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:7788] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 What a sad apology of a speech that was from the Associate Minister of Justice! Why can the Minister not stop this nonsense of pretending that this bill somehow does every member of Parliament a favour? The Opposition parties have all said they do not want it and do not need it because it does not apply to any of them but the Minister and his colleagues continue to say they have gone for that 14 August date because they want the provisions set out in Part 2 to apply to all members during this Parliamentary term. If there is just one member who is in trouble then why can the Government not just put his name on the bill? It would still be wrong but why not do that? 
As for the Minister’s answer to the question about whether he has personal knowledge of any other person in the Labour Party or any of the Government-supporting parties being in a position similar to Harry Duynhoven’s—the Minister said he does not have personal knowledge—it absolutely shimmied around the edges. It was a classic Helen Clark “dance around the edges” answer—avoid and evade. It is quite clear because the Minister was unable to stand up and unequivocally say that no other member of the Government-supporting parties has a problem that the Government is protecting someone. 
Did the Minister really consider all the provisions of section 55 of the Electoral Act when he came to put together Part 2? It seems to me to be quite clear that under section 55 someone like Graham Kelly who has been forced out of Parliament to take up his position as High Commissioner in Canada could have chosen to remain a member of Parliament. Section 55(1) states: “The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—(a) if otherwise than by virtue of being a head of mission or head of post within the meaning of the Foreign Affairs Act 1988 for 1 whole session of Parliament he or she fails without permission of the House of Representatives to give his or her attendance in the House;”—in other words fails to turn up. Well what that tells me is that Graham Kelly did not need to go but was forced to go. 
If we read a bit further in the Act we see that it tells us that Harry Duynhoven does have to go; the rest of us supposedly are being forced into keeping him here. This is just the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have. It is in its retrospective effect saying to New Zealanders that it is all right for the law to expect that any other New Zealander knows the law—any other New Zealander is deemed to know the law—and therefore pays the consequence of breaking it but a member of Parliament a person who stood for election does not have to know the Electoral Act. That is an absolute nonsense. 
I hope the new Minister in the chair David Cunliffe a man rumoured to have dual citizenship— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Of the United States? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —of the United States in fact and New Zealand—will explain to us why the provision in clause 6 has to be there. Why do we have to say it is OK for someone to give up his or her New Zealand citizenship during this term? What is so special about this term that allows this particular group of MPs to go off and seek citizenship anywhere else in the world? It is patently clear that the Labour caucus has a number of people who have breached the Act. It has a number of people who do not know the law. 
 We are being told today that because Mr Duynhoven has such a huge majority he is above the law; he is above the law by virtue of the fact that he polls well. We are also being told that by the provision being made as broad as it is we are all in some way being done a favour by the Government. A simple thing for this Minister to do something that no other Minister has been able to do—and he is the kind of guy who backs himself to do what no one else can—is to stand up take a call and say quite clearly that the only person in his caucus with a problem is Harry Duynhoven. He will not do it.