Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7752] 
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.