Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7792] 
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.