Carter John: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7746] 
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.