Franks Stephen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7765] 
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.