry date of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. By the Government’s decision the Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent. That could be today 7 August or it could be tomorrow 8 August. We want to limit the damage created by this bill to the very shortest time possible. We will therefore move an amendment that the Act will expire not—as the Government wishes—with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force but on the day after the day on which it comes into force. If this bill comes into force on Friday 8 August we want the law to expire on Saturday. That will protect Harry Duynhoven which is the promise we made to him but it will not protect anybody else from breaching the law in the future. However the position of others who are in the same position as Harry Duynhoven and who have not come forward and admitted their guilt in breaching the Electoral Act will still be protected. 
There are other amendments before the House that New Zealand First will be giving close consideration to. New Zealand First is prepared to cooperate with amendments that are reasonable. For example if our amendment happens to be unsuccessful—and though I hate to broadcast that it might be unsuccessful one has to face reality sometimes—we would have no hesitation in supporting United Future’s amendment which is along the same lines. In fact it provides specifically that the bill expires on 6 August 2003. It is important that all members of Parliament behave reasonably and ensure that there is some cooperation so that in one way or another a majority of the House—and hopefully we can get the Greens along on this one as well—can bring the “mischief” to an end either on 8 August as New Zealand First suggests or on 6 August as United Future suggests. 
If the Greens are at all sincere in the speeches they have made in the House about identifying a “mischief” and remedying the evil that might have been created I say to them that we know what the “mischief” is and we can end it for sure by passing either the New Zealand First or the United Future amendment on the expiry date. That is the clear situation. If the Greens do not vote for either amendment or any similar amendments—and I suspect that the United Future amendment might have the best chance of going ahead because of the way it has been presented—and still insist on not supporting an amendment to limit the damage to a date in August we will know for certain that all the Greens are trying to do now is take over the role that United Future has had in this House—as we have said of being the lapdogs of the Labour Party. 
I am being as fair as I can to United Future as I am sure Mr Dunne and Ms Turner will agree. The Greens will be lapdog 2 in this House and United Future might be happy with that. The Greens will definitely become lapdog 2 in the way they will vote on this legislation and in the way they have voted in recent times to support the Government at any cost whatsoever. The Greens are no longer a Green party. They are purely a survival party. That is all. Their interest in the environment has long gone. There are many members in this House including members of New Zealand First who have a greater regard for the environment than the Greens ever had and certainly more concern than the Greens have today. 
 In the light of this legislation we are concerned that the present member Harry Duynhoven is flying the Dutch flag in his ministerial office or so I understand. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Saw it on TV. 
DAIL JONES 
: I believe it but I find it very hard to believe. I ask where his allegiance is. 
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. 
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. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of points. Firstly to pick up the point raised and to amplify the point touched on by Mr Prebble I want to say that it is my intention to write to the Justice and Electoral Committee and to give it time to consider this issue. I do not think it is as simple and straightforward as Mr Prebble indicated. If we were to set an expiry date in the very near future it might not give the committee sufficient time to consider the issue. 
 There are also contradictions in respect of the position put forward by Mr Dunne. If somebody stands at the election who holds a passport other than a New Zealand passport and no one in the electorate knows about it then that is perfectly acceptable. If someone picks up a passport he or she is entitled to after the election that somehow is not. That seems to me to be a paradox. 
If Mr Prebble’s point is that no one should hold a passport to another country or hold alternative citizenship—which is the point he is making—then the law does not reflect that. If that is the view Mr Prebble has and if the majority of this Parliament agrees with it prior to the next election then those will be the rules and they will be well understood. But it is an issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee should have an appropriate amount of time to go through and think seriously about. 
As for the dates in this bill they are simply to say that this legislation will come into effect when the Governor-General decides and will expire at the time the polls close on election day. I am very confident that the Justice and Electoral Committee will have had a report to the House by that stage and that we will have considered the legislation and determined a completely fresh set of rules. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 The last two speeches from Peter Dunne a supporter of the Government and the Minister Rick Barker show just how tatty this whole process is and how disgraceful and despicable it is that the process of this House has been drawn into something that should never have happened. 
In discussing Part 1 I call the Committee’s attention to  
New Zealand Parliamentary Practice 
 written by David McGee. A number of people have said in the course of this debate that David McGee is recognised as the best Clerk in the Commonwealth. He says that the House and its members are subject to the law of the land as promulgated by Parliament in the same way as everyone else in the State and that they must comply with any statute that applies to the House’s proceedings notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House to the contrary. Well we are seeing a practice of the House that is contrary to all the things about our parliamentary democracy that are good. 
Peter Dunne stood up and said this bill flows from the report of the Privileges Committee but that cannot possibly be true because the report of the Privileges Committee has not been dealt with by the House. So what are we expected to believe: that the Privileges Committee’s report which was tabled at 1 o’clock yesterday was raced off in some haste to the drafting office which without reference to anything Parliament might have said produced this bill and had it ready for its introduction at about 8 o’clock last night? It never happened. 
This bill is all about a Government scrambling to protect one of its own. The Government is scared witless at the possibility of a by-election—no matter what it says about Mr Duynhoven’s huge majority. As has been pointed out by other members by-elections throw up strange results. This just happens to be a seat surrounded by seabed and foreshore—by foreshore in particular. New Zealanders think they can walk freely over foreshore but the current Government is about to excise that freedom. 
This bill has a reasonably generous provision in it that from the commencement date of this bill till its expiry will allow members of the New Zealand Parliament to consider their options and possibly take up dual citizenship and get a passport for another country and to do so quite lawfully. It has absolutely nothing to do with a desire to protect Harry Duynhoven alone. It is all about Labour having a number of members in its caucus who are being a bit sneaky about this and are not telling us everything they might about their circumstances; Labour wants to protect them and it also wants to cover Harry Duynhoven because it wants to avoid a by-election. So the idea is to make the bill much bigger than just Harry Duynhoven; to open it up and tell the whole of Parliament that here is an opportunity for members to turn their backs on the privilege of being elected to this House of standing in this House and speaking and swear an oath of allegiance to another country. 
I see the Chair suggesting that I narrow the content of my speech. Perhaps the Minister in the chair will tell me if I am wrong. If the intention behind this bill is not as I expressed it perhaps the Minister will say why the commencement and expiry dates are so far apart. Why could there not be some compromise? Why would the Government not make it a “Save Harry Duynhoven’s Seat Bill” rather than the huge electoral vacancies bill that it has turned out to be which lets every MP have a go at getting dual citizenship? 
Another point of interest will be some of the provisions that are suspended during that period of time. Although we should not stray into those now I tell members that that will be a very long debate because I think the Government has made a quite significant number of mistakes here. 
This is a sad sad little exercise on the part of the New Zealand Parliament. If this bill were truly a bill to cover the situation Mr Duynhoven finds himself in the period covered by the dates would be much narrower. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 The point that has been made about every single member of Parliament applying for citizenship of another country is why this bill is so wrong. Why on earth would the Government put legislation into this House that enables every member of Parliament to apply for citizenship of another country if he or she is entitled to do so in the next 2 years? What on earth could be the public policy reason behind that? 
It is actually even worse than that. If the Government is hiding someone that person probably was involved in that action between the last election and now so why does the bill not have a closure date of tomorrow as Mr Dail Jones has suggested? Even that would be too wide because it would still protect that secret person whom we know is out there who is not willing to confess. 
The Government is going even further than that. For some absurd reason Labour wants all members of Parliament irrespective of their parties to be able to go out there and get any passport they want if they are entitled to do so. What could be the public policy reason for that? It is even worse than that because if one looks at the suspension of section 55(1)(b) one sees that it also enables every single member of Parliament to take an oath of allegiance to another country. Many passport applications do not require that but this Government is going further. So we would have the extraordinary spectacle over the next 2 years of members of Parliament—who are purportedly representing the interests of the people of this country having sworn allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand when they took office as members of Parliament—taking oaths of allegiance to other countries. That is the effect of suspending section 55(1)(b). It is truly extraordinary. What on earth is the public policy reason behind doing that? 
The previous Minister in the chair Rick Barker who is a man who is not learned in the law demonstrated that by saying that we have to suspend the section for that period to protect Harry Duynhoven; that if we do not do that we save him now but he would not be saved thereafter. That is a complete misapprehension. We would not agree with this legislation in any event but if it related only to Harry Duynhoven for instance he would be covered for the balance of this Parliament—that would be the effect of the legislation. To have these provisions go forward to the end of this Parliament is to cover people prospectively in the future for future applications. There can be no logic in that at all. 
The Government will say that the existing legislation is old-fashioned and quaint that it is a kind of weird notion that members of Parliament should solely have allegiance to our country and to the people of our country and that that ought to be subject to review. Perhaps the Government does believe that. It could put that provision to the Justice and Electoral Committee as indeed it intends to do but none of that has anything at all to do with Mr Harry Duynhoven. If there were any case at all for this legislation which there is not then it should be tightly circumscribed and the Government—if it has any integrity in its understanding of oaths of allegiance and the taking out of passports—should at the very minimum be voting for Mr Dail Jones’ amendments. 
I turn now to our fundamental objection. The people of New Zealand decide who is in this Parliament. They do that by voting at elections and when there is a vacancy the proper course is to have a by-election. That is what happens in other Parliaments. Parliamentarians in other Parliaments do not rush around spending 1 percent of all parliamentary time on special legislation to save the bacon of not only someone like Harry Duynhoven but some unknown person or persons. What happened to Ms Chal of the United Future party? She came in disappeared and another person came in. That is what the law is supposed to be. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am delighted to take part in this debate. Notwithstanding what this bill does which includes not least of all questioning the integrity of members of Parliament it will be responsible for electing—or should that be “selecting”—the next member of Parliament for New Plymouth. 
I refer to the issue of the commencement date: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” That date is unknown. I wonder whether unlike a whole lot of other legislation that this Government has recently introduced the uncertainty in terms of the date is related to the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi. I have no compunction in mentioning the Treaty of Waitangi because that was the first visa to be issued for this country and it allowed many of us to be here in this House today. 
I refer to immigration and the question of allegiance to our country. What is the symbol we all face when we give allegiance to anything particularly to our country? It is the flag. If that is the case then why does the subject of this bill—and we say that his allegiance is not in question—have a Dutch flag in his office which I suggest if I can go even further was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: As a Minister? 
PITA PARAONE 
: As a Minister. I have to ask myself where the allegiance of that member lies. 
The other issue is that Maori members on the Government side of the Chamber have been very silent in this debate. A number of them have talked about the importance of tino rangatiratanga. Does that mean that the time it takes before the royal assent is given to this bill will allow them to question the issue of tino rangatiratanga and where they stand in this debate? Do they agree that as a consequence of this bill one of their fellow members will have his position as an MP legally restored—someone who has shown allegiance to another power? Those Maori members who support the notion of tino rangatiratanga are quite happy to see that responsibility given to someone who has already shown his allegiance to another country. If that is tino rangatiratanga I would like them to go out on to the marae of this country and explain to the very people whom those members represent how that is tino rangatiratanga. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are too many people walking around the Chamber. Under Standing Order 82 members must be seated. 
PITA PARAONE 
: If it is OK for members of this House to break the law then why do the same rules not apply to many of my relations who break the law? Is it because they are Maori? I have to ask myself that. How will I be able to go out of this Chamber today and explain that to my relatives in the far north who try to lead a lawful life? Do I have to say: “No we’re all waiting for the royal assent. When the royal assent is give—I am sorry Joe Public Joe Marae Hohepa Public—one can’t break the law.”? That is not to say that I promote the idea that our people should go out and break the law but this is all about tino rangatiratanga. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this debate on the Electoral (Vacancies)—plural—Amendment Bill in particular with reference to Part 1. This is cunningly contrived legislation on any view of it. Whatever my personal views on this legislation—and I hope it fails—I can nevertheless admire the skill of the parliamentary counsel who by obfuscation and deception has produced an outcome that I am sure none of us truly intended. 
I am glad that we have seated in the rear of the Chamber senior parliamentary counsel because I would like the Minister in the chair Mark Burton to take a call on what is a remarkable aspect of Part 1 and I am not talking about clause 3; I am talking about clause 2. It seems at first blush to be innocuous. It states: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” So I went out to the Noes lobby picked up  
New Zealand Statutes 2002 
 Volume 3 and idly glanced through the first six statutes in that volume. Five of the six state in terms of their commencement not: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” but instead: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I ask the Minister why that is. What is the need for that significant change from clear parliamentary practice when there is retrospective legislation in this bill? 
I looked at the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act at the Animal Welfare Amendment Act and at another one that was different—it came into force on a set date. The next three I looked at were the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Amendment Act and the Bail Amendment Act. Then I stopped looking. But why is clause 2 the commencement provision drafted in this most unusual way? We are lucky to have a Minister in the chair whom I do not doubt may well grace the office of Speaker in the term of this present Parliament. This is a great opportunity for him to stand and indicate why it has been seen as necessary with retroactive legislation—retrospective in character—to depart from standard parliamentary practice in connection with the drafting of clause 2. 
Part 1 is a short part. It contains only two clauses. The second clause clause 3 states: “This Act expires with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force.” So what clearly is intended is that the expiry date is to be referable to the expiry of a parliamentary term. That leads me to urge this Committee to think carefully about what it is doing if it decides to lend support to this legislation because it is effectively usurping the role that the public have to determine the entitlement of members to sit in this House and from a voter’s perspective the entitlement of an individual voter to cast his or her vote. 
I was impressed by the comments the Hon Richard Prebble made that if this bill is intended to be limited to Mr Duynhoven his very substantial majority of something just under 15000 votes is to be shredded. He is now going to continue in office as an MP with the minimal margin that is the result of the voting process later in the day—a margin that may be as low as just three or four votes. So here he is a man who has had in the past a substantial mandate to represent the people of New Plymouth now reduced to holding on in office with the narrowest of majorities. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I was most impressed with the speaker from New Zealand First who has just resumed his seat Pita Paraone. He raised some interesting new matters in this debate. He gave the Committee the information that we have a Minister of the Crown Mr Harry Duynhoven with a Dutch flag flying in his office. He put that in a different context by asking what the symbol is that we swear allegiance to. It is the flag yet here we have a Minister of the Crown carrying a ministerial warrant granted by the Prime Minister who has a Dutch flag flying in his office. Now what message does that give to people when they come to see him? It is like a ship sailing under two flags. 
Ron Mark 
: A flag of convenience. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: A flag of convenience perhaps? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Two-flags Harry. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: “Two-flags Harry”—that could be his new nickname. The point has been made that the suggested amendment to bring the expiry date of this legislation forward would not work. I agree with that analysis given the reason that we have got into this mess. A member of our Parliament Harry Duynhoven clearly breached section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. The rules are quite clear; that does create a vacancy. The advice to us from the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House was that that was clear. The Speaker chose to ignore that advice. There is provision that if the Speaker is uncertain as to whether there is a vacancy he can consult with the House. But he should not have been uncertain on this occasion because the advice he received as I have said was very clear. But setting that aside it was convenient for the Speaker to take the course of action he did which gave the Government time to scramble together this disgraceful legislation. But the point has been made that bringing the expiry date forward will not work because the breach has been made. If we do not have the expiry date that is stated in the bill—after the next election—and bring it forward to next month next week the end of this year or whatever date may be decided Mr Duynhoven will still be out because he has made that breach. 
There is only one way that Labour members can save Harry Duynhoven if that is what they want to do—and the ACT party says it is wrong in principle for this Parliament to play around with the Act for the convenience of Parliament or in other words to change the law on a self-serving principle. The only way to save Harry Duynhoven is to redraft the provision on the basis of a clean-slate principle. In other words the law must state that anyone who has transgressed section 55(1)(c) of the Act to date has immunity. There would be a clean slate and from X day henceforth—whether that is next week next month or at the end of the year—anyone who transgresses section 55(1)(c) then knowingly and consciously would breach that section but all misdemeanours up to this point would be exempt. Now that would be equally wrong in principle but at least it would address the issue. So I offer that to the Committee should members want to persist with some of the amendments that had been suggested. Members really need to change them to a clean slate - type principle rather than just bringing the date forward because that would still trip members up. 
 The other interesting point raised by Pita Paraone was in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. He made some very interesting points about that. Moreover there are elements in our society that challenge sovereignty and this issue is all about the sovereignty of New Zealand. We know some radicals within Maoridom say they want to have dual sovereignty. Georgina te Heuheu gave a very good speech about upholding the law and I totally concur with her. But other flags have been suggested and there have been suggestions of indigenous groups of people issuing passports. Where do we go to from there? Many people passionately believe they have the right to issue an indigenous person’s passport in this country. If Parliament is to play around with a clear provision in the Act like section 55(1)(c)— 
Stephen Franks 
: And the flag doesn’t matter. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: As my colleague Stephen Franks says the flag does not matter. Ministers of the Crown used to be issued with New Zealand flags as a symbol and most responsible Ministers were very proud to have the flag on a stand in a corner of their office as a symbol of the warrant that they hold. The flag is a symbol of our nationhood. That is the point that was made; that is what it is all about. We have learnt in the debate on this part that the member who transgressed the Act flies a Dutch flag. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I cannot help but reflect in relation to the last speaker’s address that there are people out there who are dishing out indigenous passports at the moment. In the land of the Tuhoe people are actually dishing out dog licences on the basis that they have not seen the local council in a blue moon so why should they pay licence fees in the Whakatane District? 
Having been defeated on the title of the bill New Zealand First now intends to serve a writ of habeas corpus on the Labour Party. We want Labour to show us the body. We know it is not Harry Duynhoven. We want Labour to show us the people who will be protected by this legislation if it will not support our amendment that states that the only person to be protected in reality will be Harry Duynhoven and no one else. 
Dail Jones 
: More than one body? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: If there is more than one body what is it? Is it “habeas corpi”? 
The Government cannot get away with this. It has been asked now for over 48 hours about the people whom it is seeking to protect with this legislation and it will not mutter a sound a syllable a murmur nor a word. 
Dail Jones 
: Does it know? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The Government must know. It must know that other members are being protected but such is its obsession with power that it has appeared to abandon any principle just to maintain power—even the simple principle of public disclosure of the group of people who are to be protected by this legislation. 
The Government has no reason to come to Parliament with a plan to protect its colleague Harry Duynhoven and then to abuse him and the rest of us by covertly not telling us who else comes within the ambit of this legislation. More important than that I ask what sort of legislation suspends the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Act for the full term of Parliament? The day after this legislation receives the royal assent every parliamentarian with a right of dual citizenship can go overseas and apply again to become an American citizen an English or Britain citizen or a citizen of some other country— 
Ron Mark 
: Nigerian. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They could become Nigerians Tongans or Samoans. 
This bill is so typical of this Government. Under Labour we are a nation of hyphenated New Zealanders. We are no longer one people—New Zealanders first second and third. No we are Samoan New Zealanders Dutch New Zealanders and Maori New Zealanders—anything but one people. 
Jill Pettis 
: What about Italian? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I do not know of anybody here who is of Italian extraction but I do know that every time that some people here open their mouths they remind me of an Italian fish market. It is not just the sounds but the visual appearances as well that remind me of a fish market. 
Dail Jones 
: Sophia Loren? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know that Sophia Loren would be turning in her grave but let us not mind that. 
The truth is that a country that is divided cannot stand. A House that is divided cannot stand and nor can a country. A country with no sense of social cohesion will not be successful. No country since the Great War has entered and stayed in the First World that did not have a highly developed sense of social and economic cohesion. However here in this Parliament today Labour is passing a law that the day after it receives the royal assent will enable members of Parliament to sign up for any country they feel like signing up for with impunity. Mr Robson will be able to rejoin his Australian cousins again. The two members from Samoa will be able to rejoin the Samoan nation again. The paradox of course is that those people will all say they are New Zealanders again. It really is ridiculous. 
I ask the Labour Party to please come clean. Who are the secret members it has who have knowingly done far far more serious things than Harry Duynhoven? Why is the Labour Party protecting them? Will Helen Clark’s CV look far better when she is tipped out after the next election if she goes for a UN job as the holder of dual passports? Helen Clark has actually run this country on the basis of an advanced plan that one day she will be in a UN job. She has sold the country down the drain so that one day she will get a UN job. Is she one member who has made an application for a dual passport? 
Simon Power 
: She wants a diplomatic passport. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right. Helen Clark’s country has become too small for her. Frankly the people will tell her all about that whenever she flies the white flag before the next election. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to raise two matters. The first is that clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent.” The honourable member who has just resumed his seat Winston Peters said it was the day after that. In fact the wording is “… on the day on which it receives …”. I want to explore that just a little bit. It is most unusual to have those words; it is normally the day after that. I can only assume the reason that the Government is doing this is that if this bill becomes the law on the day after it receives the royal assent then it very likely that by the time it does the Parliament may well have debated the Privileges Committee’s report and as a consequence the Speaker will have had to make a decision to declare a vacancy. So the Government has stated the legislation will come into force on the day on which it receives the royal assent. That puts it ahead of the timing for this Parliament to be able to debate the Privileges Committee’s report. 
Here again the Government is manipulating the parliamentary system. I do not recall—other members here may recall this—ever seeing a bill go through the House that stated it came into force on the day on which it received the royal assent. Certainly in this particular case whether or not there has been a precedent the Government should take extra care with regard to that sort of thing. However when I think about it why would the Government bother to take care? Why should the Government not have another go at abusing the system when it is abusing the system anyway by passing this bill? So when we think about it— 
Ron Mark 
: It’s a communist state! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely! Why would the Government bother to worry about whether it will set a precedent? It just wants to get on and do it without worrying about the people or about democracy. It does not matter a toss to this Government that we are doing things that normal Parliaments around the world do not do. 
What happened in Australia when events like this arose? The people vacated the seat and resigned. That is what happened in Australia and it should happen here. They are honourable people over there and not like the Labour Government here in New Zealand. This is a black sad day for Parliament. This bill really is a disgrace. 
The second thing I want to talk about is that it is becoming more and more evident that this bill is just a big cover-up for at least one other Labour member of Parliament possibly the Prime Minister Helen Clark who has made a mistake. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Tim Barnett! 
JOHN CARTER 
: No I do not think it is Tim Barnett. I think it is the Prime Minister Helen Clark. This point fits right in with clause 3. I believe that the Government has put this bill through with a provision that it will expire at the end of this term in order to cover up for somebody. I believe that person is Helen Clark. 
Simon Power 
: Ask someone! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I will ask whether it is Tim Barnett in a minute but I do not think it is. I believe it is Helen Clark because of what happened around “paintergate”. Helen Clark was quite happy to abuse the system and to avoid being had up for fraud and all those sorts of things so this issue will not make any difference to her at all. Here we have Parliament ripping something else up in order to cover up for the Prime Minister. That is just absolutely disgraceful. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Get on the phone! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I challenge the senior Government whip to stand up and deny that. I bet he cannot. Clause 3 will allow that to happen. 
I bet the senior Government whip cannot stand up in this Committee speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and say that the other member who will benefit from this legislation is not the Prime Minister. I challenge him to do that; I bet that he cannot. He has had plenty of opportunities. The senior Government whip could take the next call and say that the member for Northland is wrong and the Prime Minister is all OK. I bet he does not do that. Does any member want to take the bet up? Of course the senior Government whip will not take the challenge up. I ask the member Tim Barnett whether he is prepared to stand up in this Committee and say that the other member who will benefit from this legislation is not him. I wonder whether he will do that. I bet he will not. 
The problem is that this bill now casts suspicion on all the members of the Labour Party and indeed it casts suspicion on a whole number of people. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Motion agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I have tabled an amendment and I seek leave that it be put before the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment as the dates are different and it would be appropriate that my amendment be put first. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “1st day of January 2006”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force” and substitute the words “on the day after this Act receives its Royal assent”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force” and substitute the words “1st day of January 2004”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to insert new clause 3A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 3 the followingnew clause: 
3AApplication 
This Act shall apply for the period from 14 August 2002 to 6 August 2003. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to insert new clause 3A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 3 the followingnew clause: 
3AApplication 
This Act shall apply for the period from 11 June 2003 to 6 August 2003. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Change to vacancy rules 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It has been a convention that when a bill has not been to a select committee the debate in the Committee stage is wide ranging and more time is given. In respect of Part 1 you gave the standard amount of time we have become accustomed to for a part by part debate on a bill that has been to a select committee. We are about to debate Part 2 and I am wondering whether we will be tied into those sorts of timings or whether you will follow the tradition—certainly in my time in Parliament—of allowing extra time because the bill has not been to a select committee. That has been the convention for the very reason that members have not had a chance to scrutinise the bill in a select committee. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is fair to say that it has been a convention that extended time is given for the debate on the title of a bill that has not been to a select committee and certainly that has been the case with this bill. As to the rest it is a matter that has always been and should quite properly be the province of the Chair because many factors come into play—the importance of the issue the size of the part and most important the relevance of the debate. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I fully concur with the comments made by Mr Sowry. I was somewhat surprised when the debate on Part 1 was closed down. I am not relitigating that matter but I did observe that the co-leader of the Greens Mr Rod Donald had been anxiously seeking a call. I was equally surprised when he voted for the closure motion having sought a call but be that as it may. 
My concern is that we spent a very short period on Part 1. This bill amends the Electoral Act but the bill has not been to a select committee. We are sitting under urgency and I just point out that we spent more time on the title than we did on Part 1; and by no means did we spend too much time on the title. Some very interesting facts were given and points made by members but the debate on Part 1 was truncated compared with the time we spent on the title. I support Mr Sowry’s point of order and urge you to give the Committee sufficient time to debate fully these very important provisions which are causing so much concern. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank all members who made a contribution. It is the custom for the title to be a long wide-ranging debate and that was permitted. It is not necessarily that way when it comes to debates on the parts. I have taken on board what members have said and I will attempt to give everyone a fair go at taking part in the debate. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I thought the Minister might well wish to start off the debate on this part but that is probably asking too much. Part 2 is as reprehensible as Part 1. It is the retrospective part of the bill. In clause 5 this bill is deemed to have come into force on 14 August 2002—just on a year ago. That is when this Parliament commenced. So any member of Parliament who has broken the law with regard to foreign citizenship or sought to have a foreign passport or dual citizenship whilst being a member of Parliament is now deemed to be covered by this retrospective clause. We know that Mr Duynhoven has done that. We have no understanding why the Government has decided to go back to 14 August because we know that Mr Duynhoven told the Privileges Committee that he sought to have his Dutch citizenship come into force this year. So there is no reason to go back. He sought to do it this year. 
One would have thought we could have gone back as far as the dates Mr Duynhoven gave the Privileges Committee and that would have covered him. So why did the Minister decide to go all the way back to 14 August? Could it be that the Minister decided to go back to 14 August because of another MP? Could that be the case? Can the Minister assure us that no other MP broke this law prior to the date Mr Duynhoven gave—I think July this year? Can he assure us that that is not the case? The Minister sits silent. It is interesting because members of the Committee might want to know that members of the press gallery have talked to all political parties about this issue today. Every party has given an assurance bar the Labour Party. The Labour Party is saying— 
David Benson-Pope 
: What about the ACT party? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Benson-Pope should just keep his hair on. The Labour Party is saying to the media: “No comment”. Dr Cullen’s official comment to the media at the moment is: We won’t comment on it—end of story.” So we ask the Minister why he insists that this bill go back nearly a year earlier than the date Mr Duynhoven sought to have his Dutch citizenship ratified. Why did he do that? Does the Minister have any reasons for that? Will he take a call and explain to the Committee? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I will. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is good. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he personally has no knowledge of any member of Parliament who has also been caught up in this issue? Can he assure the Committee of that? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I will take a call. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Can the Minister assure the Committee that he has no knowledge of any other member being caught up in this? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I will take a call. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister said he will take a call and I hope he does. I want to flag with you Mr Chairperson my intention to take another call following the Minister or later on in the debate to make sure he does answer those questions. All I want from the Minister is answers to two questions. First why did the Minister choose to go back to when Parliament was sworn in? Secondly does he have any knowledge of any other MP who has been caught up in this issue and is that why he has gone back so far? If the Minister does not have any knowledge of any other MP being caught up in this issue and we are to believe all other parties in the Committee—except for Labour—that says it is not them then we want to know why he has gone back as far as that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable Minister Jim Sutton. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You may not have seen the Minister in the chair seeking the call. The Minister indicated several times during my speech that he would take the call. He was moving and I just wonder whether you missed that. Ministers usually get the call even if one of their own colleagues seeks it. The Minister certainly moved. It was slow but he did move. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If he did move I am sorry but I did not see him. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: Members opposite raised the question of why we are doing what we are doing. I would say that from my point of view we are here to save “Private Harry”. Harry Duynhoven is an outstanding parliamentarian who as we all know is very proud of his Dutch heritage and his New Zealand citizenship. His parliamentary majority is bigger than the total personal votes of almost every member opposite. As such he is the object of much spiteful envy and petty jealousy from members opposite—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/5—a running commentary of interjection is not permitted. If members want to make a speech they can seek the call next time. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you give us a little guidance. This is a House of debate and it is quite complimentary if someone’s debate is robust enough to invite reaction. That is part and parcel of debate in the House. The Minister is engaging in a robust debate and making very controversial statements. I ask you to consider that such controversial statements invite as a matter of course robust interjection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on that and the ruling stands. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave the Minister some advice about the constraints that come on any speaker in the Committee stage of a bill. Making reference to Mr Duynhoven’s significant majority which no one disagrees with is totally irrelevant to this debate unless members are simply saying that because he was so well elected last time we should not bother to have an election in New Plymouth again while he is around. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of orders should be short. The Minister was coming to the point. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have just advised the Committee that interjections should be fewer and that is fine. That is a ruling we would expect from the Chair but I ask that it be consistently applied. There have been occasions certainly when I have been on my feet when members have continually interjected but have not been called to order. I do not mind interjections myself. They do not worry me. In fact I am very happy about it. But if we are to have that ruling let us have some consistency. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 64/3(1) and say that we take note of what happens in the Chamber and each case is judged on its merits. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am addressing the issue raised by members opposite of why we are here debating this matter. I would say this. In a small-minded malicious way members opposite have seized upon the absurd technicality of a long-obsolete remnant of ancient legislation to try to force Harry out. That is what they are doing. In so doing in their ridiculous pomposity they are revealing their contempt and complete disregard for the very clear preference of the good people of New Plymouth. They have chosen Harry by a bigger margin than any other sitting member of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister cannot use a person’s first name. That is the third time he has done it. Could he please refer to the member by his full name. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The people of New Plymouth have chosen the Hon Harry Duynhoven as their representative in Parliament by a greater margin than any other sitting member of Parliament. The National Party— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect it is not befitting the Government to send down to the Chamber a Minister who knows nothing about Part 2 of this legislation. He has not referred to it in any specific sense but has tried to commence a general argument. That may be appropriate at the introduction the report back or the debate on the title but it is not appropriate now. Which part of Part 2 or any part of Part 2 is the Minister focusing his mind on? This is the widest debate of this subject that I have heard today. To send down a tired old Minister and have him slash around the Chamber and beat his gums is not good enough. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would like the Minister to come to the point. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am specifically addressing clauses 4 5 and 6 of Part 2 to explain why we are here debating this issue. We are involved in this prolonged debate because the National Party ACT and New Zealand First—the self-satisfied self-important Tories—who could not defeat the democratic will of the good people of New Plymouth by fair means are trying now to do it by foul means. That is what this debate is all about. It is time we closed it down and got on with the real business of Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have asked the Minister to focus on the legislation. Just reciting the clauses that he thinks he is referring to is not good enough. He has immediately gone back to expressing his bile and venom about the next Government of this country knowing full well that he does not understand the subject he is addressing right now. If he cannot address the subject then stop his speech and we will get back to the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I might add that that applies to all members. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I have made the point I wanted to make. I suggest we close down this time-wasting debate and get back to the real business of Parliament—something we were sent here by the electors to get on with. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 One of the matters mentioned by Dr Cullen at the very beginning of this debate was in reference to clause 6. When he was told that it is possible for a New Zealand citizen to lose his or her New Zealand citizenship a sudden light dawned on him that we should therefore have a provision in terms of section 55(1) of the principal Act which he proposed should read: “the seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant if he or she being a person who is a New Zealand citizen ceases to be a New Zealand citizen.” The reason we have not had this provision in the past is that a person born in New Zealand never ceases to be a New Zealand citizen. That is just the way it is. Such a provision is not needed. If one is born in New Zealand it is not possible to cease to be a New Zealand citizen. 
The classic examples were in the Second World War. The first involved Japanese Americans who were born in the United States but felt they were more Japanese than American. So they went over to Japan and fought for their beloved country Japan in the Second World War as pilots and soldiers. After the war they were not treated as prisoners of war but as traitors. Although they went back to their homeland and fought for the country they sincerely believed in for their flag the Americans took the view that at law they were always citizens of the country they were born in. No matter what they did with their lives they were always citizens of that country and if they fought against the country in which they were born they were traitors and could be executed. And they were shot—they might have been hanged but they were killed executed by the Americans. So this provision is not worth the paper it is written on and that is why it has never been in legislation before. The Government in bringing in legislation with this provision in it has highlighted the whole fallacy—the whole falseness—of it. It is useless legislation. It is legislation totally without thought. It has not been given full consideration. The provision is absolutely meaningless. 
The other example was Lord Haw-Haw  
Joyce 
 v  
DPP 
 —the House of Lords in one of the most appropriate but worst decisions it ever made if one looks at it as a lawyer. Lord Haw-Haw was a Northern Irishman who had a passport— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Applied for a passport. 
DAIL JONES 
: He applied for a passport. Then he was in England. His passport or whatever it was lapsed. He went over to Germany and became known as the infamous Lord Haw-Haw. He was never really a citizen but Britain—and I agree entirely with what it did to Lord Haw-Haw—decided he remained a British citizen and he was executed. Even if one is not warned losing one’s citizenship is an almost impossible thing to do whether or not we like it. 
This provision which appealed to Dr Cullen and some members of the Labour Party during the select committee is utterly useless. At the very least what it shows is that it should not have been in this bill. If there is ever to be any consideration of this matter that is when this provision should be considered. It highlights what a waste of time this Labour Party has been exercising us all in. We should have had a very simple bill supporting Harry Duynhoven which New Zealand First wanted to do at the beginning. Our offer was rejected. The Government has tried to protect everybody under this legislation in terms of section 55(1)(b) referred to in clause 4. We will not support anyone who has taken an oath of allegiance to a foreign country and give him or her the right to be a member of Parliament after the last election. That is what section 55(1)(b) referred to in clause 4 is doing. We ask the Labour Party: who is the person who has taken an oath of allegiance? He has done more than Harry Duynhoven— 
Opposition member 
: She. 
DAIL JONES 
: —she has done more than Harry Duynhoven. Was it my friend Dr Ashraf Choudhary the list member who was born in the Punjab in Pakistan? Did he unknowingly innocently or somehow or another renew his Pakistani passport? As a list MP he would have been gone like Ms Chal without there being any thought of a by-election or whatever. He should stand up and let us know. I look at Tim Barnett. What about him? It may be other members in this House but I will not go through the entire list. However section 55(1)(b) does not apply to Harry Duynhoven yet we are being asked to give effect to a matter about which we have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. We are being asked as an Opposition blindly to support someone in this situation—and of course we are being asked to support someone who might become an Iraqi after this bill is passed. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We are coming to the operative clause of the bill clause 4 which states that section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act—that is the Electoral Act—do not apply to any member of Parliament. That is a remarkable clause when one thinks about it. It just says that those parts of that section of the Act do not apply. What is that section? It is the section that says a member of Parliament cannot swear allegiance to a foreign State. I have a series of amendments. I will quickly go through them because I think the Committee ought to study them. 
The first one is to replace “any member of Parliament” with just “Hon Harry Duynhoven”. Then we would be doing exactly what New Zealand First wants because the bill would apply only to that member. I think the Greens ought to look at that. 
I really do ask the Committee to support the next one. The ACT members of Parliament do not want to have this exemption; we want to remain bound by the law to give allegiance only to New Zealand. So we have asked that every ACT MP be exempted from this bill. I am asking Parliament not to apply it to us. 
Then I have amendments listing a number of MPs who it is rumoured are the MPs concerned who are affected by this law. Why have I chosen those MPs? Because they are the ones about whom rumours are going around. There might be others. I want those MPs to know because they have an interesting question: if it is not them then they should make sure they do not vote for this clause. I have started off with the Rt Hon Helen Clark then Tim Barnett Dr Ashraf Choudhary Michael Cullen Taito Phillip Field Hon Mark Gosche Winnie Laban and the Hon Jim Sutton. Then as the Greens seem to be quite extraordinary in their support for this bill I have Sue Bradford and Nandor Tanczos. There may be others. I invite other MPs to put them up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about Keith Locke? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No I think Keith Locke is actually a New Zealand - bred Kampuchean supporter. Let me make this point. I have been listening to people who are not on the Privileges Committee saying that the National Party and the ACT party turned down the Privileges Committee doing a survey. Not so! Those members should go and look at the minutes of the committee. They will not see any proposal to do a survey. It was discussed and we realised that as a select committee we did not have the power to do it. My party and others said that we would do it through the whips and we came back to the committee. I gave such an undertaking having taken this issue so seriously that I had gone back to every member of our party—although I did not contact Donna Awatere Huata because I know where she comes from; I wish this bill did catch her but it does not. The National Party came back and made its statement. Mr Peters said at first he had not done it but when he came back to the next meeting he had. Every single party except the Labour Party gave an undertaking to the Privileges Committee many of which have been repeated here under privilege. The only party at the Privileges Committee that would not state that it did not have members of Parliament who have sworn allegiance to foreign powers was the Government—the Labour Party. 
I find that quite extraordinary. It is unprecedented—frightening—that we have a Government putting through a change in the law and it is not prepared to be upfront with this Parliament. Government members are so arrogant that they do not think they have to answer and they are apparently telling the media and the public of New Zealand “No comment.” That is not good enough. I want to see whether Helen Clark is prepared to vote in this House to exempt herself from the law. I want to know that our Prime Minister is not going to travel overseas on a foreign passport and I want to know that members of Cabinet are not travelling around the world on foreign passports. 
I would like to hear from every one of those MPs I have named. Let me apologise to any of them who are not in that position but their names have been put there by their own party. In fact if one of them gets up here and says in front of the whole Committee—so that it is subject to privilege—that he or she is not in that position I will withdraw the amendment applying to that member. That is a pretty fair offer. Having questioned them in this way I say that that is what I would do; I would be taking a point of order and saying that I do not have an overseas passport that I give my allegiance purely to New Zealand. In fact I have had members call out to me and ask me that and I have repeated that I give my allegiance to this country. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to start with clause 6 and follow on from the comments made by Mr Jones. I do not agree with the interpretation he put to the Committee. My advice is that people can in fact renounce New Zealand citizenship. There is on occasions a requirement that one does so if one takes out the citizenship of another country. 
Thepoint I want to make is that the advice the officials gave us and the advice that was given as I understand it to the Privileges Committee is that it is possible for someone to come into this House with two citizenships—that is perfectly legal—and that it is perfectly legal for that person in that circumstance then to renounce his or her New Zealand citizenship. The law is silent on that. That is one part of it. 
I come back to the question—raised initially by Roger Sowry—as to why we have determined that the bill shall come into effect on 14 August and go right through to the end of the electoral cycle. The reason is quite simply to cover the whole election period the whole of the Parliament and all members of Parliament. That is why we have not put the bill in the name of an individual MP. 
That brings me to the other question that Roger Sowry asked me which was whether I personally have any knowledge of another person in this situation. The answer to that question is that no I do not. But it seems to me to be sensible in drafting this legislation to make it a piece of law that applies to all members for the term of this Parliament. 
I restate my advice which I am giving to members now for the fourth or fifth time that after this bill is passed and certainly within the next few days I will be writing to the Justice and Electoral Committee and I will be drawing this matter to its attention. I will be asking the select committee to undertake some work on this particular area as members of Parliament are obviously very concerned to make sure that the rules are correct that we have the right balance and that we have not simply incorporated old legislation without giving it the careful consideration that we should therefore leaving ourselves open to unintended consequences. I would have thought that a thorough sensible review by the Justice and Electoral Committee would be a good thing and that it would be supported widely by this Parliament. 
It is the intention that prior to this Parliament rising another bill will be introduced and the law will be changed. It will be clear to all and we will have a consistent set of logic applying to it. At the moment it is perfectly fine for a person to come into this House with dual citizenship but if that person somehow during the term of the Parliament simply acknowledges as Mr Duynhoven has done that he or she is entitled to another nationality or citizenship he or she is suddenly sprung from it. 
I have to say that nobody in this country would have any doubts about Harry Duynhoven’s origins. His name is a very good indication of that. All have known that he has been a Dutch national. He has been very proud of that. He has advocated for that community because of his historical links to it. There is no doubt about that so there is no question about the public being duped in any way. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 What a sad apology of a speech that was from the Associate Minister of Justice! Why can the Minister not stop this nonsense of pretending that this bill somehow does every member of Parliament a favour? The Opposition parties have all said they do not want it and do not need it because it does not apply to any of them but the Minister and his colleagues continue to say they have gone for that 14 August date because they want the provisions set out in Part 2 to apply to all members during this Parliamentary term. If there is just one member who is in trouble then why can the Government not just put his name on the bill? It would still be wrong but why not do that? 
As for the Minister’s answer to the question about whether he has personal knowledge of any other person in the Labour Party or any of the Government-supporting parties being in a position similar to Harry Duynhoven’s—the Minister said he does not have personal knowledge—it absolutely shimmied around the edges. It was a classic Helen Clark “dance around the edges” answer—avoid and evade. It is quite clear because the Minister was unable to stand up and unequivocally say that no other member of the Government-supporting parties has a problem that the Government is protecting someone. 
Did the Minister really consider all the provisions of section 55 of the Electoral Act when he came to put together Part 2? It seems to me to be quite clear that under section 55 someone like Graham Kelly who has been forced out of Parliament to take up his position as High Commissioner in Canada could have chosen to remain a member of Parliament. Section 55(1) states: “The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—(a) if otherwise than by virtue of being a head of mission or head of post within the meaning of the Foreign Affairs Act 1988 for 1 whole session of Parliament he or she fails without permission of the House of Representatives to give his or her attendance in the House;”—in other words fails to turn up. Well what that tells me is that Graham Kelly did not need to go but was forced to go. 
If we read a bit further in the Act we see that it tells us that Harry Duynhoven does have to go; the rest of us supposedly are being forced into keeping him here. This is just the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have. It is in its retrospective effect saying to New Zealanders that it is all right for the law to expect that any other New Zealander knows the law—any other New Zealander is deemed to know the law—and therefore pays the consequence of breaking it but a member of Parliament a person who stood for election does not have to know the Electoral Act. That is an absolute nonsense. 
I hope the new Minister in the chair David Cunliffe a man rumoured to have dual citizenship— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Of the United States? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —of the United States in fact and New Zealand—will explain to us why the provision in clause 6 has to be there. Why do we have to say it is OK for someone to give up his or her New Zealand citizenship during this term? What is so special about this term that allows this particular group of MPs to go off and seek citizenship anywhere else in the world? It is patently clear that the Labour caucus has a number of people who have breached the Act. It has a number of people who do not know the law. 
 We are being told today that because Mr Duynhoven has such a huge majority he is above the law; he is above the law by virtue of the fact that he polls well. We are also being told that by the provision being made as broad as it is we are all in some way being done a favour by the Government. A simple thing for this Minister to do something that no other Minister has been able to do—and he is the kind of guy who backs himself to do what no one else can—is to stand up take a call and say quite clearly that the only person in his caucus with a problem is Harry Duynhoven. He will not do it. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill raises some very interesting questions. When we listened to the Hon Jim Sutton doing his best impersonation of John Wayne it was clear that he does not understand what the bill means. He does not have a clue. He was sent down here by someone on a floor above him and told to get in there and fight for Harry Duynhoven but he missed the point completely because the bill is about more than just the Hon Harry Duynhoven as my colleagues have pointed out. 
If this bill were designed to protect Harry Duynhoven only clause 4 would state: “Section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act do not apply to the Hon Harry Duynhoven.” But that is not what it states. What it states is: “... the principal Act do not apply to any member of Parliament.” As my colleague Gerry Brownlee has pointed out nobody on this side of the Chamber asked for it. In fact I do not believe that anybody in the Chamber at all apart from Labour Party members has asked for this particular clause and it seems to me that the whole issue would go away if each member of the Labour Party stood in the Chamber and said: “It’s not me.” At that point we would not have to worry any more about it and we would be clear that the bill was about the Hon Harry Duynhoven. 
The most disturbing thing about Jim Sutton’s comments was that he would have clause 4 amended to state: “Section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act do not apply to any member of Parliament provided their majority is approved by the Hon Rick Barker.” That scares me on many levels but the first level on which it scares me—and let us be fair Harry Duynhoven does have a large majority but I am a bit concerned that Mr Barker would not be able to count that high—is that members of the Government have risen in this Chamber today and said that this measure should not matter because of the size of Mr Duynhoven’s majority. That is just ridiculous. Would the same rules apply to David Parker who sits on a majority of about 680 or 690 from memory? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Let him go. 
SIMON POWER 
: He would be gone. 
Darren Hughes 
: I’ve got a great majority. 
SIMON POWER 
: Darren Hughes pipes up. He should just get up and declare that he clearly has dual citizenship of New Zealand and some African nation and tell the Committee what the story is and be done with it or alternatively he should stand now and deny his citizenship of an African nation. It is pretty clear to the rest of us that that possibility exists. He should get up and take that opportunity. 
The Hon Roger Sowry in his initial remarks raised the point as to why on earth we would include the date of 14 August 2002 as part of the retrospectivity of this legislation when Harry Duynhoven in his own evidence to the Privileges Committee said that he applied for citizenship of the Netherlands this year. Why is that? That date is the date on which the writ was returned after the last election but why would we be bothered about having the legislation take effect from that date if no one other than Harry Duynhoven has broken the law? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Someone else has applied. 
SIMON POWER 
: Someone else has applied. So we get back to the same central point that was raised with regard to the title and to the way in which Part 1 was put together. Members on this side of the Chamber are interested to know which member of the Labour Party is hiding. It would be very straightforward simply to say: “It’s not me”. I cannot understand why the media in this country are letting Dr Cullen get away with “No comment” when every other party in Parliament has declared straight up that none of its members have breached those rules. This is a dual standard. It is a very simple and straightforward matter to rectify. I say to those who believe that an exemption should be made just for Harry Duynhoven that if members opposite believe that he is so worthy of special legislation why was he not put in Cabinet straight away? Why has Harry Duynhoven become indispensable now? It is a very odd trend considering the record of that poor old member under the current Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be putting an amendment to clause 4 of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill to read as follows: “That clause 4 be amended by adding after the word ‘Parliament’ on line 5 of page 2 the words ‘except New Zealand First’.” We will be putting that amendment because frankly we do not want to accept the Labour Government’s open invitation to treachery treason and traitorous behaviour. We have no desire to accept its open invitation for us to join one or other of its members in the likelihood of that happening. We want to ensure that we deny Labour the option of respectability by our not being amongst the members of Parliament who will gain this unwanted protection. We are saying to Labour very clearly today: “Besmirch your own but don’t besmirch us. Disgrace your own but don’t seek to disgrace us.” 
David Benson-Pope 
: Who have you been giving taxi chits to? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I say to Mr Benson-Pope that he would have been much happier in a gay bar with lots of paedophiles but I am not. He thinks paedophilia is a wanted emotion. He would defend anything. If he does not like this he should keep quiet. 
I say to the Labour Party: “Besmirch and shame your own but don’t besmirch us. Disgrace your own but don’t disgrace us. Don’t try to pretend that any party other than your own wants this protection.” For New Zealand First’s part our 13 members want out of this disgraceful behaviour this disgusting unparalleled unprecedented measure in the history of this Parliament. It is no use Labour members muttering under their breath. Labour Party members should get up and tell us why we should accept this protection. Did we ask for it? No. Who asked for it? Harry Duynhoven. He told everybody that he needed it and we believed him. We still do. 
Simon Power 
: He’s honest. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: At least he is honest. At least he is upright. At least he is straight and direct. We believe him. So who else will gain this protection? Labour Party members think they can get away with this by saying “No comment”. It is astonishing that this matter should be dealt with so lightly by the media of this country. It is one more indicator of non-neutrality non-independence and bias. If any other party said: “Go away we’re not making a comment on a critical issue like this.” it would be pilloried all over the front pages and it would be first on the 6 o’clock news. 
Dail Jones 
: Especially the  
Dominion Post. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Especially the  
Dominion Post 
. I wonder what that fish ‘n’ chips throwaway will make of this. That paper pays its journalists odium money for working for it. Typically this will be on about page 9. An issue that is critical to our constitutional democracy will be on page 9 because what someone eats for dinner is more important to that paper. If one coughs the  
Dominion Post  
reports that as something else. I say again to Labour that we will be voting for this amendment and I hope our colleagues in the Chamber will. 
Stephen Franks 
: We’ll help you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I thank the member very much. We want to be outside this balloon of disgraceful manipulation disguise secrecy and Philby-like Burgess-like Blunt-like and Maclean-like behaviour. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have three issues to cover in this Part 2 debate. The first is an unintended—I am sure—or I hope unplanned effect of the proposed new provision that people can be kicked out of Parliament if they lose their New Zealand citizenship. This is a “Mugabe” clause. That might be funny to people who think that the idea of treachery or betrayal is funny. That might be funny to the senior Government whip who has sat there letting his Labour spokespersons scoff at the idea of wanting to uphold affiliation and loyalty. But these kinds of provisions have been turned on their heads in other places. In May 1999 a woman was ejected permanently from the Turkish Parliament by the decree of the President. He had stripped her of her Turkish citizenship because she had dual citizenship and members did not like her wearing a headscarf in Parliament. That is what a provision like this is used for. 
This kind of provision is used routinely in Central Asia where there is a bicultural society—lovely thing that bicultural society—and the new indigenous majority does not like the Russians. So how has it got rid of the Russians from its Parliament? It has used a provision exactly like this to strip them of their citizenship and kick them out immediately. That is a lot easier than going through an electoral integrity bill. It is an awful lot easier than going through the procedures put into electoral legislation in 2000 by that Labour Government which at that stage was claiming to uphold integrity in the constitution. A Government just has to use a section like this—find someone it does not like with dual citizenship use executive power to strip that person of that citizenship and it has got rid of its irritant. 
That is the sort of reason that these things should not be going through this Parliament in one day under urgency. They are constitutional issues and they need thought. If this Government were serious about a select committee review it would have said that this bill had effect for a reasonable time so that the select committee could look at it. It could have said that this suspension lasted until say November when the select committee could have taken account of the possibility that something like clause 6 could be misused to eject people the Government did not like. That is a constitutional provision an odious provision and the Government does not care about it. 
I heard Government members scoffing earlier at the idea that members of Parliament had had any correspondence with people complaining about the action being taken today. I can tell members about one correspondent—Neil Harrap inventor of the Fly by Wire adventure attraction. He is an exporter to a number of places in the United States and the man who was caught very unfortunately by the tragic accident in Queenstown. Neil Harrap called me and said: “I thought they couldn’t do retrospective legislation but I have just been told that Parliament has cancelled my insurance retrospectively under the Health and Safety in Employment Act.” I said that I did not think Parliament would have done that retrospectively. There is a strong constitutional convention against depriving people of rights retrospectively and anything retrospective should be of the most limited extent possible. But I looked the Act up and he was right. 
The last time this Parliament deliberately did something retrospective it cancelled Neil Harrap’s insurance and now having paid his premiums he is facing liability for something he personally had nothing to do with. Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act he is facing full liability for that accident without his insurance. This Government did that deliberately despite the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision against retrospectivity and now it is bringing this bill into Parliament with absolutely no comment from the Attorney-General under section 7 of that Act. Where is the legal guardian of the Cabinet’s conscience? Where is the Attorney-General? Where is the section 7 opinion? I have only just touched on the issues involved in Part 2 but we are being asked to race this bill through with a completely unnecessary degree of retrospectivity. 
If the Government wanted to go along with New Zealand First and United Future I could have understood it but there is something sinister here. This is a corrupt process. Government members might laugh at the Turkish Parliament ejecting a member because it had stripped her of her dual citizenship but a Government that can get the Greens to support it in this kind of retrospectivity when they do not even know who it applies to is of great concern. As the price of their compliance the Greens have not insisted on knowing—or even asked—just what this legislation covers. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 In the last Parliament this Government proudly proclaimed that it believed in the Electoral Integrity Act and it went around the country saying how important it was that there was integrity in the electoral process. It campaigned on it and passed the law which will last for a while—but what is the first issue it deals with under the Electoral Act in this Parliament? The Government has just swept the idea of integrity past saying “Oh no no. Don’t worry about it. Harry may have offended a little bit but we’ll fix it for you Harry and we will fix it for this other unknown person or persons by retrospective legislation.” Where is the integrity in that? Where is the proper observance of constitutionalism in that? Where is the person and Government that would get up and defend the whole idea and notion of retrospectivity and who would get up and say why this legislation has to be so extensive that it covers far more than Mr Duynhoven? 
I can say to the Committee and to the country that my colleague Mr Gerry Brownlee has put forward an amendment on behalf of the National Party that says that we do not want this legislation to apply to us because our views are clear. Each and every one of the members of the National Party has one allegiance—not several but just one—and that is to New Zealand. We do not want a suspension of section 55(1)(b) of the Electoral Act. We are not asking to be able to give allegiance to some foreign power or prince but Labour is—for the future apparently. We are not asking to be able to get foreign passports but Labour is. 
The interesting thing here is that the bill is not just about the actions of Mr Duynhoven—or indeed of another person or persons—that occurred prior to today. If that were the case then these provisions would be suspended only till today. But these provisions allow for members of the Labour Party to renew their foreign passports and to make declarations of allegiance to foreign sovereigns andGovernments in the future. So I wonder which one of those members wants to go out and renew his or her foreign passport. Surely Labour members have been put on notice in this Parliament today and on days previous that they are expected to govern in the good interests of this country. 
I want to tell members that I listen to that prayer each day and it asks us to govern in the interests of New Zealanders. I would have thought that that meant that we do not go out and get a passport of a foreign country either in the past or in the future. We do not go out and take oaths of allegiance to foreign sovereigns and foreign princes. But no this Government wants to do precisely those things. Its excuse—miserable as it is—is that the Justice and Electoral Committee needs to be able to consider this matter for the future. That is simply a falsehood. 
This legislation—if it is needed at all and it is not—should cease to operate as of tomorrow so that the country can consider whether its members of Parliament should be able to get foreign passports and make oaths of allegiance to other countries. But no the Government will not allow New Zealanders to consider that because for the next 2 years—up until the next election—there will be members of the Labour Party and the Green Party who go out to apply for passports and who go out and give allegiance to foreign powers and foreign Governments. I have to ask myself what New Zealanders would say about that. Can we imagine the spectacle of Mr Locke enthusiastically taking up the prospect of declaring his allegiance to the principles of Fidel Castro? Members will hear it from today. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I appreciate being given the call and I recognise that I am somewhat privileged. I do have other matters in Part 2 that I think this Committee needs to consider. Firstly there is a highly rational reason for sections 55(1)(b) and (c). Although there has been an attempt to portray those sections as fuddy-duddy relics of ancient requirements that do not matter any longer there is actually a very sensible pattern in them which is no doubt the reason that Parliament left them in place when it last looked at the Electoral Act 3 years ago. 
The rational reason is that the Act trusts the people. The Act provides that there is no reason that the people should not be left to elect someone who has dual citizenship as long as they know about it. That sort of thing comes out in an election campaign. The people elect the person they choose but that person cannot then succumb to the temptations that come in office and change his or her allegiance fetter his or her discretion or come into a relationship with a foreign power after he or she has been elected. If the person does so that person has to resubmit himself or herself for effective ratification by the electorate. So the law is not penal or punitive. It simply provides that someone who changes his or her status in that kind of way needs to go and get a fresh mandate from the electorate. A person can do that. The law does not state that a person cannot owe dual allegiances but it does state that if a person creates an allegiance while he or she is a parliamentarian that person has to then go back and seek the re-approval of the people. 
That is a very sound principle and I cannot see that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be able to improve on it. Therefore when we look at the provision for retrospective change in clause 5 of the bill and at the period of retrospectivity we see that this rushed process is saying that it does not matter that the people have elected us on the assumption that on a change in our status they will get another go. We will pre-empt that opportunity not just for Mr Harry Duynhoven but also for anyone in this House. That is a very significant change to the vacancy rules. In effect it changes the contract the constitution and the basis on which we are here as members. 
We urge the Labour Party to vote for the amendments that Richard Prebble has put forward by which the suspension of those sections would not apply to ACT. We do not want the benefit of this measure. We believe we have been elected here by New Zealanders who expect us to have to live with the consequences of the decisions that are made in this Parliament. A member who applies for Dutch citizenship or any other citizenship while he or she is an MP is in effect saying he or she will leave the rubble that he or she may create and will be able to go off and live on a Dutch pension irrespective of where the New Zealand economy goes to. Mr Duynhoven may have provided one of the most benign examples of what can happen. It may be that people think there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to go and live in the Netherlands. But there is everything wrong with a member of Parliament sitting here voting and affecting the future of New Zealanders and meanwhile having an exit hatch wide open without people being aware of that at the time the MP was elected. 
The provision we are suspending states that if a person creates an escape hatch while still a member of Parliament then he or she had better get a fresh mandate. We have effectively said that Mr Duynhoven and all the other mysterious members who have created their escape hatches—from the Prime Minister with her escape hatch to the United Nations all the way down—can do so using and perhaps abusing the powers they are given as members of Parliament and perhaps selling their vote to foreign powers. They can take on an escape hatch by perhaps fettering their discretion and pledging their vote—and that is not fanciful; it has happened in the British Parliament. Votes have been sold in return for future benefits. 
The provision that we are suspending is part of the constitutional protection for New Zealanders that prevents a member of Parliament from being potentially tempted to use his or her powers to gain an advantage from a foreign power or to gain some sort of concession. I am sure that the Dutch Ambassador raced Harry Duynhoven’s application through far faster than she would have done for any ordinary citizen. One can already see that an MP is in a privileged position to extract concessions from foreign powers. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and take a call on Part 2. I ask members a question: what is the difference between an Aussie MP and a New Zealand Labour MP? The answer is that the Aussie MP knows the difference between right and wrong and that lot on the Government side of the Chamber have no idea about that. I am absolutely ashamed to be part of a Parliament in which we have a Government that uses the law with impunity to get its own ends for no good motive and that treats the law with cynicism. 
This Government has done that twice in the last month. This is the second time we have been put into urgency with regard to retrospective legislation and I think that is a disgrace. I say to the Minister Rick Barker that he should not pass this legislation on my behalf—I do not want it or need it. He should not pretend that he is doing any of us on the Opposition side of the Committee a favour—other than the Greens who would not know a principle if they saw one. They would not know a principle if they tripped over it. That is the great disappointment about Rod Donald who thinks he is the defender of the faith the defender of democracy and the defender of the constitution. He is none of those things. He is so hungry for power and so willing to get into bed with the Government that he will do anything and this is one of the things he will do. 
I mean no disrespect to any of the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber when I say it is great to be tangata whenua. It is great to be mana whenua and I will tell members why that is. I have no need for this law. I have no need for an allegiance to anybody else and I have no need whatsoever for a passport from any other country. Whether I am in this House or outside Parliament I have no need for it and I do not want it. Rick Barker can have his legislation because I do not want or need it. I know where my allegiance lies and it is to this country New Zealand and it is to New Zealanders. I do not need some other country’s flag to be flying in my office; I do not need a Dutch flag or any other flag. I do not mean any disrespect to those other nationalities but if one comes to this place and swears allegiance to this country then that is all one should have. We should have no accommodation at all for members of Parliament who want to hold dual citizenship—no accommodation at all. 
Harry Duynhoven made a mistake—tough. He breached the law. His seat became vacant and certain things should have flowed from that but they did not. Now that we have seen what is flowing from it we can see the Government is so arrogant that it will use the law to give an advantage to one of its own when it suits it. But the Government has ultimately brought great disgrace on this House. It has used the law with impunity and brought this House into disrepute. I am ashamed to be part of a Parliament in which we have a Labour Government that does not know the difference between right and wrong and that is using the law to advantage itself. All that the Government can think of is to hang on to power—never mind about the constitution democratic principle or what is right. No it does not mind about any of those things. 
I will give some advice to the members on the Government side of the Committee including the whippersnapper David Cunliffe who is just new here and who is the great white hope of the Labour Party. He thinks he knows everything but he must get something in his head. If David Cunliffe seriously wants to be a leader of this country he had better seriously understand the difference between right and wrong. This legislation is absolutely wrong. It smells. I absolutely loathe what is happening here today. 
The Maori members on the Government side of the Chamber should think hard about this bill. If they use the law with impunity to advantage one of their own it can also be used with impunity to disadvantage them. They have to think about that. What is happening today whereby the law may be suspended or bent is part of the history of our country and Maori were the people at the receiving end of the law when it was sometimes suspended. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I rise with significant concern about the provisions in this part. Again I want to challenge the Government about its double standards. Only 6 weeks ago the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said that if a person broke the law he or she had to face the music. When my situation arose and the Solicitor-General alleged that I had broken the law Ministers of the Government said the law applied regardless of whether they agreed with it or not—and the Government has introduced a bill to change the very section of the Guardianship Act that I am alleged to have broken. Government Ministers said that did not matter and I had to comply with the law of the land on the day. On that basis the top law enforcement officer in this country will drag me before the High Court and try to hang me for doing my job. 
Mr Harry Duynhoven then came along. He was not doing constituency work and was not trying to help anybody but as he said to the Privileges Committee he wanted an extra passport so that he and his children could travel easily in Europe. On the basis of that he breached the Electoral Act. Then the Government changed its tune suddenly. Only 4 weeks earlier it set the moral standard and said that Nick Smith had to front up and account for his actions. Suddenly the rules are different for Harry Duynhoven and I ask Government members why that is. When the Solicitor-General alleges that I have broken the law I have to face the music but when the same Solicitor-General finds that Harry Duynhoven had breached the Electoral Act the Government is to pass retrospective legislation. Section 55 of the Act is the very section that if I am found guilty will potentially put my position as a member of this House at risk. 
Government members say that this legislation is a matter of principle. Well golly gee! The principle goes no further than looking after their mates and having a different standard for those who sit on the Government side of the Chamber. I listened to the debate last night and all morning and I have yet to hear a single member from the Government explain why I should be hung and Harry Duynhoven should walk free. That is what the Government is saying should happen. 
Would Clayton Cosgrove the noisy member from Waimakariri explain why he will vote for legislation that changes the very section that if I am convicted of the alleged breach of the Guardianship Act will put my career at risk and why he thinks that I should go to the High Court but not Harry Duynhoven? Will he support the amendment proposed by the United Future party which has at least been consistent? I am not asking for the protection of this Parliament and nor should Harry Duynhoven. But I am saying that at least the United Future party is being consistent. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which of the five lawsuits against you are you talking about? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Cosgrove wants to divert attention from the issue. He does not want to answer the question of why there is one standard for members of the Government and a different standard for members of the Opposition. 
It is a damning indictment on this Parliament when there is one set of rules for members on one side of the Chamber and a different set of rules for those on the other side. I ask Government members to examine their consciences and to think about whether they are being consistent and fair to this wonderful institution of Parliament that we are privileged to sit in. It is just a pure double standard. This is straight cynical politics. The Government does not want to hold a by-election. It will conveniently change section 55(1) of the Act because it may hang Harry Duynhoven but it will leave me lined up on another provision in section 55. If something is good enough for one it is good enough for all. Margaret Wilson has to explain this bill. Other Ministers like Damien O’Connor have to explain it. Only 6 weeks ago my local newspaper stated that everybody must comply with the law—and Harry Duynhoven is included. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I would be comfortable with giving ACT another call. There are 15 amendments. ACT have 80 percent of those. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to follow up from what the honourable Minister who is now back in the chair said about half an hour ago. He answered calls from members of the Opposition who had asked for assurance that this legislation was not being passed to protect other members who have not come forward like Harry Duynhoven to declare that they have breached that Act. In answer to calls for the Minister to assure the House he said that he did not know of any other Labour MPs who were doing this. I do not know of any either. No one on this side of the House knows of any other because our questions have not been answered. We have asked and asked. We have been told that the media have asked and asked and they have not been told. They have just been told “No comment.” 
As the Hon Richard Prebble said clause 4 of Part 2 is the crunch clause. It is really appropriate that this is happening 12 months after all of us who became MPs walked into this House and felt very proud to be part of this Westminster tradition and privileged to be elected to represent people out there. We took crash courses in the unwritten constitution of New Zealand courses in select committee procedure and walked through the corridors of these buildings. I felt really honoured to be walking down the corridors looking at some of the photographs on the walls of people who had been elected to this place before. I find it absolutely appalling that just 12 months after we came into this place we are in here under urgency disregarding all of those things that we were taught by the people who work in this place who are not elected members of Parliament who taught us about the importance of public input into a select committee who told us that this was one of the only Parliaments in the world and the Commonwealth that has public submissions and where people can appear at a select committee and have their say. 
So what do we do 12 months down the track? We bring in legislation that exempts MPs from a law because one Labour MP has broken that law. I find that absolutely despicable. I am so proud at least of the fact that the Hon Richard Prebble has moved an amendment that ACT MPs not be included in this despicable legislation. No wonder the public out there have no respect for us! No wonder they think we are a bunch of ratbags! If we pass legislation under urgency that exempts MPs from legislation I can understand fully why they have no respect for us because this legislation brings this whole House into disrepute. 
 As a New Zealand MP I visited the House of Commons. I was proud to be there as a New Zealand MP and to understand more about the Westminster system and why we have the Westminster system. I can see now how far we have strayed from that system when we are so shallow that we bring into the House legislation like this. 
If the Labour Government is indeed just using this legislation to exempt Harry Duynhoven and to save him from going through a by-election why did it not agree to the amendments? It could have agreed to the amendment moved by the Hon Peter Dunne. Ideologically Labour members are opposed to the ones that National and ACT bring in but they could have easily agreed to Peter Dunne’s amendment. If they had nothing to hide and if they had no one else whom they were protecting they would have agreed to that amendment. They could have shown that they at least had one skerrick of decency left in them. 
But why are we not surprised when we see this Government use its power to abuse the Westminster system in terms of trying to overturn the Standing Orders with Business Committee dodgy deals and with a Prime Minister who signs paintings that she does not even paint and who gets rid of people in the private sector whom she does not like—people who send private emails to other people criticising the Government? This is a really sad day. I am proud to support Richard Prebble’s amendment which excludes ACT MPs. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 This is the first time I have spoken in this debate and I want to cap a couple of issues prior to the vote being taken. First I am going to ask this Government and its members to please please allow the members of Parliament who want to be dissociated from this bill—who have moved amendments to allow our parties to be excluded—to have that right. Could the Labour members please not exercise the tyranny of power that they have by being a majority collective with the Greens tagged on to deny us our right to exclude ourselves from the privileges they seek to ordain themselves with. We do not want it and we do not need it. Labour members should respect that request and allow our vote to carry. That is the first point. 
The second point is that many members have asked who this other person is or other persons are that this bill is now clearly designed to protect. It has occurred to me that this person must be one of the favoured few at the top echelon of the party because Harry Duynhoven—hapless Harry “two-flag” Duynhoven—is not one of the Prime Minister’s most favoured. Harry Duynhoven had to go kicking and screaming to get an Associate Minister’s job. Harry Duynhoven was in the same category as Dover Samuels Taito Phillip Field Janet Mackey and all those who sit slightly to the right of the Labour caucus who are not looked upon with favour. Therefore the only reason this Government is moving to protect Harry Duynhoven is that there is someone more senior who is in the same position and who has not come forward and identified himself or herself. 
That means that it is a senior person—very likely a list person which means he or she could not win a by-election because there would not be one—and that brings the suspicion very very narrowly down. It is easy to dispel any suspicion. All the Minister has to do is stand up and truthfully and honestly tell the Committee who that person is and stop wasting everybody’s time. The talkbacks are going crazy right now. The one thing that MPs have been slated for in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and everywhere else is their protection of their perks. The worst thing that has now been seen out in public is that they are protecting their jobs—protecting their jobs when clearly they have broken the law. 
 I want to bring this notice to the attention of the Committee that I have had handed to me by the Hon Matt Robson. It states that Sir Howard Morrison and the Manaakitanga Aotearoa Trust are coming here with a group of young people on 12 August. Young Maori leaders who are role models are coming to Parliament to present their kaupapa and to present who they are. They are looking for leadership—for principled leadership—and for role models. 
What are we going to show those young people when they get here? I ask the Green Party whether we are going to show them that our principles are malleable that we will adjust our principles when one of our people breaks the law; but when one of those young people breaks the law will Metiria Turei go forward and change the law to help them? Of course she will not. The Greens will do it to protect that lot over there because the Green Party has become the new lackey party jumping to Helen Clark’s call. The only thing the Greens are saying is: “How high Helen and when can I come down?”. That is it. The Greens would defy gravity on instruction from Helen Clark because their principles are malleable. 
There is a simple message that I state as a law and order spokesman who deals with young people: one cannot go out and demand of young people that they adhere to the law that they accept their punishment when they have breached it and that they front up and take total self-responsibility for their actions if here at the highest court in the land when a member of Parliament breaks the law we simply change the law. 
And when a member of Parliament has broken the law and is too afraid to come out and put up his or her hand and say: “Don’t worry Harry Duynhoven I did it too.” we expand the change in the law to cater for that person so that that member never ever has to be identified. That is not an example that my party and other parties want to beparty to at all. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the principal Act do not apply to any member of Parliament” and substitute the words “This House acknowledges that Harry Duynhoven MP did or concurred in an act whereby he became a subject or citizen of a foreign State or power or became entitled to the rights privileges or immunities of a subject or citizen of any foreign State or power”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “any member of Parliament” and substitute the words “the Hon Harry Duynhoven”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “but continue to apply to ACT members of Parliament”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Rt Hon Helen Clark”. 
A party vote 
was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. Earlier a question was asked of the Government whip as to who he was voting on behalf of and he was prepared to answer. Can he tell us whether he has a proxy for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is voting to exempt herself from the Electoral Act? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: My advice is that a party vote is not differentiated. I thank the member for raising the matter. 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Tim Barnett”. 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Dr Ashraf Choudhary”. 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Hon Dr Michael Cullen”. 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Hon Taito Phillip Field”. 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Hon Mark Gosche”. 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Winnie Laban”. 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Hon Jim Sutton”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Sue Bradford”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Nandor Tanczos”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except New Zealand First”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gerry Brownlee to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “but continue to apply to New Zealand National Party members of Parliament”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. We have had an interesting debate throughout the day and I want to highlight a number of points to confirm that this legislation is to cover this forty-seventh Parliament from the day the writs were returned until the general election. During the remaining part of this Parliament I will be asking the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider this piece of the legislation. I do not want to recap on the issues because they have been gone over thoroughly enough but I want to highlight one inconsistency among many—that is if someone is elected to this Parliament who has a passport for or is a national of another country and continues with that right throughout his or her time in this Parliament there is no problem; but if someone wishes to pick up a right that he or she has by birth or by foreign law then there is a problem. 
The ACT party seems to have a view that people in this Parliament should be New Zealand nationals only. Well we have never in my opinion made a considered view that that should be the case. The riding to the Justice and Electoral Committee will give it the opportunity to consider all those issues including the view of the ACT party. It will be able to take submissions from the public and get this legislation sorted out before the next election. 
Arguments have been put up about retrospectivity. I restate the view that retrospective legislation is not good where it takes away people’s rights retrospectively but that is not the case where it confers rights and privileges retrospectively. This Parliament has passed an amount of legislation of that kind. I recall that one of the first measures I witnessed in this Parliament was a rates validation bill for the Whakatane District Council. Without that legislation the council’s rates would not have been able to be collected. There are many many other examples of that kind. 
This bill is a fair piece of legislation. It confers a right on all MPs. To do as some would suggest—confer it on only one MP—would have been wrong. To confer it on one MP up to a certain period of time would also be wrong. It is not good to confer a particular right on one MP and not on all members. That is what New Zealand First and United Future were saying—that we should do it for one. I do not agree with that view. I commend the bill to the House. It has been thoroughly debated and I look forward to the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 From time to time we get involved in some very heated debates in this Chamber. They are debates that have an ideological background they are on policy issues and this is the right place for them to take place. I have always been proud to be a member of this House and to take part in those debates and issues. One does not have to agree with those on the other side. 
Today for the first time since I came to this Parliament I felt ashamed of the way this House has been treated by the Labour majority. I felt ashamed that a coincidence has arisen whereby the Speaker has decided not to make a decision until next week on the Privileges Committee report thereby giving a window of opportunity for the Government to change the law for Mr Duynhoven. It has done that so that Mr Duynhoven who has breached the law who has vacated his seat—in the determination of the Privileges Committee the Clerk of the House and the Solicitor-General—will be deemed not to have done so because the weight of the majority of his colleagues in the Labour Party is to change the law rather than adhere to the law. 
That is not a precedent we should be proud of. That is not something the Minister says is fair. In the Committee stage no changes were made despite for the first time in my experience MPs getting up and pleading that they did not want this change for themselves. This change to the law does not affect anyone outside this Chamber. It only applies to MPs in this Parliament; not in any previous Parliament nor in the next one. It is only for this Parliament. National does not want to be covered by this law. New Zealand First does not want to be covered by this law. ACT does not want to be covered by this law. We are happy for the law to stand as it is. But Labour decided that not only would it change the law for Mr Duynhoven but also it would change the law for all members of Parliament. 
Why would Labour want to do that? To answer that question one has to go to Dr Cullen and find out whether any other Labour MPs have breached this law. Despite every party asking time and time again Labour refused to answer it. Labour voted along with the Greens to make sure this law went right back to the first swearing in of MPs in the Parliament. It did not go back to when Mr Duynhoven breached the law but way beyond that. 
Rodney Hide 
: How do you explain that? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The only way one can explain that is that somebody else has been caught up in this as well. New Zealanders have a right to know who that is. It is a serious issue because if it were a Minister then a Minister has been sitting in this Chamber making decisions signing papers and being party to making regulations that we are effectively validating through the back door. There is no validation legislation here that says that the Minister whichever one it is who has broken the law needs those regulations validated. The Government does not want to go through anything messy and honest like that. It wants to validate it for everybody so that the Labour culprit can get away with it. 
That is outrageous. It is impossible to imagine that happening in another democratic Parliament in the world. I wonder how the Clerk of the House will explain this at the next Commonwealth Clerk’s meeting in trying to make us look like a leading parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth. When the people who have been a party to this go home tonight they will not feel in their stomachs they have been part of some great victory. The people who have been a party to this wanted to make sure that the law was changed in such a way that not only does it protect Mr Duynhoven whose case we all know about but also protects somebody else whose case we do not know about and may never know about— 
Rodney Hide 
: Never. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Not ever. That is an outrageous situation to be in. I have never seen us spend so much time on a piece of legislation for one individual let alone a member of Parliament. I also make the point that the retrospectivity of this legislation which goes way back to when the House was sworn in also allows for unknown people to get off. That is quite unusual. 
I really regret that the House has been placed in this position. I believe and I want to say this to you Mr Speaker because you were not here last night that I think you have to ask yourself about the role you played unwillingly or unwittingly in allowing a window of opportunity like this to arise. It never needed to happen. The law is absolutely clear. The Speaker must declare a vacancy when it occurs. I understand you will have been receiving advice on the issue and I want those people who are giving that advice to also reflect on this. What has been done here today cannot be undone. What has been done here today is a precedent for a Parliament in the future to make decisions about an individual MP’s right to sit in this Chamber. We have no formal written constitution and that may be the weakness we are being exposed to at the moment. That may be the problem. But I think what we are being exposed to is a Labour Party that did not want to fight a by-election and told us that Mr Duynhoven would win anyway so there was no point and we should just change the law. What a pathetic excuse! 
Does that mean if it was a list MP or a marginal MP or Mr Parker on a slim majority Labour would not have used that excuse and we would have had a by-election? Does that mean we have a different rule depending on the size of one’s majority? Does that mean if someone comes in here with a large majority and then breaks the rules that person should not worry about it because the rules will get changed so that he or she can stay because there is no point in having a by-election? That is not what parliamentarians should believe. The Labour Party should not be scared of a by-election. No politician should be scared of a by-election. I think that is what has driven this issue. I think Mr Prebble was dead right. The word “Timaru” has never been far from Labour’s minds on this issue. 
This is a very sad day for this Parliament. This debate will be written up in parliamentary journals. It will be looked at around the world. No one else will find a democracy that has gone to such lengths to protect one of its own who is named and one who is unknown but who happens to be in the Labour Party. That much we know because the Labour Party simply refuses to deny it. I think that is outrageous. I think New Zealanders will believe that that is outrageous and they deserve a lot better from a democracy. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support not only this bill but also one of the most honourable members in the House. Despite all the patronising flummery from the previous speaker whose political career as an electorate MP is historic there would be few mean-spirited members in this Chamber who would disagree with me that very few members would exceed the work rate of the Hon Harry Duynhoven both as a Minister and as an electorate MP. He is an honourable person who works his guts out in his electorate and has returned huge majorities—[ 
Interruption 
] I am glad the two ACT members interject. He has returned huge majorities and mandates from his people unlike a number of members Mr Sowry included who were rejected by their electorates. 
When we talk about dual standards in this House I want members to reflect on a point I made earlier today. In my view there is a huge difference between holding dual citizenship taking up a foreign passport which gives one only the rights of a citizen and on the other hand sitting in this Chamber as a member elected to the New Zealand Parliament charged with advocating for one’s constituents but at the same time holding a warrant from a foreign power—being a diplomat appointed by a foreign power charged with advocating for that foreign power. If that is not a conflict of interest I do not know what is. I ask members opposite to reflect on their colleague Richard Worth who as we know is the honorary consul for Monaco. I ask them to reflect on that. 
The people of New Plymouth will have listened to this debate as will others around New Zealand. They will reflect on the puffery and arrogance of certain members of Parliament the time wasting and the money that has been wasted today by people not putting aside politics not acknowledging an honourable member. Members on the other side talk about principle. I find it ironic that none of them has stood to defend the position of Mr Worth or to explain his position. I ask them to reflect on that. I ask them to reflect on the scorn the ill manner and the ill spirit they have poured on Mr Duynhoven for hours today. I know that certain people around this country will also reflect on that. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is interesting to listen to the speech of that Labour member of Parliament. He talks about being mean-spirited and making all sorts of accusations about the way in which members of Opposition parties conduct themselves. Well that was one of the most mean-spirited irrelevant speeches I have heard in Parliament for a long time but it was the customary speech that we expect from Mr Cosgrove. As members on this side of the House know Ron Mark is on a roll and Mr Cosgrove had better look out in the South Island. 
New Zealand First made it very clear in the Committee stage that we do not want to be part of this bill. We sought an amendment to be excluded from the opportunities given in this bill. We do not want to be associated with the likes of Clayton Cosgrove. He can have the immunity if he likes. He can put it where he likes. New Zealand First does not want to be part of any of these Labour members of Parliament who want the protection of this bill and who want the right to swear allegiance to a foreign country. 
That is what Mr Cosgrove has just done. He has given himself the right to swear allegiance to a foreign country. Mr Worth the National Party member said that if he swears allegiance to a foreign country sack him as a member of Parliament. Mr Cosgrove wants the protection but Mr Worth does not. Clearly Mr Cosgrove does not understand the bill. He may be protecting somebody but he does not know who it is. 
The real shame about this legislation is that even the Minister in charge of the bill does not know whom he is protecting. He is not in the inner circle of the Labour Party. He does not know. Mr Barker has passed this bill through the House blindly. He does not know which member of this minority Labour Government is getting the protection under this bill but he has done his job as a willing lapdog of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. He has put this bill through the House and he has done as he was told. Some member of this minority Labour Government will benefit from it. We have asked time and time again who it is. 
New Zealand First asked to be excluded. We feel violated by this legislation. It is a violation of our rights as members of Parliament. We are violated by the Labour Party which has insisted we be made part of this dreadful treasonous traitorous type of legislation. We do not want any part of it. Labour can have it. But Labour has insisted that we become part of it. Why could it not just exclude New Zealand First or ACT or National? We are loyal New Zealanders. I do not really speak on behalf of ACT—we have very little in common—but we are first and foremost loyal New Zealanders. 
Rodney Hide 
: Unlike the Greens. 
DAIL JONES 
: Unlike the Greens and unlike the New Zealand Labour Party. The New Zealand Labour Party has established in this legislation that it is the Labour Party; it is not a New Zealand Labour Party. It will allow foreign people now to become foreign nationals after the passing of this legislation without being tossed out of this Parliament. 
This bill has three stages. There is 14 August 2002 to 10 June 2003. Clearly someone in the Labour Party lodged an application to become a foreign citizen or swore allegiance to a foreign country in that time because the next day—on 11 June in the second category—is the day on which Harry Duynhoven did that. From 12 June onwards to the passing of this bill anyone in this Parliament can swear allegiance to a foreign country and this Labour Party supports it. It is an absolute disgrace. New Zealand First feels violated that we have to be caught up in this disgraceful state of affairs. Words just about fail me. 
Mr Ron Mark of New Zealand First made the point during the Committee stage that we say to young New Zealanders: “You should obey the law. The law is there to be obeyed and if you disobey the law you get punished.” We look at our prisons where 55 percent of the people in prisons for violent crime are Maori. They have committed an offence they break the law and sometimes they go to prison. They have committed an offence invariably they put their hand up and away they go. Here we have a Labour member of Parliament who has committed an offence and he or she is not prepared to put his or her hand up—not prepared to nod in the way we would say in the criminal courts. And Miss “Turituria” here was very strong on the support of Maori and suchlike. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would you ask the honourable member to pronounce my name correctly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order but the member should do so. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am sorry. I am struggling and I will not use the name rather than mispronounce it. I apologise. The Labour member who has just interjected is very strong on looking after the youth of our country and the way in which young Maori should progress. What will she tell young Maori next time she is on the marae? What will she say when they say to her that there was a Labour member of Parliament who breached the law and she protected that Labour member of Parliament? She was not willing to let that Labour member of Parliament face up to his or her actions. She will sit here collect her ministerial salary live in the ministerial house use the ministerial car use the credit card and she will go on to the marae and talk to someone who has not got a bean. 
How can she tell that person what to do when she is so culpable in this breach of the Electoral Act? She has no standing and cannot possibly have any standing whatsoever with young Maori or any Maori bearing in mind what Labour is saying to young Maori generally: that the Labour Party supports the taking of foreign citizenship by members of Parliament and that those Labour members of Parliament who then take foreign citizenship will be the ones who will decide the foreshore and the seabed of New Zealand. What sort of a standard is that? Labour members of Parliament will decide the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand for Maori having already taken allegiance to a foreign country—some of them as Ministers and one of them is a Minister who flies a foreign flag in his office. Well what sort of a Labour Party is this? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think the member who interjects has an American passport. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well the member and I might both be able to claim American passports. I have only one passport. Since my adulthood I have only ever had one passport a New Zealand passport. It has not occurred to me to get another one. This bill does not apply to me. I do not want it to apply to me and we in New Zealand First have said that we do not want to be associated with this legislation but the Labour Party has insisted that we be part of this legislation. We made it clear that we wanted to support Harry Duynhoven from the very beginning and we were prepared to support Harry Duynhoven. We voted in the Committee stage to support Harry Duynhoven continuing as a member of Parliament. We could not get the Labour Party’s support for that amendment. They voted against it. There was an amendment in the Committee stage to support Harry Duynhoven continuing—being exempted from his action and being given an allowance to continue as an MP. We supported Harry Duynhoven we voted for the amendment in the Committee stage but the Labour Party opposed it. What is New Zealand First supposed to do? We said we would support him we did support him other members of this House supported him but the Labour Party voted against it. 
 What a funny state of affairs we are in! The Labour Party I believe is just using Harry Duynhoven as a front man. There is clearly somebody else there. This bill is not called the “Electoral (Vacancy) Amendment Bill”; it is called the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. Two or more people are involved in this legislation not just one. We have asked time and time again: who is it? The Labour Party is condemned. This is an abominable piece of legislation. I regard it as being comparable to treason and traitorous behaviour. New Zealand First does not have anything to do with it. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to oppose it and the fact that the previous Government speaker can speak on a constitutional measure of this importance in one sentence shows the contempt with which the Labour Government is treating this Parliament our constitution and the public of New Zealand whom it now does not believe it needs to be accountable to. I am a strong supporter of our parliamentary system and of the Westminster Parliament. I say to the House that what we—and I say “we” because every MP is implicated—Parliament are doing today will do great damage to the reputation of this institution and to the concept of parliamentary democracy and the concept that we as a Parliament are under the law but we are going to do a lot of damage to a lot of people as well. The Hon Harry Duynhoven who has been proud to be the highest of the high—and only another MP knows what a majority means—and has been proud to have a majority of 14000 will in about an hour’s time have a majority of three. He will have gone from the highest of the high to the lowest of the low. 
And of course he will be regarded not as the MP for New Plymouth but as the MP for a majority of members of Parliament. That is a terrible thing to do to him. Those who advised him to take this course rather than take the honourable Westminster course of resigning are no true friends of Mr Duynhoven or of this Parliament. But it has also damaged other reputations. The Attorney-General who is supposed to uphold the law has damaged her reputation. Nobody can possibly credit the sorts of statements that she has been making as being proper statements of the law. The Leader of the House has damaged his reputation because he should be the Leader of the House. 
I have to say that I am starting to sympathise with Mr Peters. I had better look more carefully at immigration when the immigration Minister can tell us that she cannot understand section 55 of the Electoral Act which the Solicitor-General told us was a clear unambiguous piece of legislation with a beneficial purpose—and what was that? The beneficial purpose was to ensure that every member of Parliament owed allegiance to the public of New Zealand and not to a foreign power. 
Let me just state what the law is. When I look at the Electoral Act I have admiration for our Parliament. The law is quite simple. We do not discriminate against people who have dual citizenship. But what we do say is that they then must swear allegiance when they become an MP and as an MP they must not exercise their foreign citizenship and they certainly must not take it up. That is a very good sensible rule. We have a member of Parliament who says he did not give it a thought and has broken it and as a result of that we have now rewritten the law for him and damaged our reputation. When I first came into Parliament Mr Speaker—and you will remember this—there was a major court case. It was called  
Fitzgerald 
 v  
Muldoon 
 in 1975. 
What the Chief Justice then said was that the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal. It is in the 300-year old bill of rights and he said that it is still part of our law. The judge quoted that: “The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this: namely that Parliament thus defined has under the English constitution the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever.” And further it states: “No person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” 
We have done that too have we not? The legislation of Parliament in the Electoral Act section 129 “By-elections for members representing electoral districts” states in subsection (1): “If the Speaker is satisfied that the seat of a member elected to represent an electoral district has become vacant the Speaker must without delay publish a notice of the vacancy and its cause in the  
Gazette 
.” I just say to you Mr Speaker that everyone in this House including those people who abstained today all know that that seat has been vacant and that it has been vacant for more than a month. If the Prime Minister when she learnt about it on 4 July had advised that within 12 hours she had suspended Mr Duynhoven’s warrant then that would be what I call “without delay”. I do not call waiting a month “without delay”; and the case of  
Fitzgerald 
 v  
Muldoon 
—and the Labour Party used to be very much in favour of that court case—has been trampled over today. 
I just make this point when we talk about Mr Duynhoven’s being very popular. It is very true that he is popular but his reputation has taken a terrible pounding in many ways and one of those ways is as a Minister. The Government I understand went back to see whether he had exercised any authority that could be challenged—whether he had actually done something as a Minister that could be challenged in court. Do members know that the Government had to go back to April to find such a decision? I used to make half a dozen such decisions before breakfast! 
What do these Associate Ministers actually do? Why is Mr Duynhoven getting a ministerial car and an office if he has not actually made any decisions that could be reviewed? What the Government has done to Mr Duynhoven’s reputation I think is appalling. If he had gone on television last night and said: “My colleagues want to pass a piece of legislation to rewrite the law and let me into Parliament. But I recognise that even though I did not know it I was making a mistake I take responsibility for it and I have tendered my resignation. I am leaving it to the good people of New Plymouth to decide whether to return me.” then I think he probably would have been returned with a huge majority. But he did not take that honourable Westminster course and those who had advised him not to were not doing him a favour. 
We are left with the great suspicion that there are Labour members of Parliament who have actually done far worse things than Mr Duynhoven who did know what they were doing and who have sworn allegiance. We are in the interesting situation where every single political party has gone back and checked its MPs and has said: “We are not affected.” ACT party members—and New Zealand First followed us—said that we do not even want to be covered by this bill. We moved amendments and I greatly object to the Green Party’s demands that members actually have the right to swear allegiance to overseas countries. 
Mr Keith Locke may want to join the Taliban as he now will be able to within an hour but no one in the ACT party wants to do that. I find it an outrage that the Labour majority is forcing that upon us and in doing so is lowering the standing of this Parliament. As a result of what has happened today damage has been done to the Speakership to the Attorney-General to the Leader of the House and to Harry Duynhoven—and to all of them because we do not know who the traitors are. We just know that there are people in the Labour Party who are voting for a measure to enable them to swear allegiance to a foreign State. 
Let me make it quite clear that I think as an MP that MPs who do that are traitors to New Zealand. Members have an obligation to serve the people of New Zealand and as the Bible says we cannot serve two masters. But that is what Parliament has decided—[ 
Interruption 
]—eight times in the past. 
And now we have the Minister of Immigration who says she cannot even understand the law. This is a very sad day for the New Zealand Parliament. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a brief contribution and spell out three reasons that we are not supporting the third reading of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. The first is that this measure was originally introduced as a way of dealing with the particular circumstances concerning Harry Duynhoven. We were concerned that the scope of the bill particularly in Part 1 took it far beyond Mr Duynhoven’s situation and I moved an amendment at the Committee stage to limit its application to the period expiring 6 August 2003. That amendment was not accepted by the Committee and therefore changed the basis of our previous support for the bill. 
The second issue I want to raise follows on in less flamboyant language from the point made by Mr Prebble. We now have a situation in which there will be a spectre of suspicion over a number of members in the House because of the deeply held fear that there are many other members who are hiding behind Mr Duynhoven in this particular instance. Unfortunately the debate has not clarified that position one iota. In fact because the debate has not clarified it it has added to that sense of suspicion and concern amongst the public. 
The third point is a plea to all members of Parliament because the bill that we are it seems about to pass now contains an open invitation to everybody within the next 2 years to do all they can to acquire foreign citizenships nationalities or appointments—you name it—and have the full protection of the law. All members of Parliament should reflect very carefully upon that because the gaze of public scrutiny will be upon all of us to see who is brazen and foolish enough to take up the opportunities that this legislation inflicts upon us. The irony will be that as we pass this bill we are putting in place the mechanism for a much tighter standard in future. The pressure as I think Mr Prebble suggested some time ago will be to restrict the eligibility further so that no one who holds dual citizenship can be a candidate for the New Zealand Parliament. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I thought the member had but— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He must have meant that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Whether he said it or not the point is that the pressure for us to tighten the law in that regard will become much stronger as a result of this measure. So there is an irony involved here. On the one hand it seeks to protect the circumstances of Mr Duynhoven and on the other it creates a much wider situation that will produce an outcome that I believe will see us adopting much tighter rules in the future. I do not think that that is what anyone intended and I think this will turn out to be something Parliament will regret in the future. It is a matter of great regret to me that we have created this anomaly through the way in which this bill was drafted. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support the third reading of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. The Greens are committed to changing ineffective unworkable and unjust laws be they cannabis prohibition repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act or as in this case the suspension of section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the Electoral Act. We consider every piece of legislation that comes before us on its merits and in a rational and consistent manner. That is why we agree that this bill should be broadly based and cover all current MPs during the whole of this parliamentary term. We do not support legislation that concerns specific individuals only. We believe that where a deficiency in the law has been discovered it should be remedied for everyone not just for some. 
Mr Dunne and others have argued that the bill should apply to Mr Duynhoven only and that it should apply retrospectively only not until the next election. The primary reason seems to be that other MPs who may have been affected by section 55 are hiding behind Mr Duynhoven’s courage. We do not believe that United Future’s desire to smoke out other MPs is a good enough reason to undermine the basic principle that the law is ineffective and unjust and should be suspended so that the policy behind it can be properly and thoroughly debated. In our view it is a matter for each MP’s own conscience if he or she will benefit but is not open about it. 
There is also the major issue of retrospectivity. We are not completely opposed to retrospective legislation and assess our position on that on a case-by-case basis. We accept that retrospective legislation that confers a benefit or a right is not on its face objectionable though we would certainly not give a blanket assent to such legislation. We have considered this bill very carefully and because we consider section 55(1)(b) and (c) to be unjust and unworkable we think that retrospective legislation is appropriate in this case. 
We have not yet heard any compelling argument at all as to why an MP should not be able to pursue a dual citizenship while an MP. The discussion has been based solely on the presumption that taking on a second citizenship is inherently treasonous. The debate has raged as though by simply being a dual citizen an MP has renounced his or her commitment to this nation and its people. That is fundamentally untrue and smacks of old-time paranoia and old-time xenophobia. 
The Greens take a consistent and rational analysis to the efficacy of the laws in this country which is based on what is just appropriate and right. That is why as I said we work for the review of cannabis laws and section 59 of the Crimes Act. We support this bill as amending one wrong and unjust law on a spectrum of wrong and unjust laws. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I want to contribute briefly to this debate to say that I have listened to the most appalling sophistry from the opposite side of the House. The fake moral outrage of people who are incapable of contributing to a quality debate on a serious matter does this House no credit at all. I have heard the  
Bible 
 quoted on how one cannot serve two masters. Why then do we allow people with dual citizenship to stand for Parliament? The expression that has been given is that the  
Bible 
 says we cannot serve two masters. The person who is saying that has dual citizenship. He is a British citizen as well as a New Zealand citizen. I ask why he did not put his citizenship to one side. Why did he not revoke it? Why did he not take active steps to get rid of it if he is so pure and above all of that? 
The same member who quoted the  
Bible 
 called people who took out citizenship of another country “traitors”. I reject that as well. Is he a traitor to Britain because he is now a citizen of New Zealand even though he holds dual citizenship? There is a word that for some reason we are not allowed to use in the House but if the cap fits I say to Mr Prebble he should wear it. We are not here because an individual actively applied for citizenship of another country. That member arranged to have his Dutch citizenship restored which under Dutch law meant he had always had it since birth. People have tried to portray that as someone breaking the law and Parliament allowing him to get away with it. That is not correct. He has not broken any law. The question we are debating here is whether we suspend the operation of the particular provisions of the Electoral Act while we sort out what Parliament really intends to do. It certainly did not intend that somebody in this situation would lose his or her seat in Parliament. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 We are about to do something that is without precedent in New Zealand which is to elect without voters a member of Parliament to a seat. There will be no vote except in this House. I have been in Parliament for 13 years which is not nearly as long as some members. But I have learned to respect its conventions and to act even if it does not suit me in a way that maintains its integrity and this is the shabbiest exhibition of the abuse of parliamentary process and privilege that I have seen in that time. That is not because the issue of substance is the biggest one this Parliament has ever dealt with but because Parliament is doing dirty work for one of its own members—that is why. 
Mr Harry Duynhoven and the unnamed members of the Labour Party who are covered by this legislation are being accorded a privilege they do not deserve. That is the privilege of coming to this Parliament to ask for legislation to absolve them retrospectively from the consequences of their actions. No other New Zealander has that right and nor would this Labour Government accord it to any non-Labour member of this Parliament. No way! 
This issue started with Government dishonesty when it said that this was an ancient law. Well the ban on killing people is an ancient law; it happens to stand as completely relevant today as it did in biblical times. This law was passed by this Parliament and was voted for by the Greens last year. So all the mouthing-off about the moral silliness of this legislation should have been discussed by them last year—and it was not. Section 55 of the Electoral Act was amended in detail last year. 
Rodney Hide 
: What way did they vote? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the Greens voted for it. They know very well that if Harry Duynhoven were applying for citizenship of Iraq this matter would have been handled completely differently—for very good reasons. So the issue started with Government dishonesty. There is a reason that this Parliament should be handling it differently and it is to do with the privileges of sitting in this House. 
There is no doubt about the facts. Harry Duynhoven disqualified himself from sitting in this Parliament on 11 June this year under the law that this Parliament passed as the law of the people of New Zealand. There is no doubt about that. The questions are about how that issue has been handled. Here is a good question which I want an answer to: why was a vacancy not declared Mr Speaker? Why did Mr Speaker not declare a vacancy? What were the reasons that a vacancy was not declared when it is now 2 months after the action that disqualified this MP? What will happen if I take an action that disqualifies me as an MP? Will Helen Clark wait 2 months? Will Mr Speaker wait 2 months? 
The advice that has been given on this case from the Clerk and the Solicitor-General is unequivocal. It is unequivocal and incontestable and what has happened? We have sat here for 2 months and let a disqualified member sit in the House. That is a disgrace! It is an absolute disgrace because sitting here is a privilege. It is a privilege accorded not by us but by the law of New Zealand. A member of Parliament disqualified himself and we have let him sit here. 
Rodney Hide 
: Not us! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We did. And we let the Speaker sit there for 2 months and not declare a vacancy when the facts were absolutely clear. I ask who was talking to whom about how to meet the needs of the Government. 
The last thing this Government wants is a by-election in New Plymouth. That is the last thing it wants and that is why it has abused the process in such an obscene manner—to avoid a by-election in New Plymouth. What do people think in New Plymouth? Helen Clark’s hypocrisy on the issue of the ownership of the beaches— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That phrase will be withdrawn. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw. How do Government members think Helen Clark’s attitude towards the ownership of the beaches will go down in New Plymouth? How many votes do they think that will get? How do they think the Prostitution Reform Bill and the civil unions bill will go down in New Plymouth? That is the underlying dirty little political secret behind this issue. Helen Clark fears deeply a by-election in New Plymouth as Labour is becoming more vulnerable by the day. That is why Labour members are having long caucuses and beating each other up. In the public’s opinion Labour is getting done and a New Plymouth by-election would show that to be happening. 
I believe that this Parliament is owed an explanation—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a continual barrage of interjections and I do not believe that is in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have noted that previous speeches have been heard in almost complete silence from the Opposition and from opposing people. The member has made a reasonable point. There will now be very few interjections at all. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I offer this challenge to the Greens. Rod Donald is a man who campaigned extensively and successfully to assert the control of Parliament over the executive. He was among those people responsible for changing the electoral system and he deserves credit for his ability to influence public opinion in that respect. Part of the reason that that happened was that people wanted to see Parliament exert more control over the executive but here the Greens are being party to a disgraceful episode whereby the executive is using its majority to decide who sits in Parliament. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The Greens have gone along with it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: And the Greens have gone along with that. 
John Carter 
: The only party that has. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Green Party is the only party that has. New Zealand First started out on the wrong side and changed as did United Future. It is the Greens alone—who came here to change the way politics are done—who have supported the executive in passing a law to decide retrospectively who is allowed to sit here. 
Will that retrospection be available to my colleague Nick Smith in the event that he gets a serious punishment for contempt of court when there is legislation in front of this House right now that changes the law in a way that means he could not be found guilty of contempt? Will that changed law be available to him? Absolutely not! Would we ask for that? No! 
Simon Power 
: What about the Privileges Committee? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I must raise a point about the Privileges Committee. I do not think that that committee did defend the privileges of this Parliament. It was not its job to try to help Harry Duynhoven with regard to his disqualification. It had one job which was to give an opinion as to whether there was a vacancy. The Privileges Committee has become subordinated to the partisan interests of the Labour Party and that is a shocking indictment on this Parliament. 
There is no process no law and no office of this country that cannot be suborned by the Labour Party in its partisan interests and that is the worst aspect of this matter. Every aspect of our law is subject to Helen Clark’s political needs and that is why we are totally opposed to this legislation. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I congratulate the Green speaker on that contribution earlier. It was a rational speech and took us to the issues. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: It reminded me of the words of Pierre Bourdieu a French scholar who said —[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
:—that it will be a great day for Parliaments around the world when they act like scholars and actually look at the facts. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Right through the Hon Bill English’s speech there was a constant barrage of interjections made by five or six members of the Government. It was constant. You did not raise a murmur. Matt Robson started on his speech I interjected in a way that was rare witty and interesting as did Bill English and you shut us both down. That is wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. It was wrong to speak in the second person. Members are perfectly entitled to interject in the third person. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I hold the opinion that if we had many more dual citizens in this Parliament it could lift the level. 
I heard Mr English call me a parrot and I think that sort of ad hominem attack is exactly what is wrong with much of the debate that I have heard in this Parliament in the time I have been here since 1996. I have been insulted in terms of the level of intelligence and the low general level of debate in the New Zealand Parliament. I rarely yell out to people; I try to listen to the arguments. But frankly if I went through the  
Hansard  
I would find that the level of debate in the New Zealand Parliament is one of the lowest that I have experienced in many Parliaments around the world. I say that having visited about 10 other Parliaments and having been particularly impressed when I was in the German Parliament by the fact that its members actually spoke to the issues. 
If members want to be given an argument for dual citizenship I would say that some of those people who have argued in this debate in terms of their patriotism and who have beaten themselves on the chest while saying how strong their feelings for New Zealand are possibly hold only New Zealand passports. But many of the people with dual citizenship who have served in this Parliament going back over many decades have clearly made an enormous contribution. It is not an argument to say that because someone has dual citizenship he or she does not give allegiance to New Zealand. That has been reflected in the very liberal attitude of this Parliament and of the country which recognises that people can be New Zealand citizens without having to eschew their origins. There is a fallacy in the argument that if one takes a foreign passport one is somehow or other shifting allegiance or giving it to a particular Government. Where does it state that because a person is a citizen of a country he or she has to support the aims or objectives of a particular Government? For example we have many American citizens in this country. They live here because they do not like the policies of the Bush administration. I have a problem with the Australian Government because it did not like me saying as a Minister that it was acting as the deputy sheriff for the United States. 
My criticism of previous New Zealand Governments—particularly National Governments but also Labour administrations—was that they gave away their adherence to New Zealand’s best interests in two ways. One was through the sale of State-owned assets. As far as I know it was New Zealand passport-holders who sold New Zealand’s public assets and they became very rich. They gave that benefit to many New Zealand passport-holders who now live overseas—Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite are but two of the people whom New Zealand First has attacked over the years and quite rightly. Holding a passport does not mean a person gives allegiance to a country; what one needs to actually look at is what people do in their day-to-day lives. 
We are told that the Privileges Committee is a rubber stamp. I first went and saw the Privileges Committee under Paul East a former National member for whom I had quite a high regard. It was an absolute disgrace. There was no procedure or order. The committee acted like some of the worst select committees I have seen—not good ones like the one chaired by Brian Donnelly which I read about in the newspaper yesterday. He is very strong in his chairmanship but some of the select committees in this Parliament have been disgraceful. The Privileges Committee that I saw under the previous National Government was like that—and talk about a rubber stamp! The issues in the Alamein Kopu case were predetermined because Alamein Kopu was going to provide a vote for the National Party. That was a disgrace. 
Two particular sayings sprang to mind when I heard this debate. One is that patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels and I think people should reflect on that. I have often found in life that those who beat their breasts about patriotism are the biggest scoundrels of all. The second saying is that this is not the crime of the century; in fact there is no crime. Harry Duynhoven was entitled to apply for his Dutch nationality to be restored—there is no crime in that. We encourage that in New Zealand because dual citizenship is allowed. The question then becomes one of interpretation. Having been successful in doing that does that mean his seat should be vacated? That is not a crime either; it is a question of interpretation. Harry Duynhoven is not sitting here as a fraud. There is a difference between a crime and an action a person is entitled to take that may have consequences flowing from it. 
The Privileges Committee quite properly looked at that issue. Anybody who goes to the Privileges Committee will see that I as the chair my deputy chair John Carter and the committee members are determined to make the Privileges Committee act properly in a semi-judicial way. It is not a judicial committee in the sense of being set up by the courts or by legislation but it must act in a judicial way. We have plans to make sure that the committee will set down rules that will particularly allow for the principles of natural justice to be followed. It was not helpful for the committee to have Mr Richard Prebble say he had made up his mind as to what should happen before he had heard the evidence. That was not helpful at all but under the rules we could do nothing about it. What the Privileges Committee did was to look first at the narrow question and by seven to three members it said yes it looked as though there was a vacancy. 
I was one of those members so at that stage I was neither a parrot nor a lapdog if that is the next ad hominem insult to be thrown at me. I acted in accordance with what I believed having looked at the matter. The three members who voted against that were entitled to take a fair large and liberal interpretation. That shows the difficulty we had because this matter has thrown up many unanswered questions and that meant we had serious matters to argue for. 
This bill before us now gives us the space to clear up the ambiguities and the mess. It is a sensible step to take. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 That last speech was extraordinary. There stood the chairman of the Privileges Committee who admitted that the seat was vacant as at 11 July this year. That was a clear statement by the Solicitor-General and the Clerk of the House. It was advice that the Speaker would have had yet today we are participating in what has to be a breach of our constitution—that is this Parliament is overriding the proper rule of law which is that if there is a vacancy there must be a by-election. It is pretty plain and pretty straightforward and it is what would happen in Australia and other democracies. 
I have to ask why it is not happening here. Surely members would have to agree that it is a privilege to be in this House and the only way one can get here is to be voted in by the people. If a person breaches the Act and that leads to a vacancy then the consequences of that are clear and they are laid down in our Electoral Act—there is a by-election. That is what should be happening in this case. 
The Government has a curious argument: he has a large majority therefore why bother? Well one might say that if that were true the Government would be welcoming a by-election but it is not. There are a number of possible explanations. First the Government is scared of a by-election because it would have to account publicly for various policies. There is another explanation on top of that and it is that there is another member of Parliament in the Labour Party who is also in breach and we could have more than one by-election. 
One might say that that is the consequence—the Act has been breached and there will be more than one by-election. But what if it is a list member? What if it is a senior member of the Labour Party who is a list member? In that case of course there would not be a by-election. What would happen if that person were simply kicked out of Parliament their seat became vacant and the next person on the list came into Parliament? 
 Today the Government has completely failed to answer the very reasonable question that has been put to it by speakers from various parties—namely why is this legislation so broad and extensive that it covers not just Mr Duynhoven but some other person? 
John Carter 
: They’ll get found out. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: My suspicion is that it is not just a person who needs a by-election but one who is a list member. For that person that is the end of the line. He or she is out of Parliament and the next person comes in. If that is the case then the Government has a clear obligation—in justice and in adherence to the constitution—to confess to that reality. It should say who that person is and be truly honest and upfront as to why this retrospective legislation is being designed to protect someone who is quite probably a list member of Parliament. At least then we would know why this legislation has been drafted in that way. The Government has been given every opportunity to name that person. Each party member of the Privileges Committee was asked to go back to their whips who would put the informal question to each of their members— 
John Carter 
: Which is normal tradition. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am informed by a member far more senior than myself in the ways of this House that that is normal tradition. Each party went back to the Privileges Committee and said that it did not include a member of its party. One party did not do that could not do that and that was the Labour Party. Dr Cullen the Leader of the House was asked that question specifically. I was sitting in the Privileges Committee and heard Mr Prebble challenge Dr Cullen on that very point. There was no answer at all. Today in this House we have asked and asked members and whips which member was infringing and there has been silence throughout. 
I am deeply offended that we in this Parliament have been asked to partake in a charade a travesty of our constitution where we will do two things that are normally seen as fundamentally reprehensible. One is to pass retrospective legislation which is normally seen as reprehensible particularly so when it deals with a constitutional issue. Surely the Government can see that. 
The second issue seems to be that we are being asked to participate in an act of dishonesty to assist a member of the Labour Party—quite possibly a senior list member and quite possibly a member of the executive. I do not hear any denial of that statement from that side or from Cabinet. Various members of my party have just raised the question of who it could possibly be. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Me. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member is not a list member. 
It behoves the Government to come clean. The integrity of this place behoves it to be accountable to and honest with the citizens of New Zealand. 
I close on the issue I raised right from the beginning. It is a privilege to be in this Parliament. None of us have to be here; we all chose to stand for election to represent the interests of New Zealanders. I heard a completely specious and false argument from the previous speaker Mr Robson that somehow it is a good thing to be a dual citizen. Being a member of Parliament is a voluntary action and it seems to me that whilst he or she is a member of Parliament his or her responsibility is to represent the interests of the citizens of New Zealand their electors only and no other. Surely taking out a foreign passport whilst one is a member of Parliament is an infringement of that principle. Today we are participating in a travesty of our constitution. I for one say that is wrong and that is why this party and other parties in this Parliament will vote against this legislation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m. (Thursday)