Brownlee Gerry: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7725] 
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.